/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190411.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 11, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 73 Headlines 55 OIL: Lakshman Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay for Pump Attendants ABBVIE INC: Baltimore Sues over Humira's Supra-competitive Prices ALLIED INTERSTATE: Saksa Sues over Debt Collection Practices AMERICAN WEB: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in Solomon Suit B10 LLC: Alvarez Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations BANK OF AMERICA: Fernandez, et al. Appeal Ruling to 9th Cir. BP OIL: Seeks Dismissal of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Lawsuits BRUNSWICK, NC: D.R. Horton Sues in E.D. North Carolina BULSON MANAGEMENT: Faces Broome Street Trust Suit in NY C P GRILL: Koutlakis Seeks Earned Wages & Overtime for Servers CALIFORNIA CCS: Underpays Nurses, Slaughter Suit Alleges CAMACHO AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lee Suit Alleges CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Zieley Sues over Debt Collection Practices CAPITAL ONE: Dress Suit Transferred to Eastern District of Virginia CELLCOM ISRAEL: Certification in Service Disconnection Suit Granted CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Friermor Sues over Channel Blackouts CIGNA CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal CLAIMS QUESTIONS: Overtime Pay for Litigation Specialists Sought CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to Dismiss CHF LIBOR Suit Pending CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to Dismiss Mexican Bond-Related Suit Pending CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to Dismiss SIBOR/SOR Litigation Pending CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Suits over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae Bonds CREDIT SUISSE: Litigation over Forex Rate Manipulation Ongoing CREDIT SUISSE: Still Defends Lawsuit over Interest Rate Swaps DEK ENTERPRISES: Faces Sofia ADA Suit in E.D New York DEUTSCHE BANK: Settlement in Precious Metal Suits Awaits Court OK DICK'S SPORTING: Faces Haggar et al. ADA Suit in C.D. California DOLLAR TREE: Appeal in Former Store Manager's Suit Underway DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Employee Suit Certified as State-Wide DOLLAR TREE: Missouri Class Action Suit Dismissed DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Former Calif. Employee's Suit DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Illinois Class Action Suit DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Ex-Store Staff in Florida Settled ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Suit over Debt Collection Practices ENT CREDIT UNION: Unlawfully Charges Overdraft Fees, Nelson Says ESTEE LAUDER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Akana Suit Alleges ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Mendez Suit Claims EXPRESS MESSENGER: Appeals Decision in Ziglar Suit to 9th Circuit FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Velez Alleges FORD MOTOR: Proposes $17MM Touch-Screen System Settlement FORSTER & GARBUS: Court Compels Arbitration in Kernaghan FORSTER & GARBUS: Dorman Sues over Debt Collection Practices FOSTERS FREEZE: Underpays Cooks & Food Preparers, Funkhouser Say G WILLI FOOD: NIS2.7-Mil. Food Labeling Suit Concluded GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses Defective Sunroofs Suit GILL CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rivera Claims GLOBAL CONTACT: Lap Distributors Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Petitions Judge to Vacate Arbitration Award HAWAIIAN ISLES: Dearmey Sues over Mislabeled Kona Coffee Products HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Removes Labor Suit to C.D. California INDIANA: Class Action Demands Lawyers for Foster Care Children INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Sued Over Deceptive Hotel Reservations LITTLE CAESAR: Removes Lenoir Suit to N.D. Illinois LL BEAN: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Shirley Consumer Suit LOGITECH INC: Cal. App. Affirms Parker Class Certification Denial LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Discovery Underway in Gathmann-Landini Suit MARKEL CORPORATION: Cohen Files Securities Class Action MASSACHUSETTS: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Rosie D. Class Suit MDL 2887: Navarette, et al. Seek Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings MERRICK UNITED: Faces Sofia ADA Suit in E.D New York MESKO RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grijalva Alleges MONSANTO CO: Missouri Judge Tosses Several Dicamba Claims MONSANTO CO: Roundup Caused California Man's Cancer, Jury Finds NORTHSTAR REALTY: Bumgardner Appeals Decision in Boothe Suit NOVAN INC: Securities Suit over SB204 Clinical Trials Concluded NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters' Suit Pending OCWEN LOAN: Makoni Suit Transferred to Worcester, Mass. Division OMNI RECYCLING: Underpays Laborers, Bonilla Suit Alleges ORACLE AMERICA: Loses Bid to Duck Arbitration in Sales Staff Suit ORANGE CO, CA: Probe Reveals Widespread Homeless Shelter Abuse ORG RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McCrumb Suit Says OS RESTAURANT: Court Dismisses C. Chavira's FLSA Suit PACIFIC ETHANOL: Faces Ragsdale Labor Suit in Sacramento PARTNER COMMS: 012 Smile Still Defends Excessive Charge Suit PARTNER COMMS: Appeal in Volume Rate of Data Packages Suit Pending PARTNER COMMS: Call Recordings-Related Suit Ongoing PARTNER COMMS: Class Cert. Ruling in 012 Smile Suit Appealed PARTNER COMMS: Class Cert. Ruling in Customers' Suit Appealed PARTNER COMMS: Continues to Defend Roaming Services-Related Suit PARTNER COMMS: Data Speed Suit vs. 012 Smile Ongoing PARTNER COMMS: Location Data-Related Suit Ongoing PARTNER COMMS: Overcharging-Related Suit Still Ongoing PARTNER COMMS: Revised Settlement in Severance Pay Suit Okayed PARTNER COMMS: Still Defends Customers' Discrimination-Related Suit PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Telecom Packages for Use Abroad Ongoing PARTNER COMMS: Suit v 012 Smile on License Breach Ongoing PARTNER COMMS: Withdrawal of Suit over Overcharged Fees Okayed PCL CONSTRUCTION: Lucien Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Laborers PRICE TRANSFER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fiedler Alleges PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Haas Alleges PURPLE COMMUNICATIONS: Crowder Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. SAINT ALPHONSUS: King & Spalding Discusses Class Action Ruling SARDONIC SENTIMENTS: Laibe Seeks OT Pay for Hourly Assistants SCCG INC: Landaverde Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SELECT SOURCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Yapura-Weiler Alleges SERVICE KING: Underpays Service Advisors, Gutierrez et al. Claim ST. AUGUSTINE SCHOOL: Illegally Sent Faxed Ads to City Plating STANFORD PARK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Quintana Suit Alleges STATE COLLECTION: Bahr Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois SUNSHINE USA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Zhang FLSA Suit TABER COMPANY: Scoggins Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime TDT CONSULTING: Christy Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime TEXAS: Problems in Foster Care System Similar to Immigrant Housing TITAN CONSTRUCTION: Arana Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages TOOTSIE ROLL: Must Face Junior Mints Slack-Fill Class Action TORO-AIRE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valdovinos Suit Alleges TOWNSEND INDUSTRIES: Faces Gomez Labor Suit in Kern County TRIFECTA MANAGEMENT: Faces McCrumb Labor Suit in Kern County TRISTATE LOGISTICS: Bryant Suit Alleges FLSA Violation TRU-FLEX METAL: Ct. Junks Third-Party Claims in Adams Pointe Suit UNITED STATES: Veterans' Dental Care Suit Set for Trial This Year UQM TECH: Carter Seeks to Halt Danfoss Merger Deal UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Carter Suit Over Danfoss Merger UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Franchi Suit Over Danfoss Merger USHEALTH GROUP: Jacobi Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls WAL-MART STORES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Mays Class Suit WALMART INC: Awaits Court OK on Settlement in City of Pontiac Suit WITTMAN ENTERPRISES: Faces Clark Labor Suit in Sacramento WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Property Owners File Class Action YOGAWORKS INC: Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT to Lead Suit YOGAWORKS INC: Settlement Reached in Cal. Instructors' Class Suit ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Kruk Fraud Suit Transferred to N.J. Dist. Ct. [*] Australian Law Reform Commission Releases Class Action Report ********* 55 OIL: Lakshman Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay for Pump Attendants ---------------------------------------------------------------- LIYANA P. LAKSHMAN, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 55 OIL CORP and DAVID M. RISHTY, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01647 (E.D.N.Y., March 22, 2019), seeks unpaid or underpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and such other relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Minimum Wage Act. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a pump attendant. The Plaintiff worked 72 hours per week and was paid $7.50-9.00. The Defendants willfully failed to pay the the Plaintiff and similar workers, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours each workweek, yet the Defendants willfully failed to pay the the Plaintiff and similar workers overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com ABBVIE INC: Baltimore Sues over Humira's Supra-competitive Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ABBVIE INC., ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD., and AMGEN INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02015 (N.D. Ill., March 22, 2019), challenges the company's sale and pricing of Humira. Humira (adalimumab) is a biologic injectable therapy indicated to treat a variety of chronic conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, Crohn's disease (adult and pediatric), and ulcerative colitis. Humira is sold primarily in the United States and Europe. AbbVie has sold adalimumab under the brand name "Humira" in the United States since 2002. Humira is a blockbuster drug -- the single largest revenue source for AbbVie, with sales reaping nearly $20 billion in 2018 -- nearly 61% of its global revenues. More than $13.6 billion of those revenues were from 2018 sales in the U.S., alone. Because Humira generates approximately half of AbbVie's revenues, the company's profitability is highly dependent on its Humira sales. The original patent on Humira, a biologic drug approved in the U.S. in 2002, would expire in late 2016, leading to competition for Humira prescriptions from manufacturers of biosimilar drugs. AbbVie has other drugs in the pipeline, but sales (and corresponding revenues) of those drugs would not begin until many years after the Humira patent expired. AbbVie knew that a challenge to Humira's market from biosimilar versions of Humira, in the wake of the 2016 patent expiry, would cause Humira brand sales to fall, leading to revenue losses for AbbVie's Humira. Certainly, such a loss in revenues would have significant repercussions for the profitability of the company if competition for Humira began in late 2016. AbbVie developed a scheme to avoid its potential loss of its market share. In order to combat this sizable threat, AbbVie, in a scheme to thwart competition, erected a patent thicket sure to repel any potential competitor. The more patents – valid or not -- a competitor had to wade past, the longer AbbVie could keep competition for Humira at bay and, thus, the longer Humira could command supra-competitive prices. AbbVie has filed more than 240 patent applications and obtained over 100 patents purportedly covering Humira. AbbVie scheme also involved paying its would-be competitor to further delay entry. At least nine companies have indicated an intent to market biosimilars to compete with Humira. At least three currently have approval from the FDA. But none have launched. Instead, AbbVie has entered into deals with at least two manufacturers to delay their entry until various dates in 2023. Because of AbbVie's unlawful scheme and the delay it bought from Amgen, Humira's sales have not yet faced competition and may not face competition until 2023. Under this scheme, AbbVie and Amgen win. Humira purchasers lose. The City of Baltimore and class members are end-payers for Humira. They are the last links in the pharmaceutical distribution chain, and they paid overcharges for Humira as a result of AbbVie's anticompetitive conduct and Amgen's agreement not to compete with AbbVie. But for AbbVie's anticompetitive conduct, biosimilars who have BLA approvals for their products would have launched those products and competed with AbbVie's Humira as early as December 31, 2016. Because of AbbVie's anticompetitive conduct, AbbVie has continued to reap the benefits of being the exclusive seller of Humira on the U.S. market, even though the primary patent on Humira expired at the end of 2016 and the FDA has approved several biosimilars to compete with Humira. AbbVie Inc. is engaged in the development, sale, and distribution of a broad range of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. AbbVie Inc. is the holder of Biologic License Application No. 125057 for Humira, whose active pharmaceutical ingredient is the antibody adalimumab.[BN] Counsel for the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore: Carol V. Gilden, Esq. Sharon K. Robertson, Esq. Donna M. Evans, Esq. Royce Zeisler, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 190 S LaSalle St. No. 1705 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 629-3737 Facsimile: (312) 357-0369 E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com srobertson@cohenmilstein.com devans@cohenmilstein.com rzeisler@cohenmilstein.com - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Justin N. Boley, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com jnb@wexlerwallace.com - and - Andre M. Davis, Esq. Suzanne Sangree, Esq. CITY OF BALTIMORE DEPARTMENT OF LAW City Hall, Room 109 100 N. Holiday Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (443) 388-2190 E-mail: Andre.Davis@baltimorecity.gov Suzanne.Sangree2@baltimorecity.gov ALLIED INTERSTATE: Saksa Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ LINDA SAKSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED INTESTATE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1119-0719 (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., March 5, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Allied Interstate, LLC offers development and application of automated information processing, long-distance data transmission, massive data collection and storage, automated high-speed telecommunications, and contributions to the management professionalism in credit and collection. The company was founded in 1954 and is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. As of September 1998, Allied Interstate, LLC operates as a subsidiary of iQor, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com AMERICAN WEB: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in Solomon Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc. and MacFarlane Group, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Royce Solomon, et al. v. American Web Loan, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00145-HCM-RJK, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Newport News. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 15, 2019, Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2019, that for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, it continues to defend the class action lawsuit alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan. The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in 2011. American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to the alleged class plaintiff representatives in the case. The appellate case is captioned as Royce Solomon, et al. v. American Web Loan, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-1258, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ROYCE SOLOMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JODI BELLECI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MICHAEL LITTLEJOHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and GIULIANNA LOMAGLIO are represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com - and - Patrick T. Egan, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 1 Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109-0000 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com - and - David Watson Thomas, Esq. MICHIEHAMLETT, PLLC P. O. Box 298 Charlottesville, VA 22902-0298 Telephone: (434) 951-7224 E-mail: dthomas@michiehamlett.com Defendants-Appellants AMERICAN WEB LOAN, INC., AWL, INC. and MACFARLANE GROUP, INC., are represented by: Saba Bazzazieh, Esq. Robert Rosette, Esq. ROSETTE, LLP 1100 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 652-0579 E-mail: sbazzazieh@rosettelaw.com rosette@rosettelaw.com - and - Molly Maureen Jennings, Esq. Jonathan Edward Paikin, Esq. Thomas L. Strickland, Esq. Daniel Stephen Volchok, Esq. WILMERHALE LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006-0000 Telephone: (202) 663-6947 E-mail: Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com jonathan.paikin@wilmerhale.com thomas.strickland@wilmerhale.com daniel.volchok@wilmerhale.com - and - Elizabeth Scott Turner, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER PLLC 411 East Franklin Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 403-7132 E-mail: eturner@ohaganmeyer.com B10 LLC: Alvarez Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Roque Alvarez, Gonzalo Garcia Toribio, Rolando Ponciano, and Luciano Ponciano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. B10 LLC dba Bareburger, and George Dellis, Georgios Tzanidakis, and George Rodas, Case No. 1:19-cv-01333 (E.D. N.Y., March 7, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants did not pay time and a half for hours worked over 40, a violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff Roque Alvarez worked for the Defendants as a dishwasher, porter, food preparer, and line cook, and performed other miscellaneous duties from October 2014 until July 2018. The Plaintiff Gonzalo Garcia Toribio worked for the Defendants as a cleaner, food preparer, griller, and kitchen worker, and performed other miscellaneous duties from July 2013 until March 2018. The Plaintiff Rolando Ponciano worked for the Defendants as a cook, and performed other miscellaneous duties from December 2012 until April 2013. The Plaintiff Luciano Ponciano worked for the Defendants as a food preparer and cook, and performed other miscellaneous duties from June 2012 until December 2013. The Defendants own and operate restaurant B10 LLC dba Bareburger, located at 45-38 Bell Boulevard, Bayside, New York 11361. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 263-9591 Fax: (718) 263-9598 BANK OF AMERICA: Fernandez, et al. Appeal Ruling to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Joshua Boswell, Jose Fernandez and Alex Yong filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuits styled Jose Fernandez, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Case Nos. 2:17-cv-06104-MWF-JC and 2:17-cv-06120-MWF-RAO, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is captioned as Jose Fernandez, et al v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 19-55326, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs appealed a ruling in their lawsuits. That appellate case is titled Jose Fernandez, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 18-80187. Plaintiffs Jose Fernandez and Alex Yong initiated this action on August 17, 2017. On April 6, 2018, this action was consolidated with Boswell v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 2:17-cv-6120-MWF (RAOx). The Putative Lead Plaintiffs were previously employed by Bank of America: Plaintiff Boswell as a mortgage loan officer from September 2015 to March 2017, Plaintiff Yong as a mortgage lending officer from October 2013 to September 2014, and Plaintiff Fernandez as a mortgage originator from September 2013 to October 2014. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by April 22, 2019; -- Transcript is due on May 20, 2019; -- Appellants Joshua Boswell, Jose Fernandez and Alex Yong's opening brief is due on July 1, 2019; -- Appellee Bank of America, N.A.'s answering brief is due on August 1, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSE FERNANDEZ, ALEX YONG and JOSHUA BOSWELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Mark Russell Thierman, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com mark@thiermanbuck.com - and - Eileen Goldsmith, Esq. Michael Rubin, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 E-mail: egoldsmith@altshulerberzon.com mrubin@altshulerberzon.com - and - Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 445 South Figueroa St., Suite 2325 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com - and - Paul Stevens, Esq. STEVENS, LC 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 660 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 597-5107 E-mail: pstevens@stevenslc.com Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., is represented by: Apalla Chopra, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 E-mail: achopra@omm.com - and - Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com BP OIL: Seeks Dismissal of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that nearly a decade after BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill fouled the Gulf of Mexico, the company asked a Fifth Circuit panel to dismiss claims of hundreds of litigants for noncompliance with a pretrial order. BP's oil spill was monstrous. The federal government estimates 4.9 million barrels spewed from the London-based multinational's well 41 miles off the coast of Louisiana in the spring of 2010 before the well was capped, the largest marine oil spill in U.S. history. The litigation in its wake is also a monstrosity. Though BP has paid more than $20 billion in settlements to hundreds of thousands of claimants, the docket is far from closed as hundreds of single-plaintiff lawsuits have been stayed with no trial date set. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier is managing the litigation in New Orleans. To whittle down the caseload, Barbier issued pretrial order 63 in February 2017. PTO 63 pertains to all claims for oil spill cleanup work, and claims for personal injury and medical monitoring due to exposure to the oil that was still washing up daily on beaches in Alabama and the Florida panhandle in 2013. The order barred remaining litigants from bringing class actions and required them to file individual lawsuits with one plaintiff by April 12, 2017. Attorneys representing 817 people whose cases Barbier dismissed with prejudice for noncompliance with his order asked a Fifth Circuit panel at the Houston federal courthouse on Feb. 7 to revive their claims. The wood-paneled courtroom and three judges sitting in black robes on the bench hearing esoteric legal arguments insulated the 30 onlookers in the gallery from memories of April 20, 2010 when BP's well blew out, causing an explosion that killed 11 people. The ensuing spill covered seabirds in oil and, when combined with the chemicals used to disburse the oil slick, contaminated fish, shrimp and crabs, damaging their reproductive systems so they gave birth to mutated offspring -- fish with scales marred by oozing sores, and shrimp with no eyes. William Gibbens told the panel that his 17 clients, who claim they were exposed to hazardous chemicals responding to the spill, made an honest mistake in failing to comply with Barbier's pretrial order. U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Elrod asked Gibbens why they had trouble with the order when another 960 plaintiffs complied with it. "It was a misreading of the order," Gibbens said. "We thought by filing lawsuits that were not class actions, that we were okay." He said he did not know that by individual lawsuits, Barbier meant one plaintiff per lawsuit. Gibbens said his clients followed the advice of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee, a group of 15 lawyers Barbier appointed to help manage the litigation, and filed sworn statements in which they laid out their claims before the deadline, but did not file individual lawsuits. Heather Lindsay represents 800 people who say they were hired by BP contractors Plant Performance Services LLC and Fluor Corporation Inc. to help clean up oil that washed onto Florida beaches. They claimed in two lawsuits in the Northern District of Florida that they were wrongly terminated from the cleanup jobs in September 2010 after they were exposed to toxic chemicals. The cases were transferred to Barbier's docket. Lindsay told the panel that Barbier did not permit her clients discovery needed to find out if they even have valid breach of contract claims against BP. She said she filed a motion for relief from Barbier's pretrial order in April 2017 stating that it would cost her clients more than $300,000 in filing fees to bring individual lawsuits, and asking if they could have their filing fees waived. Barbier gave them a break. He extended the filing cutoff date by three weeks. But they did not file individual complaints, leading Barbier to dismiss their claims with prejudice in July 2017. Judge Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, asked Lindsay why she did not heed Barbier's warning her clients' claims would be barred. "I only got one warning," Lindsay said. "I asked that plaintiffs could fire me and proceed in forma pauperis [with no payment of filing fees]. This ruling punishes indigent people. It does not prejudice BP." BP's attorney George Hicks disagreed. He works for the Washington, D.C firm Kirkland and Ellis. He said Barbier acted within his discretion in dismissing the lawsuits with prejudice because PTO 63 came three months after a similar pretrial order that pared down the litigation, so all claimants subject to PTO 63 were aware of how the process worked. "Don't the rules require notice before the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice?" Elrod said. Hicks said Barbier gave four different warnings about the filing deadline in the order. "Judge Barbier is trying to keep the trains running on time," Hicks said. He said it took Barbier a year to figure out which single-plaintiff lawsuits filed under PTO 63 were legitimate and not fraudulent, and it would "gum up the works" if the Fifth Circuit reinstated the claims of the 800-plus litigants involved in the appeal. In closing arguments, U.S. Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan, a Donald Trump appointee, asked Gibbens why the ship has not sailed on his 17 clients' claims given that Barbier has moved on to another pretrial order that requires PTO 63 litigants to "provide more particularized information regarding their claims." Gibbens did not hesitate. "The individual complaints have been stayed for eight years. They're still stayed and no trial date's been set," he said. "This is only 17 cases. So adding them to hundreds of cases would not be hard." For Lindsay's 800 clients, she asked the panel to revive their cases and send them back to the Northern District of Florida, so they can pursue breach of contract claims against BP's oil spill cleanup contractors. Another Trump appointee, U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett filled out the panel. The judges took the arguments under submission and did not say when they would rule. Despite the drawn-out litigation, BP has largely recovered from the oil spill. It sold $60 billion in assets to cover liabilities from the disaster and its shares were trading at $42.54 on Feb. 7, up from a low point of $29.35 in the months after its well ruptured. BRUNSWICK, NC: D.R. Horton Sues in E.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against the County of Brunswick. The case is captioned as D.R. HORTON, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00044-FL (E.D.N.C., March 5, 2019). The case is assigned to District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan. Brunswick County is the southernmost county in the U.S. state of North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary K. Shipman, Esq. SHIPMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLP 575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106 Wilmington, NC 28405 Telephone: (910) 762-1990 Facsimile: (910) 762-6752 E-mail: gshipman@shipmanlaw.com - and – William Grainger Wright, Sr., Esq. SHIPMAN and WRIGHT, LLP 575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106 Wilmington, NC 28405 Telephone: (910) 762-1990 Facsimile: (910) 762-6752 E-mail: wwright@shipmanlaw.com BULSON MANAGEMENT: Faces Broome Street Trust Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bulson Management LLC. The case is captioned as THE BROOME STREET TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BULSON MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 651357/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., March 6, 2019). Bulson Management LLC is an acknowledged leader in high-end residential and commercial construction concentrating in the greater New York City area. [BN] C P GRILL: Koutlakis Seeks Earned Wages & Overtime for Servers -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Koutlakis, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. C P Grill Corp. d/b/a CP Grill, Patricia Bohman, and Christo Ioannides, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01669 (E.D.N.Y., March 24, 2019), seeks to remedy wrongful withholding of Plaintiff's earned wages and overtime compensation by Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation by knowingly violating the FLSA and NYLL. Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was hired as a server. However, her job duties were variable and included setting up and cleaning the restaurant, cleaning silverwear, answering phones, and working at the cash register. Because of these, the Plaintiff spent at least 20% of her time per shift performing non-tipped occupations.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq. PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP 950 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 213-8511 Facsimile: (718) 777-0599 CALIFORNIA CCS: Underpays Nurses, Slaughter Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY SLAUGHTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA CCS, P.C. d/b/a WELLPATH; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2019-00012302-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., March 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Slaughter was employed by the Defendants as nurse. California CCS, P.C. d/b/a Wellpath provides healthcare services. The Company offers medical, dental, mental, and behavioral health services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Maggie Realin, Esq. Michael J. Morphew, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 750 B Street, Suite 1950 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Telephone: (949) 458-9675 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com mrealin@markham-law.com mmorphew@markham-law.com CAMACHO AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lee Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JAMES LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMACHO AUTO SALES, INC.; GGC AUTO GROUP 1, INC.; CAMACHO MITSUBISHI, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07189 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff Lee was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee. Camacho Auto Sales, Inc. is a California corporation, sells automobiles and provides automobile repair and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. Melissa M. Kurata, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553-3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Zieley Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- VICKIY ZIELEY a/k/a VICKY PLEVRITIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01259-RJD-SMG (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Capital Management Services L.P., a collections agency, provides delinquent receivables resolutions. It monitors and tracks debt collection laws, state licensing, company profile, and client contractual expectations. The company was formerly known as Ventus Capital Services, LP and changed its name to Capital Management Services L.P. in October 2006. Capital Management Services L.P. was incorporated in 2004 and is based in Buffalo, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: dan@cml.legal CAPITAL ONE: Dress Suit Transferred to Eastern District of Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Susan Dress, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-40064, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on March 22, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00343-LO-IDD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Liam O'Grady. The Plaintiff asserts damages and other relief arising from Capital One's routine practice of charging interest on credit card accounts on transactions that are fully paid by the billing period due date. Capital One, like other major credit card companies, provides consumers a grace pperioderiod to pay their credit card balances. This grace-period is promised to consumers in both their Capital One Credit Card Agreement and in the disclosures on the back of their monthly statements. But unlike other major credit card companies, Capital One fails to tell consumers they can lose their grace period on all future transactions by failing to pay off their balance in full in a prior month, the lawsuit states.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 60 State Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 573-5118 Facsimile: (617) 371-2950 E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 2009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com casey@kellyandcrandall.com Attorneys for the Defendant: Andrew Soukup, Esq. Michael M. Maya, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One City Center 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 Facsimile: (202) 778-5066 E-mail: asoukup@cov.com mmaya@cov.com CELLCOM ISRAEL: Certification in Service Disconnection Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 court in a class action suit related to disconnections services has approved the request for certification. In April 2018, the district court approved a request to certify a lawsuit filed against the company in December 2014 as a class action, relating to an allegation that the company unlawfully charged its subscribers who disconnected from its services during a certain billing cycle for a full monthly payment. The total amount claimed was not estimated by the plaintiff. 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. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Friermor Sues over Channel Blackouts ------------------------------------------------------------ RENEE FRIERMOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07447 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2019) is an action arises out of the Defendants' blackout of numerous channels on their cable subscription network in Los Angeles, California, and other major metropolitan areas nationwide, with no compensation provided to the millions of affected subscribers of the Defendants' pay television services. According to the complaint, on January 2, 2019, nearly three dozen television channels, including KTLA Channel 5, among others, went dark on the Plaintiff's pay television service, which was provided to the Plaintiff by the Defendants under its Spectrum brand. The blackout of all those channels on the Plaintiff's pay television service lasted until January 11, 2019. Other subscribers of the Defendants' pay television services in major metropolitan areas around the country including Denver, Houston, New York, and St. Louis, among other areas, also suffered blackouts to numerous television channels on their own pay television services during that time period. However, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and the class any monetary compensation for the duration of the period of the channel blackout. Charter Communications, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides cable services to residential and commercial customers in the United States. Charter Communications, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is based in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Louis Kelly, Esq. Behram V. Parekh, Esq. Joshua A. Fields, Esq. KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP 1638 South Pacific Coast Highway Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Telephone: (310) 536-1000 Facsimile: (310) 536-1001 E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com bvp@kirtlandpackard.com jf@kirtlandpackard.com CIGNA CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on March 5, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities class action against Cigna and several of its officers. Minohor Singh v. Cigna Corporation, et al., No. 17-CV-3484 (2d Cir. Mar. 5, 2019). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making a series of materially misleading statements concerning Cigna's compliance with regulatory requirements. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Judge Vanessa L. Bryant of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the motion, holding that plaintiffs did not adequately allege material misstatements and scienter. Plaintiffs appealed. The Second Circuit affirmed, emphatically, agreeing that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead actionable material misrepresentations. In 2012, Cigna acquired a regional Medicare insurer with the objective of entering the Medicare insurance market. As a result of the acquisition, Cigna was required to comply with regulations relating to its participation in the Medicare insurance market. Plaintiffs alleged that Cigna made misleading statements about its compliance efforts in its SEC filings and in another publication. Specifically, plaintiffs focused on statements in the company's 2013 Form 10-K that it had policies in place to comply with pertinent Medicare regulations, and Cigna's statement in its 2014 Form 10-K that it would continue to "allocate significant resources" towards compliance. Plaintiffs also alleged there were materially misleading statements in a pamphlet published in December 2014 discussing Cigna's dedication to integrity and regulatory compliance. The Second Circuit first considered whether the alleged misstatements were material. Finding that a reasonable investor would not view the allegedly misleading statements as "important" or influential in their decision to purchase or sell stock, the Court concluded that these statements were immaterial. In so holding, the Court found that: the language in Cigna's Form 10-K filings were generic statements about its compliance efforts; the language in the pamphlet constituted mere puffery regarding Cigna's "reputation, integrity and compliance with ethical norms"; and such statements were too vague with respect to Cigna's compliance with regulatory requirements to cause reasonable reliance or an inference that Cigna was in "satisfactory compliance." The Court contrasted the statements at issue with statements in prior cases where the Court "found that descriptions of compliance efforts amounted to actionable assurances of actual compliance." The Court noted that in those cases "the descriptions of such efforts were far more detailed" and that "[s]uch detailed descriptions stand in sharp contrast to Cigna's simple and generic assertions about having ‘policies and procedures' and allocating ‘significant resources.'" The Court further noted that the manner in which the allegedly misleading statements were presented—including to the extent they were framed by acknowledgements of the complexity and numerosity of applicable regulations—indicated Cigna was actually cautious about the adequacy of its compliance efforts and was focused on strengthening them. Having found that no material misstatements were alleged, the Court declined to address the issue of scienter. Accordingly, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that defendants made materially misleading statements and affirmed the judgment of the District Court. The Court noted: "This case presents us with a creative attempt to recast corporate mismanagement as securities fraud. The attempt relies on a simple equation: first, point to banal and vague corporate statements affirming the importance of regulatory compliance; next, point to significant regulatory violations; and voila, you have alleged a prima facie case of securities fraud! The problem with this equation, however, is that such generic statements do not invite reasonable reliance. They are not, therefore, materially misleading, and so cannot form the basis of a fraud case." This case should be an important precedent for securities litigants. An increasing number of securities class actions in recent years have been geared toward allegations that companies failed to disclose shortcomings in legal and regulatory compliance, many of them falling within the much talked about "event-driven" trend in securities litigation. Against that backdrop, Cigna reflects an important reminder to district courts from a critical appellate court for securities class actions. Regulatory compliance issues or other alleged "events" allegedly evidencing failures by management to manage legal or compliance risks are not themselves disclosure frauds actionable under the securities law. [GN] CLAIMS QUESTIONS: Overtime Pay for Litigation Specialists Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- MALVAMEL LENNON and CYNTHIA AURELIO on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CLAIMS QUESTIONS, LLC, d/b/a ROL INSURANCE CONSULTING, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00342 (M.D. Fla., March 22, 2019), seeks payment from Defendants for overtime work pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Citizens and CQ jointly employ "Litigation Specialists" to provide adjusting services on Citizens' accounts through a contract between Citizens and CQ. These Litigation Specialists, and other similarly situated workers, are classified as "independent contractors" and paid a day rate for all hours worked with no additional overtime compensation paid, the lawsuit says. The workers work long hours to perform their work, and operate under very tight direction, control and supervision of both CQ and Citizens. The workers have been misclassified as independent contractors under the FLSA and should have been classified as employees. As such, they are entitled to overtime compensation for overtime hours worked. CQ provides specialized claim handling services via an adjusting team consisting of highly trained individuals whose experience includes working for major insurance carriers as managers, staff adjusters, and reinspectors.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Matthew R. Gunter, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 867-4791 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com MGunter@forthepeople.com CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to Dismiss CHF LIBOR Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------- 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's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in CHF LIBOR litigation in the Southern District of New York remains pending. In February 2015, various banks that served on the Swiss franc LIBOR panel, including Credit Suisse Group AG, were named in a civil putative class action lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), alleging manipulation of Swiss franc LIBOR to benefit defendants' trading positions. On September 25, 2017, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, but permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on February 7, 2018. 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: Bid to Dismiss Mexican Bond-Related Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 motion seeking dismissal of a class action lawsuit related to the issuance of Mexican government bond is still pending. Credit Suisse AG and affiliates have been named in multiple putative class actions in US federal court alleging a conspiracy among Credit Suisse entities and other dealer banks to manipulate the Mexican government bond market. These actions have been consolidated in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and on July 18, 2018, plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint. On September 17, 2018, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. 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: Bid to Dismiss SIBOR/SOR Litigation Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 motion to dismiss filed in the SIBOR/SOR litigation is pending. In July 2016, various banks that served on the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) and Singapore Swap Offer Rate (SOR) panels, including Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, were named in a civil putative class action lawsuit filed in the SDNY, alleging manipulation of SIBOR and SOR to benefit defendants' trading positions. On August 18, 2017, the SDNY dismissed all claims against Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates (and various other defendants) but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On October 4, 2018, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint, upholding antitrust claims against Credit Suisse AG and other panel bank defendants, but narrowing the claims to those related to Singapore Dollar SIBOR and dismissing all but one plaintiff from the action. The court also dismissed the RICO claims without leave to amend. On October 25, 2018, the remaining plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The remaining defendants moved to dismiss on November 15, 2018. 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: Faces Suits over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae Bonds ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 since February 22, 2019, Credit Suisse AG and CSS LLC, together with other financial institutions, have been named in multiple putative class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging a conspiracy among the financial institutions to fix prices for unsecured bonds issued by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. 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: Litigation over Forex Rate Manipulation Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 lawsuits related to alleged manipulation of foreign exchange rates. Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates as well as other financial institutions are named in five pending civil lawsuits in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) relating to the alleged manipulation of foreign exchange rates. The first pending matter is a putative consolidated class action. On January 28, 2015, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the original consolidated complaint brought by US-based investors and foreign plaintiffs who transacted in the US, but granted their motion to dismiss the claims of foreign-based investors for transactions outside of the US. In July 2015, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, adding additional defendants and asserting additional claims on behalf of a second putative class of exchange investors. On September 20, 2016, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed by the Group and affiliates, along with other financial institutions, which reduced the size of the putative class, but allowed the primary antitrust and Commodity Exchange Act claims to survive. On May 31, 2018, plaintiffs served a motion for class certification, which the Group and affiliates opposed on October 25, 2018. The second pending matter names Credit Suisse AG and affiliates, as well as other financial institutions in a putative class action filed in the SDNY on June 3, 2015. This action is based on the same alleged conduct as the consolidated class action and alleges violations of the US Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). On August 23, 2016, the SDNY granted a motion to dismiss filed by affiliates of Credit Suisse AG, along with other financial institutions. Plaintiffs appealed that decision, and on July 10, 2018, the Second Circuit issued an order affirming in full the SDNY's decision to dismiss the putative ERISA class action against Credit Suisse AG and affiliates as well as other defendant financial institutions and denying plaintiffs' request for leave to amend their complaint. The third pending matter names Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, as well as other financial institutions, in a consolidated putative class action filed in the SDNY, alleging manipulation of the foreign exchange market on behalf of indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments. On March 15, 2018, the court issued a decision granting defendants’ joint motion to dismiss and dismissing the consolidated complaint in its entirety. On October 25, 2018, the SDNY granted in substantial part plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a proposed second consolidated class action complaint, which plaintiffs filed on November 28, 2018. On December 20, 2018, the Group, together with other financial institutions, filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of personal jurisdiction. The fourth pending matter names Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates in a putative class action filed in the SDNY on July 12, 2017, alleging improper practices in connection with electronic foreign exchange trading. On April 12, 2018, the SDNY granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. The fifth pending matter names Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, as well as other financial institutions, in a civil action filed in the SDNY on November 13, 2018. This action is based on the same alleged conduct as the consolidated class action. On March 1, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. 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. Further, Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of its affiliates, together with other financial institutions, have also been named in two putative class actions in Israel, which makes 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: Still Defends Lawsuit over Interest Rate Swaps ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 interest rate swaps. Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other financial institutions, have been named in one consolidated putative civil class action complaint and one consolidated complaint filed by individual plaintiffs relating to interest rate swaps, alleging that dealer defendants conspired with trading platforms to prevent the development of interest rate swap exchanges. The individual lawsuits were brought by TeraExchange LLC, a swap execution facility, and affiliates, and Javelin Capital Markets LLC, a swap execution facility, and an affiliate, which claim to have suffered lost profits as a result of defendants' alleged conspiracy. All interest rate swap actions have been consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the Southern District of New York SDNY(). Both class and individual plaintiffs filed second amended consolidated complaints on December 9, 2016, which defendants moved to dismiss on January 20, 2017. On July 28, 2017, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. On February 21, 2018, class plaintiffs moved for leave to amend and file a proposed third amended consolidated class action complaint. On May 10, 2018, the SDNY issued an order granting in part and denying in part class plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and file a third amended consolidated class action complaint. The SDNY granted plaintiffs' motion to add a new plaintiff and factual allegations relating to the claims that survived the motion to dismiss, but denied plaintiffs' attempt to revive the dismissed claims. On May 30, 2018, plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. On June 14, 2018, a new direct action complaint was filed by swap execution facility trueEX LLC. On June 20, 2018, the trueEX LLC complaint was added to the existing multi-district litigation. On August 9, 2018, trueEX LLC filed an amended complaint against Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other financial institutions, which defendants moved to dismiss on August 28, 2018. On November 20, 2018, the SDNY issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss the trueEX LLC amended complaint. The SDNY granted defendants' motion to dismiss trueEX LLC's state law claims, but denied the motion as to trueEX LLC's antitrust claims. On October 25, 2018, class plaintiffs moved for leave to file a fourth amended consolidated complaint. On February 20, 2019, class plaintiffs filed motions for class certification. On March 13, 2019, the SDNY issued an order granting in part and denying in part class plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and file a fourth amended consolidated class action complaint. 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. DEK ENTERPRISES: Faces Sofia ADA Suit in E.D New York ----------------------------------------------------- DANIEL SOFIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEK ENTERPRISES INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01302-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Joseph F. Bianco and referred to Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields. Dek Enterprises was founded in 1992. The Company's line of business includes renting and leasing consumer goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C. 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710 Telephone: (646) 290-8258 Facsimile: (646) 435-4376 E-mail: James@civilrightsNY.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Settlement in Precious Metal Suits Awaits Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 agreements made in the class action suits related to alleged manipulation of gold and silver prices remains subject to final court approval. Deutsche Bank is a defendant in two consolidated class action lawsuits pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suits allege violations of US antitrust law, the US Commodity Exchange Act and related state law arising out of the alleged manipulation of gold and silver prices through participation in the Gold and Silver Fixes, but do not specify the damages sought. Deutsche Bank has reached agreements to settle the gold action for US$60 million and the silver action for US$38 million. The agreements remain subject to final court approval. 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. DICK'S SPORTING: Faces Haggar et al. ADA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELIA HAGGAR; KYO HAK CHU; and VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DICKS SPORTING GOODS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01589-CAS-MRW (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Christina A. Synder and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. operates as a sporting goods retailer primarily in the eastern United States. It provides hardlines, including sporting goods equipment, fitness equipment, golf equipment, and hunting and fishing gear products; apparel; and footwear and accessories. The company also owns and operates Golf Galaxy, Field & Stream, and other specialty concept stores; and e-commerce Websites, as well as Dick's Team Sports HQ, a youth sports digital platform that offers free league management services, mobile apps, free league management services, communications and live scorekeeping, custom uniforms and fan wear, and access to donations and sponsorships. As of February 2, 2019, it operated approximately 858 stores in 47 states. The company was formerly known as Dick's Clothing and Sporting Goods, Inc. and changed its name to Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. in April 1999. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. was founded in 1948 and is headquartered in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com DOLLAR TREE: Appeal in Former Store Manager's Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiff has taken an appeal from the jury's verdict in the class action suit initiated by a former store manager in California. In April 2015, a former store manager filed a class action in California federal court alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to make wage statements readily available to employees who did not receive paper checks. On November 7, 2017, the jury found in favor of the Company. The plaintiff has filed an appeal from the verdict. Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake, Virginia. DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Employee Suit Certified as State-Wide --------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has certified the class action suit initiated by a distribution center employee, as a state-wide class action. In April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely termination pay. The employee filed an amended complaint in which he abandoned his attempt to certify a nation-wide class of non-exempt distribution center employees for alleged improper calculation of overtime compensation. The Company removed this lawsuit to federal court. The court certified the case as a state-wide class action. Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake, Virginia. DOLLAR TREE: Missouri Class Action Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the class action suit pending before the Missouri State Court has been dismissed. In February 2018, a current store manager filed a statewide class action in Missouri state court alleging the Company's store managers are improperly classified as exempt employees thereby entitling them to overtime pay, liquidated damages and damages for unjust enrichment. The case was dismissed with prejudice. Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake, Virginia. DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Former Calif. Employee's Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action suit filed by a former employee that alleges that the company failed to provide all non-exempt California store employees with compliant rest and meal breaks, accrued vacation, accurate wage statements and final pay upon termination of employment. In August 2018, a former employee brought suit in California state court as a class action and as a Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") representative suit alleging the Company failed to provide all non-exempt California store employees with compliant rest and meal breaks, accrued vacation, accurate wage statements and final pay upon termination of employment. Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake, Virginia. DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Illinois Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action suit by a customer in federal court in Illinois. In January 2017, a customer filed a class action in federal court in Illinois alleging the Company violated various state consumer fraud laws as well as express and implied warranties by selling a product that purported to contain aloe when it did not. The requested class is limited to the state of Illinois. The Company believes that it is fully indemnified by the entities that supplied it with the product. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake, Virginia. DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Ex-Store Staff in Florida Settled ------------------------------------------------------ Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties in the putative class action in Florida state court have agreed to settle the case. In April 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action in Florida state court brought by a former store employee asserting the Company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in the way it handled background checks. The parties have settled the case for an amount which is not material. Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake, Virginia. ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Suit over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ ANNE O'BOYLE; and JENNIFER TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00326-DEJ (E.D. Wis., March 4, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and internationally. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC was formerly known as Enhanced Recovery Corporation. The company was founded in 1999 and is based in Jacksonville, Florida with locations in the United States, the Dominican Republic, Belize, and India. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com ENT CREDIT UNION: Unlawfully Charges Overdraft Fees, Nelson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE NELSON; and ASHLEY BRYMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ENT CREDIT UNION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00634-KMT (D. Colo., March 4, 2019) is an action against the Defendant for assessing overdraft fees on transactions that did not actually overdraw the account, and charging two or three non-sufficient funds fees on a single transaction. According to the complaint, the Defendant unlawfully charged overdraft fees. When a debit card transactions are authorized on an account with positive funds to cover the transaction, the Defendant immediately reduces consumers' checking accounts for the amount of the purchase, sets aside funds in a checking account to cover that transaction, and as a result, the consumer's displayed "available balance" reflects that subtracted amount. As a result, customers' accounts will always have sufficient funds available to cover these transactions because the Defendant has already sequestered these funds for payment. However, the Defendant still assesses a crippling $25 overdraft fees on many of these transactions and misrepresents its practices in its account documents. Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for debit card transactions at the time those transactions are authorized, the Defendant later assesses overdraft fees on those same transactions when they purportedly settle days later into a negative balance. Ent Credit Union operates as a not-for-profit financial cooperative that offers credit and banking services to its members. The union was formerly known as Ent Federal Credit Union and changed its name to Ent Credit Union in January 2016. Ent Credit Union was founded in 1957 and is based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It has more than 30 locations along Colorado's Front Range. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly Hyman, Esq. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014 Telephone: (303) 757-3300 Facsimile: (720) 213-5131 E-mail: hymank@fdazar.com - and - Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 250-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com ESTEE LAUDER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Akana Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- CHLOE AKANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESTEE LAUDER INC.; ELC BEAUTY LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07566 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Akana was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly paid employee. Estee Lauder Inc. produces and distributes skincare, makeup, and fragrance products for clients worldwide. It sells its products through department stores and specialty stores in the United States; and online. The company was founded in 1946 and is based in New York, New York. Estee Lauder Inc. operates as a subsidiary of The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Mendez Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESTENSON LOGISTICS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07422 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Mr. Mendez was employed by the Defendants as truck driver. Estenson Logistics, LLC provides logistics services. The Company offers container, supply chain consulting, warehousing, inventory management, and other related services. Estenson Logistics serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Taylor L. Emerson, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIANII 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818)609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com EXPRESS MESSENGER: Appeals Decision in Ziglar Suit to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Express Messenger Systems, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Christerphor Ziglar, et al. v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02726-SRB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix. The appellate case is captioned as Christerphor Ziglar, et al. v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., Case No. 19-15510, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendant previously filed an appeal from a District Court ruling. That appellate case is styled Christerphor Ziglar, et al. v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., Case No. 17-16920. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a company that provides package and parcel delivery services to businesses and individuals. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by April 19, 2019; -- Transcript is due on May 20, 2019; -- Appellant Express Messenger Systems, Inc.'s opening brief is due on June 28, 2019; -- Appellees Leah Candelaria, Maurice Meintzer and Christerphor Ziglar's answering brief is due on July 29, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CHRISTERPHOR ZIGLAR, LEAH CANDELARIA, and MAURICE MEINTZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, PLLC 1850 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 Facsimile: (602) 240-2345 E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com - and - Susan Joan Martin, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT PLLC 4647 N. 32nd St., Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com Defendant-Appellant EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, DBA Ontrac, is represented by: Robert G. Hulteng, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 E-mail: rhulteng@littler.com - and - Peter Prynkiewicz, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2425 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 474-3650 E-mail: pprynkiewicz@rubinfortunato.com - and - Damon M. Ott, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 E-mail: dott@littler.com FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Velez Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANI VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00251979 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Plaintiff Velez was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee. Fleetcor Technologies Operating Company, LLC, doing business as Fuelman, provides fuel cards and other payment products and services. The company offers fuel payment solutions to businesses and government entities that operate vehicle fleets, as well as to oil and leasing companies, and fuel marketers. The company was founded in 2004 and is based in Norcross, Georgia. Fleetcor Technologies Operating Company, LLC operates as a subsidiary of FleetCor Technologies, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 FORD MOTOR: Proposes $17MM Touch-Screen System Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Jon Parton, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Ford and a class of 360,000 vehicle owners proposed a $17 million class action settlement on Feb. 7 over Ford's defective touch-screen systems in its vehicles, after a previous settlement proposal was deemed inadequate. A copy of the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Unopposed Renewed Motion and Incorporated Memorandum of Law for Preliminary Approval of the February Class Action Settlement is available at: https://is.gd/kFovOs FORSTER & GARBUS: Court Compels Arbitration in Kernaghan -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in the case captioned AMY KERNAGHAN, behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP, MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, MARK A. GARBUS, and RONALD FORSTER, Defendants. No. 18-CV-0204 (SJF)(AKT). (E.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Amy Kernaghan commenced this action against defendants Forster & Garbus (F&G), LLP, Mark A. Garbus, and Ronald Forster (F&G Defendants), and Midland Funding LLC (Midland) alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Kernaghan incurred a debt through an account with Synchrony Bank/PC Richard, which debt was sold to Midland. The Plaintiff alleges that she is a consumer and that both Midland and F&G defendants are debt collectors within the meaning of the FDCPA. Midland now moves to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in the credit card Agreement in effect for the account held by Kernaghan. Valid Agreement to Arbitrate In opposition to the motion, Kernaghan does not challenge the existence or scope of the arbitration clause contained in the Agreement. Her lone argument is that Midland has failed to make a prima facie showing that the Agreement was provided to her by mail. She claims that the declaration submitted by Nayman, a Synchrony Litigation Analyst, does not satisfy Midland's burden of proof because Nayman did not personally mail the Agreement, did not have personal knowledge of Synchrony's mailing procedures in place at the time of the mailing, and sets forth insufficient details of the bank's mailing procedures. Nayman's relevant statements regarding Synchrony's general mailing procedures are that (1) upon opening an account, it mailed the cardholder both the credit card and a copy of the appropriate credit card agreement via the United States Postal Service; and (2) that a contemporaneous record is created documenting the mailing. The Plaintiff claims that there can be no prima facie showing of mailing absent an affidavit establishing that the affiant had personal knowledge of Synchrony Bank's mailing procedures at the time of the alleged mailing of the agreement. Plaintiff's examination of what may constitute personal knowledge is cursory. Typically, establishing that a mailing was completed creates a rebuttable presumption that the mailing was received. Kernaghan provides no reason to overcome the presumption of receipt. Indeed, she does not claim that she did not receive a copy of the Agreement, perhaps understanding that any such affirmative statement would be belied by her use of the credit card mailed with the Agreement. Midland has established that it mailed the Agreement containing the arbitration provision to Kernaghan and that mailing is presumed to have been received by her. Enforceability of Arbitration Provisions Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a written provision in a contract to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable. The FAA mirrors the strong federal policy favoring arbitration as an alternative means of dispute resolution. The FAA leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed. The rigorous enforcement of arbitration agreements holds true for claims that allege a violation of a federal statute, unless the FAA's mandate has been "overridden by a contrary congressional command." It has been established that Kernaghan was sent a written copy of the Agreement containing the arbitration provision. The agreements contained instructions for opting out of that provision, but Kernaghan did not do so. Based on this record, the Court finds that Kernaghan agreed to the arbitration provision. Are Defendants Valid Assignees of the Agreement? The Plaintiff does not challenge that Midland is the valid assignee of the Agreement or that it is otherwise precluded from exercising the arbitration provision. To the contrary, the Plaintiff has acknowledged that Midland is the assignee of the original creditor. Accordingly, as Midland is a valid assignee of the Agreement and that Agreement contains an enforceable arbitration provision, Midland's motion to compel arbitration is granted. The F&G Defendants also seek to compel argument by way of filing a one-page, post-briefing Notice to Join Motion to Compel Arbitration purporting to join in Midland's motion. Plaintiff objected, claiming that under Utah law, an agent such as F&G cannot enforce the terms of the Agreement for its own benefit. The F&G Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff's objection. The issue of whether the F&G Defendants have standing to compel arbitration has not been adequately briefed or presented to the Court. Thus, to the extent the F&G defendants Notice can be construed as a motion to dismiss, it is denied. Accordingly, Defendant Midland's motion to compel arbitration is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yywmbcr8 from Leagle.com. Amy Kernaghan, on behalf of herself and all others similiarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell L. Pashkin, Forster & Garbus, LLP, Defendant, represented by Robert L. Arleo, Robert L. Arleo, Esq. Midland Funding LLC, Defendant, represented by Ellen Beth Silverman -- esilverman@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Cullertson & Han Sheng Beh -- hbeh@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. FORSTER & GARBUS: Dorman Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBYN G. DORMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP; MARK A. GARBUS; and RONALD FORSTER, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01314-SJF-GRB (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein and referred to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown. Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company specializes in collecting debts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Suite 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 335-1107 E-mail: mpash@verizon.net FOSTERS FREEZE: Underpays Cooks & Food Preparers, Funkhouser Say ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEDREK FUNKHOUSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAC FF 91, INC.; DAC FF 161, INC.; DAC FF 166, INC.; DAC FF 1117, INC.; FOSTERS FREEZE INTERNATIONAL, LLC d/b/a FOSTER FREEZE; and DOES 1 - 100, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01197-NC (N.D. Cal., March 5, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Funkhouser was employed by the Defendants as cook and a food preparer. Fosters Freeze International, LLC d/b/a Foster Freeze is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. The Company is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Nunes , Esq. NUNES WORKER RIGHTS LAW, APC 15260 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (530) 848-1515 Facsimile: (424) 252-4301 E-mail: tony@nunesworkerrightslaw.com - and - Scott A. Miller, Esq. Bonnie Fong, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. MILLER, A.P.C. 24007 Ventura Blvd. Suite 125 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: 818-788-8081 Facsimile: 877-578-3555 E-mail: scott.miller@smillerlawoffices.com bonnie.fong@smillerlawoffices.com G WILLI FOOD: NIS2.7-Mil. Food Labeling Suit Concluded ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Court has approved the compromise agreement and struck out the lawsuit related to food labeling. A lawsuit and a motion to approve it as a class action was filed on January 3, 2018, against the Company and another company to the Tel Aviv District Court for allegedly not complying with the food labelling regulations 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. The Company and the plaintiff reached a compromise agreement whereby the plaintiff will withdraw the lawsuit and it will be stricken out at a cost which is immaterial to the Company. On July 18, 2018, the Court approved the compromise agreement and struck out 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. GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses Defective Sunroofs Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order granting Defendant General Motors, LLC's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned KELLEY GAINES, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 17cv1351-LAB (JLB). (S.D. Cal.) This is a putative class action arising from the sale of Cadillac SRX vehicles with allegedly defective sunroofs. Plaintiff has amended the complaint once, to name the correct defendant and to add new claims. Plaintiff Kelley Gaines bought a model year 2010 Cadillac SRX vehicle in San Diego. The car came with an express 48-month, 50,000 mile bumper-to-bumper warranty, that covered the vehicle until it reached four years or 50,000, whichever occurred first. The Leaking Sunroof Defect The complaint relies on California law, which recognizes two kinds of product defects: manufacturing defects and design defects. It is not particularly clear that the Leaking Sunroof Defect is actually a defect as contemplated under California law. Under the bulletins Gaines relies on to identify the Defect, sunroofs are susceptible to leaks for a number of different reasons, including poor workmanship and substandard materials. But it is clear all of the named causes are manufacturing defects, not design defects. Breach of Warranty Gaines' vehicle's warrant expired no later than May of 2014, and might have expired sooner if she exceeded the 48,000 mile limit before then. Her sunroof leak occurred in February of 2017, well after her vehicle's warranty had expired, and even after the end of GM's customer service program. Gaines argues that the Defect was covered by the warranty because it was present in her car and because it manifested during the warranty period. She has not pointed to any language in the warranty supporting her interpretation, but the parties appear to agree that problems that manifest during the warranty period and only those problems, are covered. Gaines' theory is that the Defect manifested in other people's cars, and that therefore the warranty covers any latent defect in her car too, even if she experienced no loss during the warranty period. This would be a very unusual term, and in the absence of a citation to particular language in the warranty, it is not plausible. Here, Gaines' car performed as warranted within the warranty period, and only experienced a sunroof leak three years after the warranty expired, when her sunroof was no longer covered by an express warranty. This claim cannot be salvaged by amendment. Claims Concerning Misrepresentation and Fraud The FAC does not allege any facts plausibly suggesting GM knew about any Leaking Sunroof Defect before Gaines bought her car. The earliest event suggesting GM might have known about some widespread problem with sunroof leaks was its issuance of the first bulletin in 2013. And even that creates, at best, an inference that it knew some Cadillac SRX sunroofs were leaking for various reasons. In the absence of GM's knowledge at the time of sale, Gaines must show some kind of duty to disclose after the sale, when GM allegedly first learned about the Defect. There must be a sufficient nexus between the defect and the hazard. Gaines argues that the Defect constitutes a safety hazard because water could damage wiring or electrical components. She has not identified which wiring or electrical components are at risk, how likely it is they would be damaged in the event of a leak, or what would happen if they were damaged. She does not have to show that anyone was actually injured, but she must plead facts that plausibly show an unreasonable safety risk. She has not pleaded facts plausibly showing any safety risk; it remains purely conjectural at this point. Given the large number of vehicles she says were affected, the lack of any known injuries undercuts the plausibility of her claim of an unreasonable safety risk. Because Gaines' CLRA, Section 17200, Section 17500, and claims sound in fraud, she must also comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)'s pleading standard, which she has not done. For example, her false advertising claim never identifies any communication or advertisement as deceptive. Her claim that failing to honor the expired warranty amounts to deception is conclusory and, as discussed above, meritless. The only other communication she identifies as deceptive is an advertisement about vehicles in model years 2011 or newer, and how they are covered by the Cadillac Shield. She never bought any of those vehicles and her car was never covered by the Cadillac Shield; accordingly, she has no standing to bring those claims. Here it is clear Gaines' breach of express warranty claim cannot be salvaged. It is doubtful the other claims can, although the Court cannot say with certainty that they cannot. The breach of express warranty claim is therefore dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y4h9esvafrom Leagle.com. Kelley Gaines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert A. Waller, Jr. -- robert@robertwallerlaw.com -- Law Offices of Robert A. Waller, Jr. General Motors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregory R. Oxford -- goxford@iccolaw.com -- Isaacs Clouse Crose & Oxford LLP. GILL CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rivera Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- NESTOR RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GILL CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07664 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide itemize wage statements. Plaintiff Rivera was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee. The Gill Corporation operates as a small tool and die company. The Company offers precision metal stamping, interior, and seating and structural mechanisms assemblies. Gill serves clients in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose R. Garay, Esq. JOSE GARAY, APLC 14 Joliet Trabuco Canyon, CA 92679 Telephone: (949) 208-3400 Facsimile: (949) 713-0432 E-mail: jose@garaylaw.com GLOBAL CONTACT: Lap Distributors Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lap Distributors, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Global Contact - International Publishing Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-06317, (D. N.J., February 20, 2019), seeks actual and statutory damages, disgorgement of any ill-gotten funds acquired, injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited prerecorded calling activities, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such further and other relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. Global Contact solicits small businesses to submit listings in their print and online directories. In order to boost sales and increase its revenues, Global Contact sends numerous faxes, usually without recipients' permission or consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Adam T. Savett, Esq. SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC 2764 Carole Lane Allentown, PA 18104 Telephone: (610) 621-4550 Facsimile: (610) 978-2970 Email: adam@savettlaw.com HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Petitions Judge to Vacate Arbitration Award --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Halliburton Energy Services petitioned a federal judge to vacate a $6.7 million arbitration award to two employees for their overtime complaint. A copy of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.'s Notice of Petition and Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is available at: https://is.gd/XRhaqR HAWAIIAN ISLES: Dearmey Sues over Mislabeled Kona Coffee Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL DEARMEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAWAIIAN ISLES KONA COFFEE COMPANY, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00432 (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2019) alleges that the Kona Labeled Coffee Products sold and advertised by the Defendant did not originate from the Kona District of the Big Island of Hawaii. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that, through false and deceptive packaging and advertising, the Defendant intentionally misleads consumers into believing that coffee products it sells bearing the word Kona originate from the Kona District of the Big Island of Hawaii. In reality, these coffee products are made with commodity coffee beans grown in various less-desirable locations around the world. Hawaiian Isles Kona Coffee Company, Ltd. was distributes and supplies coffee products. The Company offers roasted, whole bean, and ground coffee products. Hawaiian Isles Kona Coffee operates in the State of Hawaii. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Thomas A. Reyda, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com treyda@bursor.com - and - Marc G. Reich, Esq. Adam T. Hoover, Esq. REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 975-0512 E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com adhoover@reichradcliffe.com HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Removes Labor Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- Heartland Employment Services, LLC removed case styled ROSANNA LOPEZ and AHZAYAH LARRIVA, indivdually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. RIC1901461 (Feb. 7, 2019), from Riverside County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 22, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00515 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to pay regular and minimum wages and overtime compensation, failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage, and violated the California's Unfair Competition Act,the lawsuit states.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants: Arthur M. EidelhocH, Esq. Amy Todd-Gher, Esq. Dawn Fonseca, Esq. Vanni Parti, Esq. LITTLER MEDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433 1940 Facsimile: (415) 399 8490 E-mail: aeidelhoch@litter.com atodd-gher@littler.com dfonseca@littler.com vparti@littler.com INDIANA: Class Action Demands Lawyers for Foster Care Children -------------------------------------------------------------- David Wells, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a national children's advocacy group filed a federal lawsuit on Feb. 6 claiming three Indiana counties are violating children's rights to due process and equal protection by denying them legal representation during foster care proceedings. The 31-page complaint filed in Evansville federal court claims Marion, Lake and Scott counties violate the rights of children in foster care proceedings by only appointing legal counsel in less than 10 percent of cases. "Without an attorney, a child in a dependency proceeding risks losing his or her liberty interests, as other parties present evidence, offer witnesses, and make decisions about the child's future that the child is not permitted to discredit, challenge, or even address," the filing states. "Such an omission is fundamentally unfair and contrary to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment." The lawsuit -- brought by attorneys with the Children's Advocacy Institute, Indianapolis-based Delaney & Delaney and California firm Morrison & Foerster on behalf of 10 named foster children -- seeks class certification for over 5,000 children and an injunction that would require the appointment of a lawyer for children during proceedings that place them in foster care or terminate a parent's rights. While parents in such proceedings are given legal counsel, the children are often left unrepresented because the appointment of a lawyer for them is at the discretion of a judge. The complaint argues that without legal counsel, the children's views and wishes are not properly weighed or considered, which can be particularly problematic in cases of abuses or neglect. Children are currently given a court-appointed special advocate to protect their interests, but the lawsuit claims that is insufficient because they are not allowed to provide legal advice. "Even when a child knows his or her rights, without an attorney, the child is likely to give up and remain silent if his or her wishes are downplayed or disregarded at any point in the proceedings," the complaint states. "Simply put, children in dependency proceedings who are not represented by counsel are placed at an unacceptably high risk of being erroneously deprived of their rights." The lawsuit says the named minor plaintiffs' stories illustrate the problems with the courts and the foster care system. Two foster children listed as Nicole K. and Roman S. are half-siblings who live with a foster parent in Marion County. Neither was given an attorney after being removed from their biological mother's custody at a very young age, according to the complaint. Lacking legal help, the pair was "shuttled to foster home after foster home," resulting in them living in nearly 20 different homes before the age of 3, the lawsuit states. Three sisters identified as Abigail R., Lily R. and Rachel H. were neglected by their drug-abusing parents and have been living in uncertainty through various adoption efforts, according to the complaint. "Neither Abigail, Lily, nor Rachel have been appointed an attorney and, as a result, they have had no information about their legal rights, no legal counsel, no voice in the adjudication of where or with whom they live," the complaint states. "Abigail has asked her case manager ‘do I get a say in where I end up?' The case manager responded that Abigail does not get a say." The child advocacy group claims this instability has caused some children to suffer from behavioral and developmental problems, which could have been avoided had they had strong legal representation. According to the lawsuit, 30 other states require the appointment of counsel for children in child welfare proceedings. Steve Keane -- skeane@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster said in a statement, "Every child in dependency proceedings needs a voice and a way to protect his or her legal rights before his or her fate is adjudicated – that is a basic due process right protected by the Constitution." Attorneys for the counties did not immediately respond on Feb. 7 to requests for comment. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Sued Over Deceptive Hotel Reservations --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY POE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP, PLC; HPT TRS IHG-2, INC; CABLEWOODWOOD SUITES; SEAN HASHEMI; ARMIN BETZ; STEPHANIE HUGHES; and DOES 1 through 1000, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07415 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for misrepresenting the terms and conditions of the hotel reservations made by the Plaintiff and the class. According to the complaint, during the period of time from June 2016 to December 2017, and prior thereto and subsequently thereafter, the Defendants repeatedly represented to the Plaintiff and others similarly situated that the Defendants guaranteed the significant terms of any reservation made by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated, such as the type of accommodation being provided, the length of the stay, and the daily rate that would be charged. These representations were made by employees or agents of the Defendants, including but not limited to, the telephone agents who made and confirmed the reservations requested by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated, as well as the "front desk" agents who made and confirmed the reservations. These representations were made at the time that the Plaintiff and others similarly situated were making a reservation for a future stay at a particular residential property operated by the Defendants. Those representations made by the Defendants through their agents were false. InterContinental Hotels Group PLC owns, manages, franchises, and leases hotels in the Americas, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Greater China. The company operates hotels, resorts, and restaurants under the InterContinental, KIMPTON, Hotel Indigo, EVEN HOTELS, HUALUXE, Crowne Plaza, Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Holiday Inn Resort, avid, Staybridge Suites, Candlewood Suites, and InterContinental Hotels & Resorts brands. It also provides IHG Rewards Club, a hotel loyalty program. As of March 04, 2019, the company had approximately 5,600 hotels with 837,000 guest rooms. InterContinental Hotels Group PLC was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Denham, the United Kingdom. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Moest, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. MOEST 2530 Wilshire Blvd., Second Floor Santa Monica, CA 90403-4643 Telephone: (310) 915-6628 LITTLE CAESAR: Removes Lenoir Suit to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of NIVEA LENOIR, individually and on behalf of all others persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County of Cook (Case No. 2019CH01185) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 5, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. Case No. 1:19-cv-01575. The case is assigned to Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. Little Caesars Enterprises, Inc. operates pizza restaurants. The Company offers pizzas, cheese breads, sauces, and dips as well as gift cards. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lazar P. Raynal, Esq. Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq. Kaitlin P. Sheehan, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606-1881 Telephone: (312) 705-7400 Facsimile: (312) 705-7401 LL BEAN: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Shirley Consumer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff William A. Shirley filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled WILLIAM A. SHIRLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L.L. BEAN, INC., a Maine corporation, Case No. 4:18-cv-02641-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brings the instant class action complaint for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and for declaratory relief. The appellate case is captioned as WILLIAM A. SHIRLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L.L. BEAN, INC., a Maine corporation, Case No. 19-15501, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- April 18, 2019 -- Transcript shall be ordered; -- May 20, 2019 -- Transcript shall be filed by court reporter; -- June 27, 2019 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1; -- July 29, 2019 -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1; -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief, pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN] LOGITECH INC: Cal. App. Affirms Parker Class Certification Denial ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four, issued an Opinion affirming the trial court's denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned CHRISTOPHER PARKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOGITECH, INC., Defendant and Respondent. No. A153147. (Cal. App.). Plaintiff Christopher Parker appeals from the trial court's refusal to certify as a class action what plaintiff describes as a routine consumer-fraud case about misleading advertising and defendant Logitech's failure to disclose material information to consumers before they spent hundreds of dollars purchasing Logitech's expensive home-security systems. The Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that, Logitech began the sale and distribution of high-definition digital video security systems under the Alert brand name (Alert Systems). Logitech packaged the Alert Systems as a complete home video security system that would allow customers to "Be There When You're Not." Among other things, customers reported experiencing problems that included: (1) difficulty installing and setting up the cameras and software (2) cameras that would not turn on, stay powered up, or record video properly (3) failures of the micro SD cards installed in the cameras (4) connectivity problems between the cameras (5) problems with inoperable or faulty motion sensors (6) problems downloading video (7) incoming video that would freeze; (8) poor picture quality (9) delayed alerts (10) errors in the camera's timestamps, and (11) software bugs and glitches that made the systems inoperable. The amended complaint alleges five causes of action, for violations of California's Unfair Competition Act and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and for breaches of express and implied warranties. The decision to certify a class rests squarely within the discretion of the trial court, and we afford that decision great deference on appeal, reversing only for a manifest abuse of discretion. Class certification requires proof (1) of a sufficiently numerous ascertainable class, (2) of a well-defined community of interest, and (3) that certification will provide substantial benefits to litigants and the courts, i.e., that proceeding as a class is superior to other methods. Here, the trial court denied certification because after reviewing the parties' lengthy submissions the court found that common issues do not predominate. In this, as in most, cases there undoubtedly are factual issues common to the claims of most if not all putative class members and there are factual questions that are unique to the claims of individual members, or perhaps to groups of members. Whether the common issues preponderate and class treatment will facilitate trial and resolution of the claims is largely a matter of judgment. Understandably, the parties cite cases in which the judgment call in the particular case was made as each contends it should be made here. The record contains substantial evidence that as the Alert Systems evolved, a number of different problems were encountered and addressed. Logitech unquestionably received complaints about different features, but the evidence fails to show that the product was so fundamentally defective that most users found it unusable or that it was likely to fail during its useful life. Rather, the record indicates that different users experienced different problems with their units at different times, that various revisions in the product were made over time so that not all putative class members purchased identical products, and that most users apparently did not encounter the difficulties that plaintiff experienced. With respect to one survey reporting a large number of users experiencing complaints, the general manager stated: The mere fact that 59% of users reported experiencing a problem at any point with their Alert system is neither surprising nor cause for concern. The cameras are designed to be self-installed and there are any number of issues which could have arisen with the Alert which were unrelated to Logitech or to an actual problem with the product. The percentage of users experiencing a problem does not indicate a defect in the product, nor does it indicate that many or most consumers experienced the same problems in the same way. The same is true for consideration of whether Logitech misrepresented the product to the public. Plaintiff alleges no misrepresentation about a specific feature of the Alert Systems, but only allegedly false claims that the system provided peace of mind in a box, was simple to use and install and would provide customers with safety and security. Putting aside the issue of reliance on such puffery, the underlying question of whether Logitech concealed from consumers information that they would reasonably want to know, including that the defects permeating the Alert meant that it could not perform as the complete and dependable home-security system that Logitech represented it to be can hardly be considered without addressing the myriad of defects that plaintiff ascribes to the product. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there is no community of interest justifying class treatment of these claims. The order denying class certification is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s February 25, 2019 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/yxhrh3opfrom Leagle.com. LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Discovery Underway in Gathmann-Landini Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended February 3, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself from a class action suit entitled, Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc. In February, the Court granted a joint request for extension of the discovery period. Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields ruled that the discovery completion date is extended to June 22, 2019. On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc. On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various New York labor codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime compensation. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. lululemon athletica inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, distributes, and retails athletic apparel and accessories for women, men, and female youth. It operates through two segments, Company-Operated Stores and Direct to Consumer. lululemon athletica inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in Vancouver, Canada. MARKEL CORPORATION: Cohen Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Glen Cohen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Markel Corporation, Alan I. Kirshner, Thomas S. Gayner, Richard R. Whitt, III, Anne G. Waleski and Jeremy A. Noble, Case No. 1:19-cv-02133 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This is a securities fraud class action on behalf of all purchasers of Markel securities between July 26, 2017 and December 6, 2018, inclusive. These claims are asserted against Markel and certain of its officers who made materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period in press releases and filings with the SEC. The Plaintiff Glen Cohen purchased Markel securities during the Class Period. The Defendant Markel, a financial holding company, markets and underwrites specialty insurance products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and internationally. The Defendant Markel's New York corporate offices are located at 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 16th Floor, New York, NY. Markel common stock trades on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "MKL" and as of February 5, 2019, there were almost 14 million shares issued and outstanding. Alan I. Kirshner is the executive chairman of the Markel Board of Directors. Thomas S. Gaynor is the co-chief executive officer of Markel. Richard R. Whitt, III is the co-CEO of Markel. Anne G. Waleski was the chief financial officer of Markel until September 2018. Jeremy A. Noble is the CFO of Markel since September 5, 2018. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP Murray House 99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 802-1486 Fax: (212) 602-1592 E-mail: scotth@johnsonfistel.com MASSACHUSETTS: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Rosie D. Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Charles D. Baker, Michael Heffernan, Marylou Sudders and Daniel Tsai filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Rosie D., et al v. Baker, et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-30199-MAP, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Springfield. Charles D. Baker is the Governor of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Rosie D. is seeking home-care option for thousands of children with extreme functional disabilities who participate in Medicaid. The group said that most of the roughly 15,000 children under Medicaid receive adequate services only when placed in psychiatric hospitals, but they often become just "stuck kids" there. Thus, it is asking for homecare option. The appellate case is captioned as Rosie D., et al v. Baker, et al., Case No. 19-1262, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing Statement, Transcript Report/Order form and Appearance form were due April 4, 2019.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ROSIE D., By her parents John and Debra D.; TYRIEK H., by his mother Christine H.; JOSHUA D., by his mother Emelie D.; SHEENA M., by her mother, Deborah D.; DEVIN E., by his grandmother Barbara E.; ANTON B., by his mother Lisa A.; NATHAN F., by his mother Tracey F.; SHAUN E., by his grandmother Jacquelyn E.; and JERRY N., by his mother Susan P. On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Cathy E. Costanzo, Esq. CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION 22 Green St. Northampton, MA 01060-0000 Telephone: (413) 586-6024 E-mail: ccostanzo@cpr-ma.org - and - Steven J. Schwartz, Esq. CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION 22 Green St. Northampton, MA 01060-0000 Telephone: (413) 586-6024 E-mail: sschwartz@cpr-ma.org - and - Daniel William Halston, Esq. WILMERHALE LLP 60 State St. Boston, MA 02109-0000 Telephone: (617) 526-6654 E-mail: daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com - and - Frank J. Laski, Esq. MENTAL HEALTH LEGAL ADVISORS COMMITTEE 399 Washington St. Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 338-2345 E-mail: flaski@mhlac.org Plaintiffs-Appellees ROSIE D., By her parents John and Debra D.; TYRIEK H., by his mother Christine H.; JOSHUA D., by his mother Emelie D.; SHEENA M., by her mother, Deborah D.; DEVIN E., by his grandmother Barbara E.; ANTON B., by his mother Lisa A.; NATHAN F., by his mother Tracey F.; SHAUN E., by his grandmother Jacquelyn E.; and JERRY N., by his mother Susan P. On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; SAMUEL L.; JOSE M.; TERRENCE M.; MARC ST. L.; NATISHA M.; SARAH B.; FORREST W.; JASON S.; SHENTELLE G.; CHRISTINE Q.; KRISTIN P.; CHRIS T.; CHELSEA T.; RALPH B.; TEVIN W. and DANIELLE H. are represented by: Kathryn Lesley Rucker, Esq. CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION 246 Walnut St. Newton, MA 02460 Telephone: (617) 965-0776 E-mail: krucker@cpr-ma.org Defendants-Appellants DANIEL TSAI, in his Official Capacity as the Assistant Secretary for MassHealth; CHARLES D. BAKER; MARYLOU SUDDERS, Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services; and MICHAEL HEFFERNAN, Secretary of the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, are represented by: Daniel John Hammond, Esq. Ronald F. Kehoe, Esq. MA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 1 Ashburton Pl Boston, MA 02108-0000 Telephone: (617) 963-2078 E-mail: dan.hammond@ago.state.ma.us ronald.kehoe@state.ma.us - and - Kenneth Warren Salinger, Esq. MA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 18 Putnam Rd. Arlington, MA 02474-8256 Telephone: (781) 643-9403 E-mail: ken.salinger@state.ma.us MDL 2887: Navarette, et al. Seek Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings ------------------------------------------------------------------ In In Re Hill's Pet Nutrition Dog Food Recall Litigation, MDL No. 2887, Plaintiff John Navarrete in Case No. 3:19-cv-00767, and Plaintiffs Ann Bauer, Forrest Cleveland, Kimberly Mull, Jill Cole, Lorie Pritchard, Karen Guinen, Donna Lee Soltis, Lyn Shanley, Yasser Daoudi, and Wendy Henry, in Case No. 3:19-cv-00908, filed a motion on February 20, 2019, for the transfer and consolidation of six civil actions listed in a schedule filed together with their motion, as well as any subsequently filed tag-along actions to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, before Judge Willam H. Alsup, for consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs have filed their actions over elevated levels of Vitamin D in Hill's Pet Food.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. Noah M. Schubert, Esq. Kathryn Y. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com nschubert@sjk.law kschubert@sjk.law MERRICK UNITED: Faces Sofia ADA Suit in E.D New York ---------------------------------------------------- DANIEL SOFIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERRICK UNITED EQUITIES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01300-JMA-ARL (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack and referred to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay. Merrick United Equities LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C. 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710 Telephone: (646) 290-8258 Facsimile: (646) 435-4376 E-mail: James@civilrightsNY.com MESKO RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grijalva Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL GRIJALVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MESKO RESTAURANT GROUP III, INC.; ROCK & BREWS CORONA; MESKO RESTAURANT GROUP II, INC.; MESKO RESTAURANT GROUP IV, INC.; MESKO RESTAURANT GROUP V, LLC; MESKO RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC; ROCK & BREWS FRANCHISING, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07649 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Grijalva was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid, non exempt employees. Mesko Restaurant Group, LLC owns and operates a family of signature restaurants in the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq. Julia Z. Wells, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com tagore@maternlawgroup.com jwells@maternlawgroup.com MONSANTO CO: Missouri Judge Tosses Several Dicamba Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Emily Zantow, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Missouri dismissed several claims in a class action brought by farmers claiming agrochemical giant Monsanto sold dicamba weed killer products that damaged their soybean crops. Twenty soybean farmers slapped Monsanto and BASF with the 94-claim federal lawsuit in 2018, seeking damages for crops they say were harmed by dicamba weed killer that drifted from neighboring farms. According to the farmers, Monsanto's pursuit of profit led them to push the Xtend seeds and XtendiMax and Engenia herbicides and vouch for the system's safety while knowing crops and plants not resistant to dicamba would be damaged. Furthermore, the farmers claim Monsanto did all this to force soybean farmers to ditch other products in favor of Monsanto's system so their crops would be safe. Dicamba is an herbicide that kills certain weeds but is highly volatile and tends to drift, according to the lawsuit. On Feb. 6, U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. dismissed several of the farmers' individual state law claims relating to trespass, nuisance, negligent training, failure to warn, strict liability, warranty and consumer protection. He also dismissed a nationwide class action misrepresentation claim against BASF because it is incorporated in Delaware, so the court lacks general jurisdiction over it. Although the judge largely granted the motions to dismiss, he allowed conspiracy claims relating to underlying intentional torts to proceed. He found the farmers have sufficiently shown at this stage in the litigation that the businesses worked together to profit from the products through false advertising and fraudulent misrepresentation. Don Downing, chair of the plaintiffs' court executive committee, expressed satisfaction about the ruling in a phone interview on Feb. 7. "We are pleased that the court has ruled that soybean farmers who have been harmed by dicamba have legally viable claims against Monsanto and BASF. We also look forward to vigorously prosecuting those claims, as the litigation moves forward toward trial," said Downing. Monsanto spokesperson Charla Lord said in a statement the company is also pleased with the ruling. "Monsanto appreciates that the court recognized that the majority of the plaintiffs' claims were meritless, in their entirety or in part, and has refused to let those claims go forward. Monsanto believes the remaining claims are likewise without merit and is confident that we will prevails as we continue to vigorously defend those claims." The plaintiffs include 21 farmers from Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and Tennessee. MONSANTO CO: Roundup Caused California Man's Cancer, Jury Finds --------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal jury on March 19 unanimously found that Monsanto's Roundup weed killer caused a California man's cancer, advancing his high-stakes San Francisco trial to a second phase to decide whether the agrochemical company is liable for his illness and how much it might owe for selling him a carcinogenic product. The six-person jury found plaintiff Edwin Hardeman, 70, proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 26 years of heavy Roundup use was a "substantial factor" in causing his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Hardeman, who has been in near-remission since undergoing chemotherapy in 2015, used Roundup to combat poison oak on his 56-acre property in Forestville, California. During trial, his expert pathologist testified Hardeman sprayed an estimated 5,900 gallons of Roundup and was exposed to the herbicide over 300 times without wearing protective clothing or equipment -- increasing his risk for developing cancer. Monsanto, acquired in 2018 by German pharmaceutical company Bayer, argued Hardeman's non-Hodgkin lymphoma was caused by a chronic hepatitis C infection, exposure to hepatitis B and advancing age, all risk factors for the disease. Outside the courtroom after the verdict on causation was read, Hardeman's attorney Jennifer Moore said, ""This has been a long time coming for Mr. Hardeman. He's very pleased he had his day in court and we're looking forward to Phase 2." The March 20 verdict is a blow to Monsanto, advancing Hardeman's claims to a second round of trial to decide the company's liability and potentially how much it should fork over in damages. The jury's finding on causation alone could prompt the company to reconsider settling with thousands of other non-Hodgkin lymphoma plaintiffs who sued it after the World Health Organization's cancer research arm in 2015 classified Roundup's active ingredient as a probable human carcinogen. It is also possible that the jury could find Monsanto not liable during this second phase of trial because its conduct and product label were adequate. In a statement posted to Twitter, Bayer US said it is disappointed by the jury's decision but stands behind the science it says "confirms glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer." The company added it believes "the evidence in phase two will show that Monsanto's conduct has been appropriate and the company should not be liable for Mr. Hardeman's cancer." Moore and Aimee Wagstaff of Andrus Wagstaff said in a statement after the verdict that they will now focus on the evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of Roundup." They added: "Instead, it is clear from Monsanto's actions that it does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue. We look forward to presenting this evidence to the jury and holding Monsanto accountable for its bad conduct." Hardeman's trial is the first of three bellwether trials, or test trials, scheduled this year before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco. The bellwether trials are meant to determine future litigation strategy, including whether to settle the remaining cases. During Hardeman's proceedings, Chhabria suggested "pushing the pause button" after verdicts are delivered in the three bellwethers to "allow both sides to sort of figure it out how they want to approach settlement issues." This past August, a state court jury awarded a San Francisco Bay Area groundskeeper with terminal lymphoma $289 million in damages. While a judge later reduced the award to $78 million, the historic verdict could still play into any settlement discussion. But whether Monsanto will concede to settlement negotiations right now is an open question. Because the federal San Francisco cases were chosen for bellwether trials based on plaintiff residency requirements and not on traditional bellwether criteria like similar plaintiff profiles, Monsanto doesn't consider them test cases sufficient for determining settlement strategy. Opening statements in the second phase of Hardeman's trial was set to begin on March 20. NORTHSTAR REALTY: Bumgardner Appeals Decision in Boothe Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Intervenors Michael Bumgardner, William Pennington, John Wood and Marjorie Wood filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Boothe v. Northstar Realty Finance Corp. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-03742-JKB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore. The appellate case is captioned as Michael Bumgardner v. Jack Boothe, Case No. 19-1298, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 1, 2019, Judge James K. Bredar denied the Intervenors's motion to intervene and for relief from the final order and judgment. The case involved the merger between Colony Capital, Inc., NorthStar Asset Management Group, Inc., and NorthStar Realty Financial Corp. A number of public shareholders--including the Plaintiff, a shareholder in NorthStar Realty Finance Corp. ("NRF")--challenged the merger. In November 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to a settlement, terminating the case. Four former NRF shareholders move to intervene in the closed case, seeking relief from the judgment so that they can proceed on their own claims against the Defendants. In June 2016, the Defendants entered into a planned merger agreement. The Defendants notified their shareholders of the proposed merger and requested their votes. Over the course of the next few months, several shareholders sued the Defendants for violating Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9. The Plaintiff filed his complaint on Nov. 18, 2016. The Plaintiff alleged that the joint proxy statement, circulated to the shareholders, contained materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (1) the financial projections for the Defendants, which were relied upon by the board in assessing the fairness of the Merger Consideration and by the Company's financial advisor; and (ii) certain information regarding the valuation analyses the financial advisor] performed in support of its fairness opinion. He sought class certification and an injunction against the merger. News of the Plaintiff's complaint became public immediately. The Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to the proposed settlement in June 2017. The proposed settlement moved the Court to certify a non-opt out class of all NRF shareholders, preliminarily approve the terms of the settlement, approve the means of notifying the class of the settlement, and schedule a fairness hearing. The Court granted preliminary approval. The parties hired a legal administrative services company to mail notice of the proposed class action settlement to all the class members who could be identified. The Court held a fairness hearing. The Court determined that the settlement was fair and reasonable and, accordingly, approved it on Nov. 30, 2017. The settlement dismissed all claims against Defendants, and the Plaintiff agreed to a broad release such that all Class Members -- that is, all NRF shareholders -- were deemed to have forever released completely claims of any kind that related to the merger. Objector Lawrence Dvores appealed. The Intervenors seek to intervene in the case. In July 2018, they filed complaints in California courts, alleging that the Defendants violated different provisions of the Securities Exchange Act. At the end of July, Intervenors filed an amicus brief in Dvores' appeal, but Dvores settled in September. On November 13, the Intervenors moved to intervene, asserting that, as former NRF shareholders, they were members of the non-opt out class certified by the Court and, as such, their claims were released by the Plaintiff's settlement agreement. To this Court, the Intervenors argue that the judgment must be vacated or amended because the Plaintiff (1) failed to investigate claims that were subsequently released; (2) misrepresented to the Court the nature of the claims being released; (3) made misstatements in the Registration Statement; and (4) did not comply with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on April 30, 2019; and -- Response Brief is due on May 30, 2019.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JACK BOOTHE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Yelena Trepetin, Esq. BROWER PIVEN 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, MD 21153 Telephone: (410) 332-0030 E-mail: trepetin@browerpiven.com Intervenors-Appellants MICHAEL BUMGARDNER, WILLIAM PENNINGTON, JOHN WOOD and MARJORIE WOOD are represented by: Patrick Charles Smith, Esq. DEHAY & ELLISTON, LLP 36 South Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 783-7225 E-mail: psmith@dehay.com Defendants-Appellees NORTHSTAR REALTY FINANCE CORP., DAVID T. HAMAMOTO, JUDITH A. HANNAWAY, WESLEY D. MINAMI, LOUIS J. PAGLIA, GREGORY RUSH and CHARLES W. SCHOENHERR are represented by: Andrew Gendron, Esq. Elizabeth Catherine Rinehart, Esq. VENABLE, LLP 750 East Pratt Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 244-7439 E-mail: agendron@Venable.com lcrinehart@venable.com NOVAN INC: Securities Suit over SB204 Clinical Trials Concluded --------------------------------------------------------------- Novan, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the consolidated class action suit related to Phase 3 clinical trials of SB204, has been concluded. Novan said, "We reported that we were subject to putative stockholder class action lawsuits that were filed in November 2017 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina against us and certain of our current and former directors and officers, which were consolidated under the case name In re Novan, Inc. Securities Litigation." The consolidated amended complaint filed by the designated lead plaintiff asserted claims for violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements related to the company's Phase 3 clinical trials of SB204. On June 14, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On November 30, 2018, a federal magistrate judge entered an order recommending that the district court grant our motion. The plaintiff filed objections to this recommendation and we filed a response. On January 28, 2019, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, dismissed the action with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of us and against the plaintiff. Novan said,. "The plaintiff did not appeal this dismissal and judgment. As such, we have concluded that this matter is closed." Novan, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company, focuses on the development and commercialization of nitric oxide-based therapies to treat dermatological and oncovirus-mediated diseases. Novan, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Morrisville, North Carolina. NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters' Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that an appeal from the court's order approving the settlement of the class action lawsuit by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund remains pending. On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC") and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. ("NMI"), wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower court granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier dismissal. On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by their insurance carriers. The court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017. One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement and sought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on the ground that it did not receive notice of the settlement and had no opportunity to timely opt out of the class. After the court rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed an appeal and requested a stay of the district court proceedings pending disposition of the appeal. The court of appeals denied the temporary stay of the district court proceedings and on October 19, 2018 dismissed the appeal as moot. Following the court of appeals' denial of the objector's petition for rehearing, the district court on March 7, 2019 held a fairness hearing. On March 8, 2019, the district court issued a memorandum and order approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate, and dismissing the action with prejudice. Following entry of judgment, the objector filed a notice of appeal on March 26, 2019. Novation said, "Assuming the settlement approval becomes final, which is expected, the Company will incur no loss. The Company believes that the Affiliated Defendants have meritorious defenses to the case and, if the settlement approval does not become final, expects them to defend the case vigorously." Novation Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Healthcare Staffing, Inc., provides outsourced health care staffing and related services primarily to Community Service Boards in Georgia. It also owns a portfolio of mortgage securities. The company was formerly known as NovaStar Financial, Inc. and changed its name to Novation Companies, Inc. in May 2012. Novation Companies, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in Kansas City, Missouri. OCWEN LOAN: Makoni Suit Transferred to Worcester, Mass. Division ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Dorothy Makoni, On behalf of herself and all others so similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Ocwen Loan Servicing LP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10553 (Filed March 22, 2019), from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Eastern Division (Boston), to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Central Division (Worcester) on March 25, 2019. The Central Division assinged Case No. 4:19-cv-10553-TSH to the proceeding. The case arises from a dispute related to the parties' loan agreement. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Hillman. Ocwen Financial is a provider of residential and commercial mortgage loan.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Todd S. Dion, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TODD S. DION 15 Cottage Avenue, Suite 202 Quincy, MA 02169 Telephone: (401) 965-4131 Facsimile: (401) 535-1231 E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com OMNI RECYCLING: Underpays Laborers, Bonilla Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM BONILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OMNI RECYCLING OF BABYLON, INC.; ANTHONY E. CORE; BRIAN KNOLIS; and JUDINE FEDERICHIE, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01288 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Bonilla was employed by the Defendants as a laborer. Omni Recycling of Babylon, Inc. provides waste recycling services. The Company offers recycling of solid waste, construction and demolition debris, cardboards, papers, plastics, and scrap tires. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Tenenbaum, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JASON TENENBAUM, P.C. 595 Steward Avenue, Suite 400 Garden City, NY 11750 Telephone: (516) 750-0595 ORACLE AMERICA: Loses Bid to Duck Arbitration in Sales Staff Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that noting its departure from an employer's usual reliance on arbitration clauses, the Ninth Circuit rejected Oracle's bid to duck arbitration in a $150 million spat with its sales staff over commission. A copy of the Memorandum is available at: https://is.gd/ykBm06 ORANGE CO, CA: Probe Reveals Widespread Homeless Shelter Abuse -------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Macias, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a year-long investigation into conditions at three homeless shelters in Orange County uncovered rampant sexual harassment, age, race and gender-related abuse, and rodent-infested facilities that lacked heat on cold nights and flooded during storms, according to a report released on March 14. Through interviews with more than 70 homeless residents, shelter staff and volunteers at Courtyard Transitional Center and SAFEPlace in Santa Ana, and Bridges at Kraemer Place in Anaheim, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California uncovered toxic, unsafe living conditions. The report, titled "This Place is Slowly Killing Me: Abuse and Neglect in Orange County Emergency Shelters," found arbitrary destruction and seizure of residents' property without due process, neglect of elderly residents to the point that their needs became medical emergencies and staff who went unpunished for retaliating against residents who issued complaints. The findings contrast with the county's recent attempts to tackle its widespread homelessness and housing affordability crisis by placing homeless residents into new shelters and expanding health services. Settlement talks from a recent lawsuit seeking to prevent cities from issuing citations to the homeless without first offering shelter and permanent housing resulted in new shelters opening – such as the Link in Santa Ana – or being slated to open soon in other cities. But the 101-page report said more work is needed to hold shelter staff accountable and to ensure humane treatment of residents. "Orange County's emergency shelters are dangerously unregulated and downright abusive," ACLU policy analyst Eve Garrow said. "The need for reform becomes increasingly urgent as more shelters are added to the system." Shelter residents -- including Roberta Filicko, who stayed at Courtyard and whose handwritten notes are included in the audit -- reported a lack of soap and cleaning products, black mold in bathrooms, long wait times for meals and harassment by staff members who often rolled people up in their beds and tossed them out of the shelters if they stayed past closing time. "People who have been to jail have said jail is better than this shelter," said Filicko, adding that she became homeless after losing both her husband and her home. "We are so scared that we will be living on the streets, and the staff make sure to remind you of this every minute of every day. It's true we have no one to help us, so we go along with it." Male shelter staff reportedly targeted women residents for demeaning comments about their appearance and offers to exchange special treatment for sex, the report said. These experiences betrayed the "measure of hope" that the shelters provided to homeless residents leaving the streets, according to the report. Spokespersons for the shelters did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the report. Molly Nichelson, a spokesperson for the county, said in a statement on March 14 that officials will review the report and address the complaints with shelter operators. "The County of Orange is committed to ensuring our emergency shelters are safe for all our clients. Each emergency shelter has its own provider and complaint process," the statement said. "We work to ensure valid complaints are addressed by our service providers in a timely fashion." The ACLU said it has requested an independent audit of shelter conditions by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the California Department of Housing and Community Development and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which also received copies of the report. In February, homeless residents filed a class action lawsuit against cities in the southern part of the county -- Irvine, Dana Point, Aliso Viejo, San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente -- claiming the cities violated their rights by issuing citations and confiscating their property without giving them a chance to access shelter -- even though a September 2018 ruling from the Ninth Circuit found that homeless residents could not be cited for sleeping on the street if no shelter was available to them. That case dealt with Boise, Idaho, shelters, but the ruling extended to California cities. The only low-barrier shelter in southern Orange County -- where, according to the lawsuit, over 400 people are sleeping on the street -- is a 45-bed facility in Laguna Beach. The sidestepping of the responsibility to offer shelter has had fatal consequences for the homeless, who face threats of heat stroke in the summer and frostbite and hypothermia in the winter, the complaint said. A Feb. 25 report by the county coroner found that at least 250 homeless people died in 2018, up from 164 in 2015, and that 25 homeless people have died this year, as of Feb. 19. Attorneys for the advocacy organizations who are party to the class action lawsuit filed one of two similar complaints against the county last year to prevent closure of an encampment on the Santa Ana riverbed. The lawsuits, overseen by U.S. District Judge David Carter, halted the removal of homeless people living on the riverbed and pushed the county to pay to house almost 700 people in nearby motels. Carol Sobel, an attorney for the informal class of homeless residents in the pending cases, said in an interview on March 14 that advocates for the homeless are aware of the issues raised in the ACLU report, which are largely being addressed because of their legal action. Sobel said attorneys and county officials have mandated changes to shelter policies on due process, harassment and property seizure. "Remedies are in process," Sobel said. Advocates continue to push the county to fund construction of permanent housing that includes health services for residents as a long-term solution to homelessness, Sobel said. In the meantime, shelters are necessary. "We recognize that we placed demands that were beyond the capacity of facilities. But we did it because we didn't want people dying on the street," Sobel said. "The number of [homeless deaths] goes up every year and if you ask anyone they would say they prefer shelters over dying on the street or going to jail." ORG RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McCrumb Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- DANNY MCCRUMB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. O.R.G. RESTAURANTS, LLC d/b/a ORIGINAL ROADHOUSE GRILL; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07221 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff McCrumb was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly paid employee. O.R.G. Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Original Roadhouse Grill operates a steakhouse restaurant serving fresh, hand cut mesquite grilled steaks, fall off the bone barbecue ribs and fresh baked rolls. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 OS RESTAURANT: Court Dismisses C. Chavira's FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count III of the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in the case captioned CARLOS CHAVIRA, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC and BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC., Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-cv-10029-ADB. (D. Mass.). Plaintiff Carlos Chavira filed this action against Defendants OS Restaurant Services, LLC, and Bloomin' Brands, Inc., together doing business as Outback (Defendants), asserting violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the payment frequency provisions of the Massachusetts Wage Act. Count III of the Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Wage Act by failing to pay all compensation owed to the Plaintiff within six days after the end of the pay period during which the wages were earned. The issue before the Court is whether the Plaintiff can maintain a class action under the Wage Act for an employer's failure to pay FLSA overtime wages in a timely manner. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's Wage Act claim is wholly derivative of his FLSA overtime claim and, for that reason, cannot be brought as a class action under Rule 23. The Plaintiff responds that courts have recognized that employers are liable under the Wage Act for failure to pay overtime wages due under the FLSA. The Plaintiff further asserts that the availability of FLSA remedies does not make Rule 23 inapplicable and refutes Defendants' position that the Wage Act claim is premised on the FLSA. The Wage Act May Be Used in Individual Actions to Recover Overtime Wages Owed Under the FLSA While courts generally agree that state law claims that precisely duplicate FLSA claims are preempted, there are two schools of thought as to whether a state law wage timeliness claim is actually duplicative of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA. One set of case law holds that state law wage timeliness claims are duplicative of FLSA claims and thus preempted. The other set of case law concludes that state law wage timeliness claims are not duplicative of FLSA claims and are not preempted. Case law in this district aligns with the second school of thought. At least two cases have concluded that individual Wage Act claims premised exclusively on FLSA violations are not duplicative of FLSA claims and not preempted. In Lambirth v. Advanced Auto, Lambirth v. Advanced Auto, Inc., 140 F.Supp.3d 108, 110-13 (D. Mass. 2015), the plaintiff, who was exempt from the Massachusetts overtime law, brought a Section 148 claim based on his employer's failure to pay overtime wages due under the FLSA. The defendants moved to dismiss the Wage Act claim and argued that it was improper for the plaintiff to use the Wage Act to recover overtime wages not due under state law. See id. The court denied the motion to dismiss and concluded that Section 148's provisions applied to wages owed under either state or federal law. This Court finds the reasoning of both Lambirth and Carroca sound and agrees with the parties that the Wage Act may be used by individual plaintiffs to hold employers accountable for failure to pay overtime wages due only under the FLSA. A Rule 23 Class Action May Not Be Maintained for a Wage Act Claim Based Only on Failure to Pay FLSA Wages The FLSA clearly states that actions brought for violations of its provisions may not be brought as class actions under Rule 23 and must instead be brought as collective actions pursuant to Section 216. Section 216, however, does not foreclose all state class actions alleging wage claims in conjunction with federal claims. Courts have generally accepted that where a plaintiff has independent claims under both state and federal law, he may seek to certify a Rule 23 class for the independent state-law claim in conjunction with seeking certification of a collective action under the FLSA. Consistent with this, there is no dispute that Wage Act claims may generally be brought as Rule 23 class actions. Relying on this case law, the Plaintiff argues that the availability of FLSA remedies in this case does not render Rule 23 inapplicable for the Plaintiff's Wage Act claim. This argument, however, misses the point. The Plaintiff's ability to proceed under Rule 23 is not foreclosed by the fact that FLSA remedies may be available to the Plaintiff, but rather because his Wage Act claim is wholly dependent on his FLSA claim. Actions brought for violations of the FLSA, whether under the FLSA directly or through a dependent state law claim, must be brought either individually or in conformance with the procedures of Section 216. A Rule 23 action for a claim seeking to recover wages due exclusively under the FLSA circumvents the FLSA's opt-in requirements, even when it is not wholly duplicative of the FLSA claim, and may not be maintained. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y44lplt9 from Leagle.com. Carlos Chavira, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Timmel, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice, Deirdre A. Aaron, Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Fran L. Rudich, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, Gregg I. Shavitz, Shavitz Law Group PA, pro hac vice, Justin M. Swartz, Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Logan A. Pardell -- lpardell@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice, Michael J. Palitz -- mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, P.A., pro hac vice, Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice, Brant Casavant -- rant@fairworklaw.com -- Fair Work P.C. & Hillary A. Schwab -- hillary@fairworklaw.com -- Fair Work, P.C. OS Restaurant Services, LLC, doing business as Outback Steakhouse & Bloomin' Brands, Inc., doing business as Outback Steakhouse, Defendants, represented by Christopher M. Pardo -- cpardo@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP, Ellen C. Kearns -- ekearns@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP & Jonathan D. Persky -- jpersky@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP. PACIFIC ETHANOL: Faces Ragsdale Labor Suit in Sacramento -------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Ethanol, Inc. The case is captioned as MICHAEL RAGSDALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC ETHANOL INC.; and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00251883-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Supe., Sacramento Cty., March 5, 2019). Pacific Ethanol, Inc. produces and markets low-carbon renewable fuels in the United States. Pacific Ethanol, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Sacramento, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 PARTNER COMMS: 012 Smile Still Defends Excessive Charge Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 012 Smile continues to defend a lawsuit related to the allege excessive charge of tariffs from occasional customers for each long distance call minute. On September 11, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against 012 Smile and two other international long distance operators. The claim alleges that the defendants charged excessive tariffs from occasional customers for each long distance call minute, contrary to the Telecommunications Law (Telecommunications and Broadcasting), that allows a licensee to charge reasonable payment for a telecommunication service that it provides. The total amount claimed against 012 Smile if the lawsuit is certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff. 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: Appeal in Volume Rate of Data Packages Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 appeal in the lawsuit related to the volume rate of data packages remains pending. On November 1, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that the Company sends text messages regarding the volume rate of data packages, which unlawfully include advertisement content, intended to encourage purchasing another data package. The total amount claimed against the Company if the lawsuit is certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff. In September 2018, the Court dismissed the claim and in November 2018, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme 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: Call Recordings-Related 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 lawsuit that alleges that the Company breached legal provisions by not providing customers with requested copies of call recordings with customer service representatives and allowing them only to listen to the recordings at the Company's service centers. On May 3, 2018, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against the Company and against additional cellular operators. The claim alleges that the Company breached legal provisions by not providing customers with requested copies of call recordings with customer service representatives and allowing them only to listen to the recordings at the Company's service centers. The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class action. 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: Class Cert. Ruling in 012 Smile Suit Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 appeal has been made on the court's approval of the request to certify a claim in the 012 Smile lawsuit. On November 12, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against 012 Smile. The claim alleges that 012 Smile required their customers to purchase a router and/or a call adaptor and/or terminal equipment as a condition for using its fixed-line telephony services, an action which would not be in accordance with the provisions of its licenses. The total amount claimed against 012 Smile is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 64 million. In February 2019, the Court approved the request to certify the claim as a class action. On March 17, 2019, the Company filed an appeal of this decision. 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: Class Cert. Ruling in Customers' Suit Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 has taken an appeal from an Israeli court's decision granting class certification. On November 12, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that Partner required their customers to purchase a router and/or a call adaptor and/or terminal equipment as a condition for using its fixed-line telephony services, an action which would not be in accordance with the provisions of its licenses. The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 116 million. In February 2019, the Court approved the request to certify the claim as a class action. On March 17, 2019, the Company filed an appeal of this decision. 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: Continues to Defend Roaming Services-Related Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 alleged contractual breach in acting negligently by charging V.A.T for roaming services that are consumed abroad. On July 14, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that Partner is breaching its contractual and/or legal obligation and/or is acting negligently by charging V.A.T for roaming services that are consumed abroad. The plaintiff demands to return the total amount of V.A.T that was charged by Partner for roaming services that were consumed abroad. The plaintiff also pursued an injunction that will order Partner to stop charging VA.T for roaming services that are consumed abroad. In August 2014, the claim was dismissed and in October 2014, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The hearing was held in May 2016 before an expanded panel of seven judges and the Supreme Court accepted the appeal in July 2017 and dismissed the District Court's decisions. 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: Data Speed Suit vs. 012 Smile 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 012 Smile continues to defend a lawsuit related to 012 Smile's plans that does not support data speeds. On April 21, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against 012 Smile. The claim alleges that the infrastructure included in the 012 Smile's plans does not support data speeds that the Company publishes to its customers. The total amount claimed against the Company if the lawsuit is certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff. 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: Location Data-Related 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 lawsuit related to the company's unlawful use of customers' location data. On October 24, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against the Company and another cellular operator. The claim alleges that Partner harms the privacy of its customers by unlawfully using their location data. The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 1 billion. 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: Overcharging-Related Suit Still 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 lawsuit related to overcharging. On September 29, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that Partner refunded its customers, in cases where it was apparent that they were overcharged, not in accordance with legal provisions. In addition, the claim alleges that Partner charges some of its customers that subscribe to the "One" service for the provision of this special service even though it was terminated. The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class action. 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: Revised Settlement in Severance Pay Suit 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 the revised settlement agreement reached in the employees' severance pay-related lawsuit has been approved. On March 24, 2014, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleged that the Company did not include in the severance pay calculation for its employees various components that constitute an addition to the salary for the severance pay calculation and thereby acted unlawfully. The total amount claimed from Partner was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 100 million. In November 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action. In November 2017, the parties filed a revised settlement agreement which was approved by the Court in July 2018. 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: Still Defends Customers' Discrimination-Related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 suit alleging discrimination between cellular customers. On May 4, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges, that Partner discriminated between its cellular customers, including between new customers and existing customers, by offering the same type of customers, different terms, an action which would not be in accordance with the provisions of its license. The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount claimed in the lawsuit, if the lawsuit is certified as a class action. he 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 Telecom Packages for Use Abroad 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 suit related to the company's charges to its customers the full price of telecommunication packages that are intended for use abroad. On January 4, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that Partner charges its customers the full price of telecommunication packages that are intended for use abroad despite the fact that the packages are not fully utilized and does not allow customers to transfer the balance to the next trip abroad or to receive a credit for the balance. The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 234 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 v 012 Smile on License Breach 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 012 Smile continues to defend a suit that alleges breach of license by not offering their services at a unified tariff. On August 8, 2012, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against 012 Smile and another Internet Service Provider. The claim alleges that the defendants breached certain provisions of their licenses by not offering their services at a unified tariff to the same type of customers. The total amount claimed against 012 Smile, if the lawsuit is certified as a class action, was not stated by the plaintiff. 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: Withdrawal of Suit over Overcharged Fees 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 an agreement among the parties to withdraw a lawsuit alleging overcharging of customers. On April 2, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges among others, that Partner overcharges its customers without their consent for services that they did not order and does not respond to customers that apply in writing regarding the overcharge contrary to its license. The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 60 million. In October 2018, 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. PCL CONSTRUCTION: Lucien Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Laborers ------------------------------------------------------------- CHERIE LUCIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PCL CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, INC., and PCL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION CO., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01089 (S.D. Tex., March 22, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and her similarly situated co-workers -- HSE Coordinators, Pipe Foremen, Pipe Fitter Journeyman, Electrical Journeyman, Rigger Journeyman, and other similarly situated individuals paid a per diem (Non-Exempt Laborers) -- who work or have worked for PCL Construction Enterprises, Inc., and PCL Industrial Construction Co., throughout the United States. According to its website, the PCL family of general contracting construction companies is composed of several construction companies that carry out operations in different construction markets and geographic areas. Overseeing this "family" of companies is PCL Construction Enterprises, Inc., which provides advice and services, on a direct or consultation basis to groups within the PCL family of construction companies and oversees PCL's entities in the US. PCL compensated the Non-Exempt Laborers on an hourly and per diem basis. Despite being non-exempt employees, PCL has failed to properly pay the Non-Exempt Laborers overtime compensation at 1.5 times their regular rates of pay, which should include all compensation labeled as per diem. PCL tied Non-Exempt Laborers' per diem to the hours they worked. For example. Lucien was informed a per diem would be paid "provided that you work all scheduled hours and that you meet the mileage criteria, 50 mile radius outside of the project location, to receive per diem. A day worked is defined as a minimum of 10 hours. If you do not work all of your scheduled hours you will only be eligible to receive per diem for the time worked. This also applies to late arrivals, early-outs or absence's either excused or non-excused. Based on your hourly classification, you will earn 1.5 times your base hourly wage for hours worked in excess of 40 hours, note all overtime hours beyond the project sites scheduled 50-hour work week must be preapproved by your direct supervisor." PCL's "Per Diem Allowance Policy" further confirms the per diem payment is tied to the hours worked by the Non-Exempt Laborers. PCL's Job Listings for Non-Exempt Laborers state that per diems paid to Non-Exempt Laborers are tied to the number of hours they worked. PCL's policy of tying per diem payments to hours worked was applied to Lucien and the other Non-Exempt Laborers, the lawsuit states.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 PRICE TRANSFER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fiedler Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- RUSSELL FIEDLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRICE TRASNFER, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07370 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Mr. Fiedler was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid, non-exempt employee. Price Transfer, Inc. operates as a provider of centralized examination stations. The Company provides remote filing examination, bonded warehousing, container freight station, transloading, and local drayage services. Price Transfer serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Rose, Esq. Manny M. Starr, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2074 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: adam@fronteirlawcenter.com manny@fronteirlawcenter.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason Ibey, Esq. Veronica Cruz, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com Jason@kazlg.com veronica kazlg.com PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Haas Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ DONNA HAAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV07602 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Haas was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee. Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc. provides residential mortgage lending services in the United States. The company was founded in 1998 and is based in Salt Lake City, Utah. It has branch locations in El Dorado, Derby, Wichita, Newton, Lawrence, Leavenworth, Hutchinson, Kansas; Fort Smith, Little Rock, Hot Springs, Arkansas; The Colony, Highland Village, Lewisville, Hurst, and Whitehouse, Texas; Paducah, Kentucky; Rock Island, Illinois; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Portales, New Mexico; and Nashville and Brentwood, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: S. Brett Sutton, Esq. Jared Hague, Esq. SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C. 5200 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 203 Fresno, CA 93704 Telephone: (559) 325-0500 Facsimile: (559) 981-1217 PURPLE COMMUNICATIONS: Crowder Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Mary Crowder as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Purple Communications, Inc., CSDVRS, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. S-CV-0040180 filed in California Superior Court on October 11, 2017, was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 20, 2019 under Case No. 19-at-00144. Crowder worked as a video interpreter for Purple, providing remote on-demand sign language interpreting for telephone calls between deaf or hard-of-hearing persons and hearing persons, using video, mobile and computer technology. She seeks redress for Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and failure to provide proper wage statements under the California Labor Code.[BN] Crowder is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 E. Maple Ave., Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 Tel: (424) 292-2350 Fax: (424) 292-2355 Defendants are represented by: Gary M. Mclaughlin, Esq. Stephanie Priel, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6022 Telephone: 310-229-1000 Facsimile: 310-229-1001 Email: gmclaughlin@akingump.com spriel@akingump.com SAINT ALPHONSUS: King & Spalding Discusses Class Action Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Hayes-Kibreab, Esq. -- ahayes-kibreab@kslaw.com -- of King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reports that legal challenges to hospital charges are increasing in both number and intensity with plaintiffs' counsel continuing to file suits against hospitals around the country challenging the very existence and use of chargemasters in patient billing. In many of these cases, the plaintiffs are seeking class action status. In an effort to upend chargemaster billing altogether, plaintiffs argue either that (1) hospital financial contracts, which generally require patients to pay for non-covered services at the hospital's regular chargemaster rates, do not permit hospitals to charge those rates because patients with government-sponsored or commercial insurance may pay a different amount, or (2) hospital chargemaster rates are inherently unconscionable because the charges are higher than the hospital's reported costs. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals to treat patients who present to the emergency room by first stabilizing the patient's medical emergency before confirming the patient's possession of health insurance or ability to pay for the services. Federal and state regulations also require transparency in hospital pricing, including annual submission and/or publication of hospital chargemasters. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300gg-18. By signing the conditions of admission form requiring the plaintiff to pay "in accordance with the regular rates and terms of the Hospital," patients have "consented to pay the facility fee to defendant." Nolte v. Cedars Sinai Medical Center 236 Cal. App. 4th 1401, 1404-09 (May 21, 2015). The remedy the class action plaintiffs are seeking is to have courts put aside the financial agreements signed by patients and instead decide on a claim-by-claim basis what is reasonable for a hospital to charge for services provided to emergency room patients. As one court put it, plaintiffs seek "judicial intervention in a commercial transaction (for which the legislature has already established a policy favoring price comparison by the patient), whereby judges and juries would be called on to set appropriate prices for hospitals to charge their patients." Cox v. Athens Regional Medical Center, Inc., 279 Ga. App. 586, 588 (2006). The theory behind the cases is generally that uninsured patients should reasonably expect to pay what someone with Medicare, Medicaid or commercial insurance would pay. A key gap in that theory is that uninsured patients are not meeting the burdens of coverage such as monthly premiums or qualifying age or disability. The theory also ignores that plaintiffs have access to publicly available charge data to help them make informed decisions about where to seek care. Plaintiffs also ignore the overlay of federal and state laws that require hospitals to provide charity care to low-income patients making less than 350% of the federal poverty level, ensuring that financially vulnerable patients are protected from charges that they cannot afford. With such safeguards in place, these lawsuits only stand to benefit patients with higher incomes who elected not to secure healthcare coverage, thereby placing the well-off uninsured in a better position than those who obtain insurance without any of the burdens. In late 2018, an Idaho trial court granted summary judgment to Saint Alphonsus Medical Center, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege a justiciable controversy for declaratory relief because even if plaintiffs successfully obtained a declaration that the hospital may bill only a "reasonable value" of the hospital services provided, the suit would not determine what that "reasonable value" is or what plaintiffs should have been billed. Valencia and Williams v. Saint Alphonsus Medical Center – Nampa, Inc., Case No. CV-2017-6387-C. The Valencia court further held that hospital use of chargemasters is not inherently unconscionable because it is reasonable for a person to agree to pay a hospital's charges for treatment he or she has received. Likewise, it is fair for a hospital to accept an agreement to pay Chargemaster rates regardless of whether the patient has insurance or may ultimately be eligible for other payment adjustments. In a similar lawsuit in California that went all the way to trial, Kendall v. Scripps, Case No. 37-2013-00073680-CU-BT-CTL, a jury returned a verdict for the hospital, confirming that the hospital's standard condition of admission agreement was sufficient to alert patients to its charges, which are publicly available. Although they have been largely unsuccessful, lawsuits challenging hospital chargemasters continue. Were plaintiffs to be successful, it could cause serious disruption to hospital finance structures and contracting since reimbursement rates are often tied directly or indirectly to chargemaster rates, requiring that hospitals continue to meet chargemaster challenges head-on. [GN] SARDONIC SENTIMENTS: Laibe Seeks OT Pay for Hourly Assistants ------------------------------------------------------------- Margaux Ann Laibe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff. vs. Sardonic Sentiments, Inc. & Desiree Ontiveros, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02764 (E.D. La., March 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly assistant by Defendant. While working for the Defendant, the Plaintiff was not paid one-and-a-half times her regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the lawsuit says. The Defendant is in the business of installing balloon art for conventions and parties.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Ryan E. Beasley Sr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RYAN E. BEASLEY SR ., LLC 400 Poydras Street, Suite 900 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: 504 517-4290 Facsimile: 504 814-4291 E-mail: ryan@rbeasleylaw.com SCCG INC: Landaverde Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jovito Landaverde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. S.C.C.G., Inc., S.C.G.K., Inc., S.C.G.M, Inc. and Umer F. Khan, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00591 (S.D. Tex., February 20, 2019), seeks all available relief, including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Landaverde was employed by the Defendants from February 9, 2017 until February 18, 2019 as an hourly-paid construction worker and supervisor, supervising workers who were hanging sheetrock, painting, installing chairs and putting down plywood flooring. He claims to routinely work in excess of 40 hours per workweek but was denied overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Tel: (713) 868-3388 Fax: (713) 683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com SELECT SOURCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Yapura-Weiler Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- HELEN YAPURA-WEILER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT SOURCE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00011815-CL-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., March 4, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Yapura-Weiler was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid, non-exempt employee. Select Source International, Inc. offers consultation, implementation, and integration services. The company provides services to retail, engineering, finance, healthcare, government, utilities, and energy sectors. Select Source International, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sandeep J. Shah, Esq. SHAH SHETH LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 955-4551 Facsimile: (714) 966-0663 E-mail: sandeep@shahshethlaw.com - and - Gregory P. Wong, Esq. ADEPT EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1101 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 505-6283 Facsimile: (213) 947-4584 E-mail: greg@adeptemploymentlaw.com SERVICE KING: Underpays Service Advisors, Gutierrez et al. Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- HUGO GUTIERREZ; and HAGOP AJEMYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SERVICE KING PAINT & BODY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07427 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as service advisors. Service King Paint & Body, LLC provides auto paint and repair services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric A. Boyajian, Esq. Amaras Zargarian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ERIC A. BOYAJIAN, APC 9301 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 609 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (424) 330-2350 Facsimile: (424) 330-2351 ST. AUGUSTINE SCHOOL: Illegally Sent Faxed Ads to City Plating -------------------------------------------------------------- City Plating and Polishing, LLC, The Landskroner Law Firm, Ltd., Sherelynn Lehman and Lap Distributors, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. St. Augustine School of Medical Assistants, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00374, (N.D. Ohio, February 20, 2019) seeks actual and statutory damages, pre-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such further and other relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. St. Augustine operates an online medical assistant training program. In an attempt to generate sales leads and ultimately increase its revenues, it created a fax-based marketing campaign wherein it sends numerous unsolicited faxes advertising its products and services. Plaintiffs have no previous relationship with Defendant and Defendant never received the recipients' consent to receive such faxes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam T. Savett, Esq. SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC 2764 Carole Lane Allentown PA 18104 Telephone: (610) 621-4550 Facsimile: (610) 978-2970 Email: adam@savettlaw.com STANFORD PARK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Quintana Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCSICO QUINTANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STANFORD PARK HOTEL, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19CV001194 (Cal. Super., San Mateo Cty., March 5, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Quintana was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid, non-exempt employee. Stanford Park Hotel, LLC provides hospitality services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE,PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 - and - Heather Davis, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 STATE COLLECTION: Bahr Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- The case, Matthew Bahr, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. State Collection Service, Inc., the Defendant, and VoApps, Inc., the Third Party Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01284, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Mar 22, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01991 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Sara L. Ellis. State Collection provides collection services, such as third-party payer follow up, self-pay follow up, financial assistance, and bad debt collection.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Steven Howard Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC Building 15, Suite 120 3575 Piedmont Rd. Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: 404 513-6651 Facsimile: 404 549-4654 E-mail: shkoval@aol.com Attorneys for State Collection Service, Inc.: Jessica Klander, Esq. Patrick Daniel Newman, Esq. BASSFORD REMELE, PA 100 South 5th Street, Suite 1500 Fifth Street Towers Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707 Telephone: (612) 333-3000 E-mail: jklander@bassford.com pnewman@bassford.com - and - John Colquitt Rogers, Esq. CARLOCK COPELAND & STAIR, LLP – ATL 191 Peachtree St., NE,, Suite 3600 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 522-8220 Facsimile: (404) 222-9482 jrogers@carlockcopeland.com Attorneys for VoApps, Inc.: Stefanie H. Jackman, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR-ATL 999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000 Atlanta, GA 30309-3915 Telephone: (678) 420-9300 Facsimile: (678) 420-9301 E-mail: jackmans@ballardspahr.com SUNSHINE USA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Zhang FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Zhongliang Qiu and Meide Zhang filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Meide Zhang and Zhongliang Qiu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Liang Zhang and Ru Qiu Li as shareholders and corporate officers and Sunshine USA Inc. d/b/a Wu Liang Ye, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04013, 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 lawsuit seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unreimbursed business related out-of-pocket costs and expenses, unpaid spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, post-judgment interest and attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. The appellate case is captioned as Zhang v. Zhang, Case No. 19-683, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Meide Zhang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Zhongliang Qiu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David Yan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YAN 136-20 38th Avenue Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 888-7788 E-mail: davidyanlawoffice@gmail.com Defendants-Appellees Liang Zhang, As shareholder; Ru Qiu Li, As shareholder; and Sunshine USA Inc., DBA Wu Liang Ye, are represented by: Pedro Medina, Jr., Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF HUGH H. MO, P.C. 225 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 385-1500 E-mail: pemedina@netscape.net TABER COMPANY: Scoggins Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- L'RENZO VINCENTE SCOGGINS, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TABER COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV09661 (Cal. Super., March 22, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid wages and/or overtime, meal break premiums, rest break premiums, penalties for accurate itemized wage statements, wages upon termination or resignation, other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, on a regular and consistent basis, Plaintiff and the Proposed Class were not paid at the proper rate of compensation. As such, when Plaintiff and the Proposed Class worked overtime in the same pay period when they earned a bonus, they were not compensated at the appropriate overtime rate of pay under California law, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Darren M. Cohen, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com TDT CONSULTING: Christy Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- Tonie Christy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TDT Consulting, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00186 (W.D. Pa., July 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages for Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. TDT is a staffing company that provides oilfield workers to Energy Operators throughout the United States, including Pennsylvania and Ohio. TDT employed independent contractors, including Christy who worked as a "backyard hand." Christy claims he was paid a salary regardless of the number of hours he worked that day without any overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Tel: 412-766-1455 Fax: 412-766-0300 Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com TEXAS: Problems in Foster Care System Similar to Immigrant Housing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that an attorney's description on March 14 before a Fifth Circuit panel of the "grave problems" in Texas' dysfunctional foster care system -- including rampant sexual abuse, unsupervised children housed together, and medical records in disarray -- sounded eerily similar to recent reports of the state's temporary housing for immigrant children. Children of all ages are housed together, often without nighttime supervision, attorney Paul Yetter stressed during the March 14 oral arguments in the New Orleans-based federal appeals court. Yetter is lead counsel for the children named as plaintiffs in a class action. He said older children who are known sexual abusers are sometimes placed in a home with young children and left completely unsupervised, usually at night, and even when they are known offenders, their records are often not retrievable or shared because of the state's hopelessly inefficient records system, so no one realizes the danger posed by the situation. Proper foster care requires adequate resources and supervision, Yetter told the three-judge Fifth Circuit panel. "It's just that simple," he said. Yetter said two key elements to fixing the Texas foster system are "adequate resources and reliable information." But he said state lawyers from Attorney General Ken Paxton's office "seek to undermine the remedy" prescribed. The state foster system sees roughly 12,000 kids annually. Court documents say children leave Texas foster care with a five times greater risk of post-traumatic stress disorder than combat veterans. A scathing 260-page ruling in 2015 from U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack of the Southern District of Texas blasted the state for running an understaffed foster care system where "rape, abuse, psychotropic medication and instability are the norm," in violation of children's constitutional rights to due process. Jack's order noted that children who become permanent wards of the state "almost uniformly leave state custody more damaged than when they entered." Following that ruling, Jack appointed two special masters to the case. In late 2016, the special masters provided 56 recommendations to improve care provided by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, or DFPS, in its long-term foster care system. The Fifth Circuit heard arguments in Texas' appeal of Jack's order last May and issued a ruling in October upholding some but not all of Jack's order. Jack's order blasted the state for not tracking child-on-child sexual abuse and placing children in homes without 24-hour supervision. Much of the March 14 hearing focused on these two issues. The case is back in the Fifth Circuit after the state appealed the district court's modified injunction issued in November, which Paxton says reinstated provisions that the Fifth Circuit vacated. Yetter told the panel the "grave problems" created by lack of supervision of groups of six or more children is unique to Texas. He said homes oftentimes house seven to 12 children, with kids being unsupervised, particularly at night. "There is no other state in the nation that allows this without 24-hour supervision," Yetter said. Yetter said the state changed the name of the facilities that house multiple children without adequate supervision, as if calling the houses by another name changes the gravity of the situation. But Joseph "Jody" Hughes, assistant solicitor general under Paxton, told the panel judges "there is no reason for the district court to revisit [the issue of foster housing] whatsoever." As for creating an online application that would track the records of tens of thousands of children in one, easy-to-use system, Hughes said it just isn't feasible. Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham, a Ronald Reagan appointee, noted on March 14 that without having a streamlined online records system, kids easily fall through the cracks. Case workers, he said, cannot read a child's records or find out where that child is. In the court's 103-page ruling from October, Higginbotham recounted an experience of one plaintiff, referred to as S.A. in court records: "Four months into foster care, S.A. reported being sexually abused by an older child in her foster home. DFPS sent no agency staff to interview S.A., and there is no record that anyone from the agency followed up with the private company to which it had outsourced the investigation." After S.A. entered the state's long-term care, DFPS moved her to 33 different homes. She went to 16 schools and had 28 case workers. She missed at least two chances for adoption because her caseworkers did not update her records, Higginbotham wrote. S.A. aged out of foster care at 18 and could not remember all the places she had lived. "The five-year-old girl DFPS had taken under its protection left the state's care 13 years later psychologically scarred, deprived of capacities for citizenship and productive adult life. S.A.'s experience is typical for [permanent managing conservatorship] children," the October ruling states. During his arguments, Yetter noted that other states – for instance, Tennessee, New Jersey and Washington, D.C. – have the type of online records system the plaintiffs are asking Texas to implement, but during rebuttal Hughes said something of the sort could cost upwards of tens of millions of dollars and probably wouldn't be as efficient as it sounds. Paxton said in a statement after the hearing that he is confident the Fifth Circuit will side with the state. "In October, the 5th Circuit reversed several of the district court's liability rulings and held that the district court's sweeping permanent injunction far exceeded permissible limits. In modifying the injunction, the district court has again overreached," he said. "The improper provisions ordered by an unelected federal judge are not only impractical, they are actually harmful to foster care caseworkers and the children they care for each day." U.S. Circuit Judges Jerry E. Smith, another Reagan appointee, and Edith Brown Clement, a George W. Bush appointee, also sat on the panel. The judges did not indicate when or how they will rule. The district court's injunction has been stayed pending the Fifth Circuit decision. The conditions in the state foster care system described by Yetter called to mind reports of temporary housing in Texas for immigrant children separated from their adult relatives after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. TITAN CONSTRUCTION: Arana Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Jose Arana, Jose Bellow, John Ceballos, Salvador Colula, Hector Guifarro, and Edil Sarmiento, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Titan Construction Services LLC dba Titan Construction Services, El Castillo Contracting Corp., Juan A. Garcia and Amador Garcia, Case No. 1:19-cv-02113 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiffs, former scaffolding and general construction workers at Titan, regularly worked over forty hours per workweek but were paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked per week, including those over forty, says the complaint. In addition to denying the Plaintiffs overtime wages, the Defendants also failed to furnish the Plaintiffs with wage notices and with accurate wage statements at the end of every pay period. The Plaintiff Jose Arana worked at Titan as a scaffold and general construction worker for the first two weeks of June 2015 and worked for Titan again from the end of June 2015 through approximately December 2017. He worked for both Titan and El Castillo from approximately January 2018 to in or about June 2018. The Plaintiff Jose Bello worked at Titan as a scaffold and general construction worker from approximately October 2015 through December 2017. He worked for both Titan and El Castillo from approximately January 2018 to July 6, 2018. The Plaintiff John Ceballos worked at Titan as a scaffold and general construction worker from in or about April 2013 through approximately December 2017. He worked for both Titan and El Castillo from approximately January 2018 to June 19, 2018. The Plaintiff Salvador Colula worked as a scaffold and general construction worker from in or about July 2015 through approximately December 2017. He worked for both Titan and El Castillo from approximately January 2018 to June 30, 2018. The Plaintiff Hector Guifarro worked at Titan as a scaffold and general construction worker from May 10, 2015 to approximately December 2017. He worked for both Titan and El Castillo from approximately January 2018 to June 8, 2018. The Plaintiff Edil Sarmiento worked at Titan as a scaffold and general construction worker from in or about July 2015 to approximately December 2017. He worked for both Titan and El Castillo from approximately January 2018 to in or about June 2018. Titan provides waterproofing and restoration services for residences and commercial buildings. The Defendant is a foreign limited liability company organized under New Jersey law. Titan's principal place of business is 153 West 27th Street, Suite 402, New York, New York 10001. The Defendant El Castillo Contracting Corp. is a New York corporation. Although El Castillo is separately incorporated, the Individual Defendants, Juan A. Garcia and Amador Garcia, operated El Castillo as a single-integrated enterprise and joint employer with Titan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Lillian M. Marquez, Esq. Jaime Sanchez, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com marquez@pechmanlaw.com sanchez@pechmanlaw.com TOOTSIE ROLL: Must Face Junior Mints Slack-Fill Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge refused to dismiss a class action against Tootsie Roll over the 44 percent slack-fill that characterize its Junior Mints candy boxes, "a rather substantial amount by any measure." A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at: https://is.gd/rww3a4 TORO-AIRE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valdovinos Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- GUILLERMO VALDOVINOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORO-AIRE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV07381 (Cal. Super., Los Angles Cty., March 5, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Plaintiff Valdovinos was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee. Toro-Aire, Inc. provides HVAC products. The Company offers dampering devices, architectural grilles, air distribution, terminal units, fan coil and air handlers, ventilator, power and balance system, kitchen ventilation, commercial HVAC air filters, and volume control. Toro-Aire serves customers in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, 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: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com rglezakos@haineslawgroup.com TOWNSEND INDUSTRIES: Faces Gomez Labor Suit in Kern County ---------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Townsend Industries, Inc. The case is captioned as SARAH GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOWNSEND INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-100608 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., March 6, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Stephen D. Schuett. Townsend Industries Inc. was founded in 2011. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of surgical appliances and supplies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 TRIFECTA MANAGEMENT: Faces McCrumb Labor Suit in Kern County ------------------------------------------------------------ An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Trifecta Management Group, Inc. The case is captioned as DANNY MCCRUMB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIFECTA MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.; TRIFECTA BLVD I, INC.; and THE BLVD, LLC, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-100621 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., March 6, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Stephen D. Schuett. Trifecta Group LLC was founded in 2014. The company's line of business includes providing management consulting services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Davis, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (844) 294-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 TRISTATE LOGISTICS: Bryant Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Jayce Bryant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tristate Logistics of Arizona, LLC, Tristate Logistics of Nevada, LLC, Tristate Logistics, LLC, C&A Holdings, LLC, The Bon Air Trust, Carlos Jorge and Jane Doe Jorge, Case No. 2:19-cv-01552 (D. Ariz., March 7, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants unlawfully failed to pay overtime to its current and former couriers/warehouse workers. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a courier/warehouse worker from March 2016 through approximately July 2016. The Defendant Tristate Logistics own and operate as an enterprise doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona and Clark County Nevada. Tristate Logistics is an enterprise that functions as an auto parts courier and whose primary marketplace offering is Couriers/Warehouse Workers who provide auto parts delivery services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Tel: (480) 382-5176 Fax: (480) 304-3805 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com - and - Michael Zoldan, Esq. Jason Barrat, Esq. ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 133 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Tel: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: mzoldan@zoldangroup.com jbarrat@zoldangroup.com TRU-FLEX METAL: Ct. Junks Third-Party Claims in Adams Pointe Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, issued a Report and Recommendation granting Third-Party Defendant Ward Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned ADAMS POINTE I, L.P., ADAMS POINTE II, L.P., BAYBERRY NORTH ASSOCIATES L.P., AND; BETTERS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, L.P., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED; JBCO, ADAMS POINTE III, L.P., ADAMS POINTE NORTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, L.P., ADAMS POINTE MASTER ASSOCIATION, L.P., COULTER & GRAHAM, LLP., MICHAEL AND KATHLEEN BICHLER, JOHN EVANS, Plaintiffs, v. TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP., TRUFLEX, LLC, AND; AND PRO-FLEX LLC, Defendants, et al. No. 2:16-CV-00750-CB. (W.D. Pa.). Presently pending before the court is a motion by Third-Party Defendant Ward to dismiss the contribution claim against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs brought this class action against Tru-Flex and Pro-Flex for the allegedly negligent manufacture, design, and distribution of Pro-Flex(R) CSST, which was used as part of a natural gas delivery system in the Plaintiffs' properties. The Plaintiffs allege that despite internal industry recognition and concern that yellow-jacketed CSST products are prone to catastrophic failure when exposed to electrical energy, the Defendants continued the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of Pro-Flex(R) CSST through retail stores to do-it-yourself' consumers and untrained workers. The Third-Party Plaintiffs allege that because the Plaintiffs have alleged inherent, industry-wide defects in the characteristics of yellow-jacket CSST, that the Plaintiffs' allegations of defects, breaches and negligence related to the characteristics of yellow-jacket CSST would be equally applicable to Wardflex(R) and Third-Party Plaintiffs. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) A third-party defendant must assert any defense against the third-party plaintiff's claim under Rule 12 and may assert against the plaintiff any defense that the third-party plaintiff has to the plaintiff's claim. A motion to dismiss a third-party complaint is generally analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Ward moves to dismiss the contribution claim by arguing that the Third-Party Complaints are devoid of any facts showing that Ward is a joint tortfeasor. Specifically, Ward argues that the Third-Party Complaints do nothing more than allege that Wardflex(R) is present in the Adams Pointe buildings and it is not enough for Third-Party Plaintiffs to support its contribution claim simply by alleging its product's presence at Adams Pointe. The Third-Party Plaintiffs respond that because the Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the mere presence of Pro-Flex(R) in the Plaintiffs' properties caused the Plaintiffs' damages, and that because Wardflex(R) is also yellow-jacket CSST and was present at Adams Pointe, Ward must have contributed to the Plaintiffs' damages. Further, Third-Party Plaintiffs argue that because the Plaintiffs allege that all yellow-jacket CSST was defective, that Wardflex(R)'s presence in the Plaintiffs' properties caused the Plaintiffs' damages. A claim for contribution under Pennsylvania law is not a recovery for the tort, but rather it is the enforcement of an equitable duty to share liability for the wrong done by both. The burden of proving the joint causal negligence falls upon the party seeking contribution. The right of contribution is codified under Pennsylvania law and provides that it is only available among joint tortfeasors. While the Third-Party Complaints do not specifically name any tort that Ward allegedly committed, reading the Third-Party Complaints liberally, the torts alleged against Ward are for negligence and strict liability. To maintain a claim for negligence under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must demonstrate [1] that the defendant has a duty to conform to a certain standard of conduct [2] that the defendant breached that duty [3] that such breach caused the injury in question and [4] actual loss or damage. Here, assuming that the first and fourth elements have been met, there are no concrete facts showing that Ward breached any duty it owed to the Plaintiffs or that it caused the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries. The crux of Third-Party Plaintiffs' contribution claim against Ward is that because the Plaintiffs' complaint includes some facts alleging that the entire yellow-jacket CSST industry knew or should have known that yellow-jacket CSST was defective, and because Ward's yellow-jacket CSST product was found at the Adams Pointe properties, that Ward should share liability with Third-Party Plaintiffs for the Plaintiffs' damages. First, considering the allegations that Wardflex(R) was not bonded and improperly installed, there are no allegations that make it reasonable to infer that Ward was the entity who failed to bond or properly install its product, or that these alleged failures caused any damages to the Plaintiffs. The Third-Party Plaintiffs provide no facts alleging that the mere presence of Wardflex(R) in the Adams Pointe properties caused any injury to the Plaintiffs, or how Third-Party Plaintiffs could somehow be liable for any damages allegedly caused by Wardflex(R). The Third-Party Plaintiffs attempt to claim that the defects inherent in Pro-Flex(R) should be attributed or imputed to Wardflex(R) also fails, as the Third-Party Plaintiffs specifically state that the Pro-Flex(R) and Wardflex(R) products are unique with different specifications at 6, and such allegations are conclusory. Turning to whether the Third-Party Plaintiffs' claim for contribution is supported by a claim for strict liability, they must allege that Ward placed its product on the market in a defective conditions. This requires Third-Party Plaintiffs to prove (1) that the product was defective (2) that the defect was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries and (3) that the defect causing the injury existed at the time the product left the seller's hands. Again, the Third-Party Plaintiffs' entire theory for contribution is that because the Plaintiffs generally allege that the yellow-jacket CSST industry put a defective product on the market and because Wardflex(R) happens to be a yellow-jacket CSST product and present at the Adams Pointe properties that the Plaintiffs' damages must have been caused in part by Ward. These claims, while conceivable, do not include enough factual specificity that it would be reasonable to infer that Ward was involved in causing the Plaintiffs' damages. The Third-Party Plaintiffs have not nudged their contribution claim across the line to be considered plausible. While the court previously allowed defendants to conduct an inspection of the properties in order to gain more facts into the role, if any, Ward played in causing the Plaintiffs' damages, and allowed Third-Party Plaintiffs to amend their Third-Party Complaints in order to buttress any contribution claim against Ward, they have not met their burden of showing that it is plausible that Ward contributed to Plaintiffs' damages. The Third-Party Complaints offer only a sheer possibility that Ward acted unlawfully, which is not enough to survive a motion to dismiss. Because the Third-Party Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded that Ward has committed a tort, Ward cannot be a joint tortfeasor for contribution and the claim must be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Magistrate recommended that the Third-Party Plaintiffs' claim for contribution asserted against Ward be dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Report and Recommendation is available at http://tinyurl.com/y5vys6llfrom Leagle.com. ADAMS POINTE I, L.P., ADAMS POINTE II, L.P., BAYBERRY NORTH ASSOCIATES L.P., BETTERS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, L.P., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, JBCO, ADAMS POINTE III, L.P., ADAMS POINTE NORTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, L.P., ADAMS POINTE MASTER ASSOCIATION, L.P., COULTER & GRAHAM, LLP., MICHAEL AND KATHLEEN BICHLER & JOHN EVANS, Plaintiffs, represented by D. Aaron Rihn, Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C., N. Scott Carpenter, Carpenter & Schumacher PC, pro hac vice & Rebecca E. Bell-Stanton, Carpenter & Schumacher PC, pro hac vice. TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP. & TRU-FLEX, LLC, Defendants, represented by Ashley N. Rodgers -- arodgers@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Daniel R. Bentz -- dbentz@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly & Thomas Pie, Jr. -- TPie@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. PRO-FLEX LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Offenbach, Leahy, Eisenberg & Fraenkel, Ltd., pro hac vice, Thomas A. Gamache, Leahy, Eisenberg & Fraenkel, Ltd., pro hac vice & Pamela V. Collis, Walsh, Barnes, Collis, Gill & Zumpella, P.C. UNITED STATES: Veterans' Dental Care Suit Set for Trial This Year ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that a federal class-action lawsuit, filed by six veterans who said they feared exposure to deadly diseases from dental care at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Tomah, is scheduled for trial later this year, though a judge has not yet ruled on whether to certify it as a class action. The six say in their lawsuit that they suffered emotional distress after learning that a dentist at the VA in Tomah had used improperly sterilized dental instruments that could have spread blood-borne infections including HIV and hepatitis. After tests on the nearly 600 vets who received care from the dentist, none was found to have been infected, after some waited for up to six months for results. The lawsuit against the U.S. government, which seeks compensation for emotional distress, is scheduled for a trial in October. The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 1, 2017, by the six veterans on behalf of a proposed class of 592 vets. The group had all received letters informing them of possible exposure to the diseases as a result of dental work done for them at the VA by Dr. Thomas Schiller. A September 2017 report by the VA Office of the Inspector General found that there were lapses in hygiene by Schiller that could have exposed the veterans to infectious disease. The lawsuit alleged that Schiller's hygiene practices were known to a number of Tomah VA employees, but no action was taken for close to a year. On Sept. 25, 2018, U.S. District Judge William Conley denied a motion by the government to dismiss the lawsuit. The government, represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Madison, argued that the vets had failed to allege sufficient facts to find there was actual exposure to contamination. Conley ruled that was not necessary. "While the defendant argues that plaintiffs lacked reasonable grounds for emotional distress because the letter they received informed them that the risk of infection was low, there is no evidence that the letter was correct in this assertion," Conley wrote, "and it may be that exposure to a low risk of a deadly infection provides reasonable grounds for emotional distress, at least where the exposure is to a large enough population." It may also be too much to expect patients to set aside their fears "based on the assurances of a medical facility that admittedly did not adhere to basic professional standards during their treatment." Conley also ruled out dismissal for an insufficient showing of severe emotional distress or a failure to exhaust other legal options short of a lawsuit. When it formally answered the lawsuit in October, the government admitted that when Schiller was confronted about his practices, he admitted to using unsterilized dental burs that had been instead cleaned with a disinfectant, believing it was common practice in the private sector. But the government denied that the VA had failed patients by failing to adequately train Schiller in the proper use of dental equipment and in proper infection control. The government asserted instead that Schiller "exercised a degree of care toward plaintiffs that was reasonable under the circumstances" and that the VA "exercised a degree of care in supervising, training and retaining Dr. Schiller that was reasonable under the circumstances." In a letter written in January 2017 to the Office of the Inspector General, Schiller's lawyer, Dawn Marie Harris, blamed a "toxic work environment" at the Tomah VA for Schiller's inability "to have the energy to initiate independent research after the busy day" into policies concerning supplies or sanitizing practices. She wrote he wasn't given the Tomah VA's written standard operating procedures. "He is not an evil person who should be tarred, feathered and prevented from ever practicing dentistry again," Harris wrote. "He is an individual who believed he was providing greater service to veterans through the use of better equipment that was disclosed to and approved by management." Lawyers for the veterans have also sought to take deposition testimony from Dr. Frank Marcantonio, who was chief of dental services while Schiller worked at the Tomah VA. But in September, Marcantonio declined, invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker in November allowed Marcantonio to file a written explanation for his refusal to testify, which only a judge can read. There has been no ruling yet on whether Marcantonio will be compelled to testify. [GN] UQM TECH: Carter Seeks to Halt Danfoss Merger Deal -------------------------------------------------- Dale Carter on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UQM Technologies, Inc. Donald W. Vanlandingham, Joe Mitchell, Stephen J. Roy, Joseph P. Sellinger and John E. Sztykiel, Case No. :19-cv-00502 (D. Colo., February 20, 2019) seeks (i) to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of UQM Technologies by Danfoss A/S, including Danfoss Power Solutions and Danfoss-2019 Merger Sub, Inc., (ii) rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger, (iii) rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees, and (iv) such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, UQM will become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Danfoss, and Danfoss stockholders will receive $1.71 in cash for each share of UQM common stock they own. UQM develops, manufactures, and sells electric motors, generators, power electronic controllers and fuel cell compressors in the United states and internationally. The complaint asserts that the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection with the transaction omitted the sales process and in particular certain conflicts of interest for management, the financial projections for UQM disclosed to its financial advisor, Duff & Phelps, LLC for use in its financial analyses, and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinions provided by Duff & Phelps. The Plaintiff also contests the "no solicitation" provision that prevents the UQM from negotiating with or providing confidential information to competing bidders and "matching rights" provision that allows matching any competing proposal and up to $3,500,000 in termination fees and expenses if the UQM board agrees to a competing proposal. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (610) 667-6200 Facsimile: (610) 667-9029 Email: mackerman@brodskysmith.com UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Carter Suit Over Danfoss Merger ------------------------------------------------------- UQM Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been named as a defendant in a class action suit entitled, Carter v. UQM Technologies, Inc., et. al. On January 21, 2019, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Danfoss Power Solutions (US) Company, a Delaware corporation ("Danfoss"), and Danfoss-2019 Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Danfoss (the "Merger Sub"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), as a result of which the Company will continue as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Danfoss. On February 20, 2019, a putative shareholder class action complaint captioned Carter v. UQM Technologies, Inc., et. al., (the "Carter Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and the members of its board of directors. The Carter Complaint alleges that the Company directors breached their fiduciary duties and the Company aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation and approval of the Merger Agreement by failing to maximize shareholder value, and it brings claims under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), based on alleged failure to disclose material information in the February 22, 2019 preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14(A) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Carter Complaint seeks to enjoin the Company and the directors and Company from proceeding with the stockholders meeting to vote on the Merger proposal and to otherwise enjoin the directors from consummating the Merger, an accounting by the defendants for alleged damages sustained as a result of the alleged failure to meet their fiduciary duties, and plaintiff's costs and attorneys' and experts' fees. UQM Technologies, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, and sells electric motors, generators, power electronic controllers, and fuel cell compressors in the United states and internationally. UQM Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Longmont, Colorado. UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Franchi Suit Over Danfoss Merger -------------------------------------------------------- UQM Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been named as a defendant in a shareholder class action suit entitled, Franchi v. UQM Technologies, Inc., et al. On January 21, 2019, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Danfoss Power Solutions (US) Company, a Delaware corporation ("Danfoss"), and Danfoss-2019 Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Danfoss (the "Merger Sub"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), as a result of which the Company will continue as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Danfoss. On February 22, 2019, a putative shareholder class action complaint captioned Franchi v. UQM Technologies, Inc., et al., (the "Franchi Complaint") was filed in state District court in Weld County, Colorado against the Company and the members of its board of directors. The Franchi Complaint asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty by the directors; (ii) indemnification by the Company to the plaintiff class; (iii) an injunction against the proposed merger; (iv) breach of fiduciary duty as a derivative action; and (v) waste of corporate assets against the individual directors on behalf of the Company. The Franchi Complaint seeks, among other things, certification of a plaintiff class, injunctive relief ordering the directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties to the Company and class, an accounting by the defendants for alleged damages sustained as a result of the alleged failure to meet their fiduciary duties, and plaintiff's costs and attorneys' and experts' fees. The Defendants accepted service of the Franchi Complaint on February 26, 2019. UQM Technologies, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, and sells electric motors, generators, power electronic controllers, and fuel cell compressors in the United states and internationally. UQM Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Longmont, Colorado. USHEALTH GROUP: Jacobi Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Jacobi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. USHealth Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-20653 (S.D. Fla., February 20, 2019), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff claims that she received automated telemarketing calls from USHealth without his prior express written consent. USHealth is a national health insurance distribution company, which sells individual health coverage and supplementary insurance products to America's self-employed, small business and individual insurance market. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com WAL-MART STORES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Mays Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Lerna Mays filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Lerna Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-02318-AB-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 7, 2019, the Hon. Judge Hon. Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiff's motion to certify Final Wage Statement Subclass; 2. directing parties to meet and confer and submit a joint proposed class notice within 14 days of the date of the Order, along with a proposed order approving the notice 3. certifying a Wage Statement Class of: "all Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. California workers who received one or more wage payments during the period from Friday, December 16, 2016 to January 31, 2018. 4. appointing Lerna Mays as Class Representative; and 5. appointing Harris & Ruble as Class Counsel. The Court said, "Plaintiff's claim is atypical because she is not a member of the Final Wage Statement Subclass. Here, Walmart terminated her employment on February 10, 2017 and the class period is from January 10, 2018 to the current date. This means that Plaintiff did not receive a final wage statement within the entire period of the subclass. The Plaintiff also does not satisfy Rule 23's adequacy requirement. A named plaintiff must be a member of the class she seeks to represent and Plaintiff does not qualify. The Plaintiff acknowledges the problem this poses for her representation of the subclass. The Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the subclass because Plaintiff suffered the same type of violation, but at a different time, or, if the Court takes issue with her representation of the Final Wage Statement Subclass, the Court give her the opportunity to locate another class representative for the subclass. The Court finds that the Final Wage Statement Subclass should not be certified because Lerna Mays, the named Plaintiff, is not a member of the Final Wage Statement Subclass. The Court will not allow Plaintiff's counsel to substitute another class representative in place of Mays at this stage. The Court is also troubled by the fact that Plaintiff's class definition is identical to the class definition in Magadia." The appellate case is captioned as Lerna Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 19-55318, 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 19, 2019; -- Transcript is due on May 20, 2019; -- Appellant Lerna Mays' opening brief is due on June 28, 2019; -- Appellee Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s answering brief is due on July 29, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LERNA MAYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Dale Alan Harris, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 4771 Cromwell Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com Defendant-Appellee WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Susan Eileen Coleman, Esq. Cheryl Johnson-Hartwell, Esq. Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Esq. Paloma Peracchio, Esq. BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 236-0600 E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com cjohnson-hartwell@bwslaw.com mwrosch@bwslaw.com pperacchio@bwslaw.com WALMART INC: Awaits Court OK on Settlement in City of Pontiac Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is awaiting the court's decision on the settlement in City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit in which the complaint closely tracks the allegations set forth in a news story that appeared in The New York Times (the "Times") on April 21, 2012. This is a securities lawsuit, City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., USDC, Western Dist. of AR, that was filed on May 7, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, and subsequently transferred to the Western District of Arkansas, in which the plaintiff alleges various violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA") beginning in 2005, and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or acquired stock of the Company between December 8, 2011, and April 20, 2012, and has sought damages and other relief based on allegations that the defendants' conduct affected the value of such stock. On September 20, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. On October 6, 2016, the defendants filed a petition to appeal the class certification ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On November 7, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied the Company's petition. On October 26, 2018, the parties filed a motion asking the court to approve a proposed settlement under which the Company would pay $160 million (the "Settlement Amount") to resolve the claims of all class members. On December 6, 2018, the court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled the final approval hearing for April 4, 2019. Walmart said, "The settlement does not include or constitute an admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing by the Company or any defendant. The Settlement Amount was expensed in the Company's fiscal 2019 financial statements." Walmart Inc. engages in the retail and wholesale operations in various formats worldwide. The company operates through three segments: Walmart U.S., Walmart International, and Sam's Club. It operates supercenters, supermarkets, hypermarkets, warehouse clubs, cash and carry stores, discount stores, drugstores, and convenience stores; membership-only warehouse clubs; e-commerce Websites, such as walmart.com, jet.com, shoes.com, and samsclub.com; and mobile commerce applications. The company was formerly known as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and changed its name to Walmart Inc. in February 2018. Walmart Inc. was founded in 1945 and is based in Bentonville, Arkansas. WITTMAN ENTERPRISES: Faces Clark Labor Suit in Sacramento --------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Wittman Enterprises LLC. The case is captioned as NAKITA CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WITTMAN ENTERPRISES LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00251989-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 6, 2019). Wittman Enterprises is an Emergency Medical Services billing specialist, providing products and services specifically designed to ensure that providers are reimbursed timely for the services they provide. The Company collects legal reimbursement available for our clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE,PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Property Owners File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims that Wyndham Worldwide Corp. charges property owners unlawfully every month, refuses to provide an accounting, and threatens them "with ruination of their credit rating if they try" to withdraw from club membership. A copy of the Complaint is available at: https://is.gd/JSy7AH YOGAWORKS INC: Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT to Lead Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ YogaWorks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the federal court actions have been consolidated and Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT's have been appointed as Lead Plaintiff. Four substantially similar putative class action complaints were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, captioned Salazar v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed November 26, 2018); Johnson v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed December 19, 2018); Lowinger v. YogaWorks, Inc. et al. (filed December 21, 2018); and Mirza v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed January 17, 2019). Additionally, two putative class action complaints, substantially similar to the state court securities actions, captioned Cohen v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed December 27, 2018) and Dellinger v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed February 8, 2019) were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Central California. These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of YogaWorks alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged misstatements and omissions in offering documents related to YogaWorks initial public offering (IPO) that took place on August 11, 2017. The lawsuits name as defendants YogaWorks, certain of its current and former officers and directors, YogaWorks majority shareholder, and certain underwriters of YogaWorks IPO. Pending further order of the courts, no response is currently due for any of the State Court Actions. On March 21, 2019, the Federal Court Actions were consolidated, and Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT's were appointed as Lead Plaintiff. YogaWorks said, "The outcomes of the legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to YogaWorks' financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows for a particular period. YogaWorks intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted against it." YogaWorks, Inc. operates yoga studios under the YogaWorks and Yoga Tree brand names in the United States. It primarily provides yoga classes, workshops, teacher training programs, and yoga-related retail merchandise. The company offers online yoga instruction and programming services through its MyYogaWorks Web platform. The company was formerly known as YWX Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to YogaWorks, Inc. in April 2017. YogaWorks, Inc. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Culver City, California. YOGAWORKS INC: Settlement Reached in Cal. Instructors' Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- YogaWorks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has agreed to a class wide settlement in the class action suit initiated by a former California employee. On July 2, 2018, a former California employee ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against the company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (the "Complaint"). Plaintiff's Complaint was filed pursuant to the California Labor Code purportedly on behalf of all Pilates instructors, yoga instructors and other employees who worked for the company in California on a piece-rate basis within the four years preceding the date of the Complaint. The Complaint alleged that certain of the company's payroll-related practices with respect to California-based employees paid on a piece-rate did not comply with the California Labor Code. On March 21, 2019, the company agreed to a class wide settlement for a maximum amount of $1.0 million, which would include settlement of all penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 and California Labor Code, attorneys' fees and costs, class representative enhancements and claims administration fees. YogaWorks said, "As of December 31, 2018, we have reserved for the entire amount under accrued expenses." YogaWorks, Inc. operates yoga studios under the YogaWorks and Yoga Tree brand names in the United States. It primarily provides yoga classes, workshops, teacher training programs, and yoga-related retail merchandise. The company offers online yoga instruction and programming services through its MyYogaWorks Web platform. The company was formerly known as YWX Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to YogaWorks, Inc. in April 2017. YogaWorks, Inc. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Culver City, California. ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Kruk Fraud Suit Transferred to N.J. Dist. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Robert Kruk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Prinston Pharmaceutical, Inc., Solco Healthcare U.S., LLC, Huahai US, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2018-cv-5944 (N.D. Ill., August 29, 2018), was transferred to the US District Court for the District of New Jersey on February 20, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-06211. Kruk seeks actual damages, in addition to reasonable attorney's fees and costs and all such further and other relief resulting from unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, fraud, gross negligence, breach of implied and express warranty of merchantability and in violation of New York's General Business Law. Valsartan tablets is a generic hypertension and heart failure oral medication. US Food and Drug Administration announced that several distributors of Valsartan recalled the product due to N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which is classified as a probable human carcinogen. Nelson alleges that some of the valsartan manufactured by Teva, Teva USA, Major, ZHP and Huahai and sold by Rite Aid contains said carcinogen. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John Sawin, Esq. SAWIN LAW FIRM, LTD. 55 West Wacker Dr., Ste. 900 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 853-2490 Email: jsawin@sawinlawyers.com - and - Scott Anthony Morgan, Esq. MORGAN LAW FIRM, LTD. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Tel. (312) 327-3386 Fax. (888) 396-2478 Email: smorgan@smorgan-law.com [*] Australian Law Reform Commission Releases Class Action Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Emmerig, Esq. -- jemmerig@jonesday.com -- and Michael Legg, Esq. -- mlegg@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, in an article for JDSupra, disclosed that the Australian Law Reform Commission released its Class Action and Litigation Funding Report. The report recommends: -- A further inquiry aimed at the substantive law employed in shareholder class actions. -- Legalization of contingency fees for lawyers in class actions, but subject to court approval and supervision. -- Greater powers for the supervision of litigation funding be given to the Federal Court, including being able to reject, vary, or amend the terms of litigation funding agreements. -- Greater powers for resolving competing class actions be given to the Federal Court and a single class action should be the preferred approach. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***