/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190503.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 3, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 89 Headlines AETNA INC: HIV Privacy Class Action Transferred to California AKARI THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Funds Distributed in NY Class Suit ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Appeal in Data Breach Suit Still Pending ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed AMERICAN EXPRESS: Individual Merchants' Antitrust Suits Dismissed ANTHEM INC: Still Defends Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit Pending AT&T INC: May 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ATBCOIN LLC: Must Face Securities Class Action Over ICO BANK OF AMERICA: Padua Appeals Ruling in Degamo Suit to 9th Cir. BLUESTEM BRANDS: Williams TCPA Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES: Cook Hits Unremitted Insurance Premiums BOSE CORP: Judge Rejects Wiretapping Law Violation Claims BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT: Court Issues Reply to Writ of Mandamus Bid CALLFIRE INC: Faces Wigod Suit over Unsolicited Text Messages CARIBBEAN SUPERCENTER: Cespedes Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA CENTENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Sanchez Suit Still Pending CENTENE CORP: Class Certification Discovery Ongoing CJS SOLUTIONS: Gray FLSA Suit Transferred to Minnesota Dist. Ct. CONDUENT INC: Employees' Fund Hits Share Drop Over Vendor Lapse CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Brunett Seeks to Certify Class CREDIT CONTROL: Jones Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class DAVITA INC: Judge Allows Shareholder Class Action to Proceed DBI SERVICES: Dozier Seeks to Certify Collective Action DIRECTV INC: Appeal from Arbitration Rulings in Imburgia Dismissed DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Brown Suit Class Cert. Ruling to 9th Cir. ENVIROPLUS INC: Court Okays Notice to Class EQUIFAX INC: Investor Seeks Data Breach Class Action Status ESKOM: De Beer Attorneys Prepare to File Class Action EXXONMOBIL CORP.: Court Denies Certification of 4 Subclasses FASHION NOVA: Garcia Brings Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages FEDEX GROUND: Corley Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Converters FLINT, MI: Rick Snyder Reinstated as Water Class Action Defendant FLOWERS BAKING: Button Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses G6 HOSPITALITY: Court Grants Bid to Remand Cummings Labor Suit G6 HOSPITALITY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Cummings Suit GANNETT CO: Hall Sues to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages GENERAL CREDIT: Preliminary Writ of Prohibition Made Permanent GOOGLE INC: Cy Pres Class Settlement Favors Class Action Lawyers GOOGLE INC: Dechert Attorneys Discuss Cy Pres Settlement Ruling GRIDSUM HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NY Class Suit Underway GRIDSUM HOLDING: Gordon Class Action Stayed H&M SNOW PROS: Williams Seeks Overtime Premium Pay INGRAM DISTRIBUTION: Perryman Seeks to Certify FLSA Class JAND INC: Denied Full Amount of Regular and OT Wages, Clark Says JET MOUNTAIN: Huanca Action to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Panther Partners' Class Action Ongoing JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Over Benacol Spread Labels Okayed KIMBERLY-CLARK: Choi Files Action Over Defective Tampon Products KIND LLC: Proskauer Rose Discusses Lift Stay in "All Natural" Suit LEGACY LAND: Cozort Sues Over Unremitted Insurance Premiums LEGACY MEASUREMENT: Florence Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation LSB INDUSTRIES: June 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set LYFT: Faces Class Action in California Over ADA Violation MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice MDL 2492: Ashley Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Atkins Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Carney Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Garay Suit Consolidated with Concussion Suit MDL 2492: Jefferson Suit Consolidated with Concussion Suit MDL 2492: Kloes Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Phipps Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Rodgers Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Schultz Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Solomom-Jett Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2672: 15 Cases in Clean Diesel Suit Remanded to State Court MDL 2672: Bid to Remand 10 Cases to State Court Granted MDL 2741: Bruinsma Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation MDL 2886: Smith Suit Consolidated in Allura Fiber Litigation MERCK & CO: Kaye Appeals Conn. Dist. Ct. Decision to 2nd Circuit MERCK & CO: Sued by Taff Over Injuries From ZOSTAVAX Vaccine MIDLAND CREDIT: Demarco FDCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York MILLER & STARK: Holmes Seeks to Certify Class MILLERCOORS LLC: Cardiel Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. MONSANTO COMPANY: Webb Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Wheelers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MPA GRANADA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Schonton Suit MUELLER WATER: Faces Chapman Suit Over Undisclosed Warranty Costs MYLAN: Must Face Class Action Over EpiPen, Judge Rules NCAA: Banks Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety NEA-ALASKA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Crockett Class Suit NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Final Settlement Hearing in Knurr Suit on June 7 NUTANIX INC: May 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set NXIVM: Class Action Plaintiffs' Lawyer Provides Update OHIO MULCH: Wolfe, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class ONONDAGA COUNTY: Class Action Certification Sought OXNARD SCHOOL: M.B. Seeks to Certify Class of Students PENGUIN NATURAL: Gallardo Hits Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime PROGRESSIVE MAINTENANCE: Superintendents Seek Overtime Pay RAY AND FRANK: Former Workers Seek Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Battistini Action Alleges TCPA Violation RED HAT: Class Suits Related to IBM Merger Dismissed RESURGENT CAPITAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed SANTEE COOPER: Failed to Disclose Project Status, Turka Says SNAP INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Initial Public Offering SOUTH CAROLINA: Child Welfare System Struggles to Meet Goals SOUTHLAND ROYALTY: Court Denies Bids to Exclude Expert Testimonies STEINHOFF INTERNATIONAL: VEB Temporarily Suspends Class Action STORED VALUE: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Humphrey EFTA Suit SUNOCO: 3 Chester County Residents Settle Class Action T ROWE PRICE: 401(k) Plan Related Suit Still Ongoing TEXARKANA BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES: Faces Vannucci et al. Labor Suit TRIGREEN EQUIPMENT: Doherty Files Class Action Under FACTA TULSA INSPECTION: Flynn Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Damages UNION LOCAL 237: Wynn Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Circuit VIP KITCHEN: Zhang Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Premium Pay WESTPAC: Court Rebukes Hasty Commencement of Class Action XPO LOGISTICS: Robbins Geller to Lead in Labul Suit ZAPPOS: Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Data Breach Case Nixed ZESTFINANCE INC: Sued Over Excessive Pay Day Loan Interest Rate Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Still Pending at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Williams Industrial Unit Defends PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fox Rothschild Discusses DeVries Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Genesis Has $9MM Asset Retirement Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Faces 29 PI Suits at Jan. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gorman-Rupp Says Suits Don't Have Material Impact ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grandma Lost 7 Relatives to Asbestos Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.5-Bil. Liabilities at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $897MM NARCO Liabilities at Mar. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Tosses Claims Citing Del. Contractor Law ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds Mum-of-Four Dies of Asbestos Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Faces PL Suits at Dec. 31, 2018 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Had $188.3MM Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 62,522 PI Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Asbestos Claim Reform Bill Moving Forward ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 86 Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 460 Open Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has At Most 500 Cases in US, 50 in Europe ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.2-Bil. Net Reserves at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Trustee Objects to FCR Appointment ********* AETNA INC: HIV Privacy Class Action Transferred to California ------------------------------------------------------------- Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the lawsuit Aetna brought against a law firm and a pro-consumer interest group over a privacy gaffe that resulted in a $17 million payout by the insurance giant has been transferred from Philadelphia to Los Angeles federal court. Last year Aetna sued plaintiffs firm Whatley Kallas and the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania over their alleged role in a blunder that resulted in thousands of HIV patients having their names and conditions visible through clear windows in envelopes that had been sent through the mail. However, on March 29, U.S. District Judge Juan Sanchez determined that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania did not have jurisdiction over the claims, and ordered that the case, Aetna v. Whatley Kallas, be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District Of California. As part of its effort to establish specific jurisdiction in the Keystone State, the insurance giant had noted that the defendants previously filed a nationwide class action suit and sought the participation of Pennsylvania citizens in that action. But Sanchez said adopting that argument would go against the due process clause. “Aetna’s theory of jurisdiction would effectively establish per se specific jurisdiction over putative class counsel in all 50 states once a putative class action is filed," Sanchez said in the 16-page ruling. “Such a holding runs contrary to the notion of personal jurisdiction as a limit pursuant to the due process clause, and would wholly subvert the purposeful availment prong of the specific jurisdiction analysis." Moving the federal litigation to Los Angeles now brings the case geographically closer to similar claims that Aetna brought in California state court last year. That litigation is currently pending in the California Court of Appeal after it was dismissed in August. The federal dispute stems from an underlying lawsuit in which the insurance giant was sued in federal court in Philadelphia after it mailed notifications to patients about how to fill their HIV drug prescriptions. The notifications, however, clearly identified the HIV patients in the envelope windows. After that matter settled, Aetna was hit with another suit for exposing patients’ confidential information a second time when settlement notifications were again sent out to potential class members in envelopes with transparent windows. After Aetna agreed in January 2018 to settle those claims for more than $17 million, the carrier sued Whatley Kallas and Consumer Watchdog, which had represented the class members, alleging they were responsible for sending out the mailings that led to the second breach. Aetna’s complaint consists of four counts: implied indemnity, equitable indemnity/comparative negligence, the right of contribution, and declaratory relief. The parties conceded that Pennsylvania did not have general jurisdiction, since Aetna is based in Connecticut, Whatley Kallas is based in Colorado and Consumer Watchdog is based in California, so Sanchez looked to the conduct that led to Aetna’s current lawsuit to determine whether specific jurisdiction applied. According to Sanchez, all of those activities, including reviewing, revising and discussing the notices, all occurred in California. “None of these activities brought Whatley or Watchdog into direct, purposeful contact with Pennsylvania," Sanchez said. “On the contrary, Whatley and Watchdog’s conduct was directed towards overseeing the settlement administration process occurring in California." Margolis Edelstein attorney James Kahn, who is representing Watchdog, said the organization was pleased with the ruling. “[We] believe it was the correct one," he said. “California is where these events occurred, as Judge Sanchez recognized." Neither Thompson Coburn attorney David Duffy -- dduffy@thompsoncoburn.com -- who represented Whatley, nor Manatt, Phelps & Phillips attorney Brandon Reilly -- breilly@manatt.com -- who represented Aetna, returned a call for comment on April 1. [GN] AKARI THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Funds Distributed in NY Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Akari Therapeutics, Plc said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has granted plaintiffs' motion distribute settlement funds to the class in the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re: Akari Therapeutics, PLC Securities Litigation (Case 1:17-cv-03577) On May 12, 2017, a putative securities class action captioned Derek Da Ponte v. Akari Therapeutics, PLC, Gur Roshwalb, and Dov Elefant (Case 1:17-cv-03577) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, a former Chief Executive Officer and the company's Chief Financial Officer. The plaintiff asserted claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, based primarily on the company's press releases or statements issued between April 24, 2017 and May 11, 2017 concerning the Phase II PNH trial of Nomacopan (Coversin) and the Edison Report about the company and actions taken by it after the report was issued. The purported class covers the period from March 30, 2017 to May 11, 2017. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and costs and fees. On May 19, 2017, an almost identical class action complaint captioned Shamoon v. Akari Therapeutics, PLC, Gur Roshwalb, and Dov Elefant (Case 1:17-cv-03783) was filed in the same court. On July 11-12, 2017, candidates to be lead plaintiff filed motions to consolidate the cases and appoint a lead plaintiff. On August 10, 2017, the court issued a stipulated order: (i) consolidating the class actions under the caption In re: Akari Therapeutics, PLC Securities Litigation (Case 1:17-cv-03577); and (ii) setting out schedule for plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint and defendants to respond thereto. By order dated September 7, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for the class and lead plaintiffs' counsel. On November 6, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, or the CAC. While the CAC contains similar substantive allegations to the initial complaints, it adds two additional defendants, Ray Prudo and Edison Investment Research Ltd., and the purported class period was changed to April 24, 2017 through May 30, 2017. On January 10, 2018, at a hearing regarding the defendants' impending motions to dismiss the CAC, the Court gave plaintiffs permission to file a second consolidated amended complaint, or the SCAC and established a briefing schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss the SCAC. Pursuant to that schedule, plaintiffs' SCAC was filed on January 31, 2018. All briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on April 20, 2018. On June 8, 2018, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle plaintiffs' claims for a total payment of $2.7 million in cash and on July 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice with the Court voluntarily dismissing Edison from the action. On August 3, 2018, the remaining parties executed and filed a stipulation and agreement of settlement (the terms of which were consistent with the memorandum of understanding). On August 7, 2018, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, and on November 28, 2018, following a hearing with the parties, the court ordered final approval of the settlement. Plaintiffs subsequently moved to distribute the settlement funds to the class, and the Court granted plaintiffs' motion on February 4, 2019. Akari Therapeutics said, "We recorded the $2.7 million SCAC litigation settlement loss in the consolidated statement of comprehensive loss in the year ended December 31, 2018, which is the period in which the lawsuits were originally filed. The $2.7 million SCAC settlement liability was recorded as a loss contingency in accrued expenses in our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2018. On August 24, 2018, we received a $2.7 million payment from our directors' and officers' liability insurance provider, the sum of which was paid to an escrow account for the benefit of the settlement class on August 27, 2018. This was recorded as a gain in the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss during the third quarter of 2018." Akari Therapeutics, Plc, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of treatments for a range of rare and orphan autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. The company is based in New York, New York. Akari Therapeutics, Plc is a subsidiary of RPC Pharma Limited. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Appeal in Data Breach Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Albertsons Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the fiscal year ended February 23, 2019, that the appeal from the court's dismissal of one of the lawsuits over data security breach remains pending. In 2014, the Company was the subject of criminal intrusions by the installation of malware on a portion of its computer network that processes payment card transactions for approximately 800 of its stores through its then service provider SuperValu. The Company believes these were attempts to collect payment card data. The forensic investigation into the intrusions indicated that although the Company was then compliant with the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standards issued by the PCI Council, it was not compliant with all of these standards at the time of the intrusions. As a result, the Company was assessed by certain card companies for incremental counterfeit fraud losses, non-ordinary course expenses (such as card reissuance costs) and case management costs. The Company has paid or recorded an estimated liability for all of such assessments, and is seeking recovery from MasterCard of its assessment. As a result of the intrusion, two class action complaints were filed against the Company by consumers. These complaints have been dismissed, although the appeal of the dismissal of one case remains pending. In 2015, the Company also received a letter from the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania stating that the Illinois and Pennsylvania Attorneys General Offices were leading a multi-state group requesting specified information concerning the two data breach incidents. The Company has cooperated with the investigation. The multi-state group did not make a monetary demand, and the Company is unable to estimate the possibility or range of loss, if any. Albertsons Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a food and drug retailer in the United States. Its food and drug retail stores offer grocery products, general merchandise, health and beauty care products, pharmacy, fuel, and other items and services. The company is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. Albertsons Companies, Inc. is a subsidiary of Albertsons Investor Holdings LLC. ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned RAFAEL CAJIGAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE COLLECTION AGENCIES INC., the Defendant, Case No. e 2:19-cv-00485 (E.D. Wisc., Filed April 3, 2019), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. 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 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Individual Merchants' Antitrust Suits Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the individual merchant cases in In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), have been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation between the parties. Individual merchant cases and a putative merchant class action, which were consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II) in the Eastern District of New York, alleged that provisions in our merchant agreements prohibiting merchants from differentially surcharging our cards or steering a customer to use another network's card or another type of general-purpose card ("anti-steering" and "non-discrimination" contractual provisions) violate U.S. antitrust laws. Following the Supreme Court decision in Ohio v. American Express Co. in favor of American Express, plaintiffs in both the individual merchant cases and the putative merchant class action filed amended complaints. On April 12, 2019, the individual merchant cases were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation between the parties. The company's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of the class action is pending. American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New York, New York. ANTHEM INC: Still Defends Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation. The company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express Scripts and us on behalf of all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA healthcare plan from December 1, 2009 to the present in which we provided prescription drug benefits through the ESI PBM Agreement and paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that prescription drug benefit. The plaintiffs allege that the company breached its duties, either under ERISA or with respect to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the health plans, (i) by failing to adequately monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the ESI PBM Agreement and (ii) by placing the company's own pecuniary interest above the best interests of its insureds by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the ESI PBM Agreement in exchange for the purchase price for its NextRx PBM business, and (iii) with respect to the non-ERISA members, by negotiating and entering into the ESI PBM Agreement that was allegedly detrimental to the interests of such non-ERISA members. Plaintiffs seek to hold the company and Express Scripts jointly and severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and interest. In April 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought against it, and it was granted, without prejudice, in January 2018. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was heard in October 2018. Anthem said, "We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health benefits company in the United States. It operates through three segments: Commercial & Specialty Business, Government Business, and Other. The company was formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has yet to issue an order on the motion to dismiss the complaint in the case entitled, In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation. Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the "Merger") for JAVELIN. The Tender Offer and Merger are collectively defined herein as the "Transactions." All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual Defendants") and JMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as defendants. Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional defendants. The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders; ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest; failed to disclose material information about the Transactions; took steps to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirors or alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders. The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017. On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No. 24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland cases as interim lead co-counsel. On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste. On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A hearing was held on the Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and the Court reserved ruling. To date, the Court has not issued an order on the Motion to Dismiss. ARMOUR Residential said, "Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants intends to defend the claims made in these lawsuits vigorously; however, there can be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the Individual Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these lawsuits to which it is a party. An unfavorable resolution of any such litigation surrounding the Transactions may result in monetary damages being awarded to the plaintiffs and the putative class of former stockholders of JAVELIN and the cost of defending the litigation, even if resolved favorably, could be substantial. Due to the preliminary nature all of these suits, ARMOUR is not able at this time to estimate their outcome. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. invests in residential mortgage backed securities in the United States. The company is managed by ARMOUR Capital Management LP. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in Vero Beach, Florida. AT&T INC: May 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on April 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T, Inc. ("AT&T" or the "Company") (NYSE: T) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-02892, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants (a) acquired AT&T common stock pursuant or traceable to the SEC Form S-4 registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with AT&T's June 2018 acquisition of and merger with Time Warner (the "Acquisition"); and/or (b) purchased or otherwise acquired AT&T securities between October 22, 2016 and October 24, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff asserts claims against AT&T and certain of AT&T's officers and directors (collectively, "Defendants") under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased AT&T securities during the class period, you have until May 31, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. AT&T is a telecommunications and media company, incorporated under the laws of Delaware, with principal executive offices located at 208 S. Akard St., Dallas, Texas, 75202. In June 2018, in connection with the Acquisition, AT&T issued approximately 1.185 billion new shares of AT&T common stock directly to former shareholders of Time Warner common stock as follows: each former share of Time Warner common stock issued and outstanding immediately before the Acquisition was converted into the right to receive 1.437 shares of newly issued AT&T common stock. In addition to newly issued AT&T common stock, former shareholders of Time Warner common stock also received $53.75 per share in cash. Each of these new shares of AT&T common stock was issued pursuant to the Registration Statement. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AT&T's Registration Statement touted false and misleading financial results, trends, and metrics and omitted material facts rendering those financial results, trends, and metrics materially misleading. Principally, the Registration Statement touted yearly and quarterly growth trends in AT&T's Entertainment Group segment, particularly Video Entertainment, including quarterly subscriber gains in its DirecTV Now service sufficient to offset any decrease in traditional satellite DirecTV subscribers, such that AT&T was experiencing an ongoing trend of total video subscriber "Net Additions."; (ii) The Registration Statement also purported to warn of numerous risks that "if" occurring "may" or "could" adversely affect the Company while failing to disclose that these "risks" had already materialized at the time of the Acquisition; (III) AT&T had substantially increased prices, while at the same time discontinuing promotional discounts for its DirecTV Now service. As a result, DirecTV Now subscribers were leaving (i.e., not renewing) as soon as their promotional discount periods expired, while at the same time new potential DirecTV Now customers were unwilling to pay the higher prices and therefore not subscribing at all. Thus, by the time of the Acquisition, AT&T's reported "Net Additions" growth trend was already reversing into a severe "Net Loss"; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about Bristow's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On October 24, 2018, Defendants announced AT&T's 3Q2018 results (the first full quarter post-Acquisition) and revealed, inter alia, a dramatic reversal of its reported total subscriber "Net Additions" trends. Traditional DirecTV satellite subscriber losses jumped over 25% from 286,000 to 359,000 quarterly. Meanwhile, DirecTV Now subscribers plummeted over 85% from 342,000 down to 49,000 quarterly. These dramatically diminished DirecTV Now subscriber gains were nowhere close to offsetting the dramatically increased traditional satellite subscriber losses. As a result, Defendant AT&T's 80,000 total video subscriber "Net Video Additions" had reversed into a 297,000 total subscriber "Net Loss." On these revelations, AT&T's stock price fell $3.93 per share, or nearly 12%, from a close of $33.02 per share on October 23, 2018, to a close of $29.09 per share on October 26, 2018, on unusually high trading volume. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] ATBCOIN LLC: Must Face Securities Class Action Over ICO ------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that cryptocurrency startup ATBCoin LLC and two of its executives must face a proposed shareholder class action accusing them of selling unregistered securities in an initial coin offering. The case is RAYMOND BALESTRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ATBCOIN LLC, EDWARD NG, and HERBERT W. HOOVER, Defendants, No. 17-CV-10001 (VSB)(S.D.N.Y.). A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4ctd75b from Leagle.com. Raymond Balestra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Enright, Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Christopher James Kupka, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. ATBCOIN LLC, Edward Ng & Herbert W. Hoover, Defendants, represented by Brian D. Caplan, Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt, L.L.C., Brett Van Benthysen, Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt LLC & Edward Peter Grosz, Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt, L.L.C. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Padua Appeals Ruling in Degamo Suit to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs and Movants Grace Akana, Edward Nagata, Pearl Nagata, Helen K. Padua, Mac Padua, Susan M. Propios, Bruce Yoakum and Irene Yoakum filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Milagros Degamo, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00141-JAO-KJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, Honolulu. The lawsuit arises from foreclosure-related issues. The appellate case is captioned as Milagros Degamo, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 19-15736, 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 May 13, 2019; -- Transcript is due on June 10, 2019; -- Appellants Grace Akana, Edward Nagata, Pearl Nagata, Helen K. Padua, Mac Padua, Susan M. Propios, Bruce Yoakum and Irene Yoakum's opening brief is due on July 22, 2019; -- Appellee Bank of America, N.A.'s answering brief is due on August 19, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants HELEN K. PADUA, MAC PADUA and SUSAN M. PROPIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Movants-Appellants GRACE AKANA, EDWARD NAGATA, PEARL NAGATA, BRUCE YOAKUM and IRENE YOAKUM are represented by: James J. Bickerton, Esq. BICKERTON DANG LLLP 745 Fort Street, Suite 801 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 599-3811 E-mail: bickerton@bsds.com - and - John Francis Perkin, Esq. PERKIN & FARIA LLLC 841 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 523-2300 E-mail: perkin@perkinlaw.com - and - Van-Alan H. Shima, Esq. AFFINITY LAW GROUP LLLC 1188 Bishop St. Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 545-4600 E-mail: vshima@affinitylaw.com Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national banking association, is represented by: Terence James O'Toole, Esq. Sharon Valentine Lovejoy, Esq. Stephanie E.W. Thompson, Esq. STARN O'TOOLE MARCUS & FISHER 733 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 537-6100 E-mail: totoole@starnlaw.com slovejoy@starnlaw.com sthompson@starnlaw.com - and - David S. Reidy, Esq. Mark A. Lackner, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 844-1969 E-mail: dreidy@mcguirewoods.com mlackner@mcguirewoods.com BLUESTEM BRANDS: Williams TCPA Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, WADDELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLUESTEM BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-1971-T-27AAS (M.D. Fla.), Judge James D. Whittemore of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. In the class action lawsuit, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant used an automatic dialing system ("ATDS") to place calls intended for its customers to wrong or reassigned cellular telephone numbers of individuals who had not consented to being called, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"). Specifically, he alleges the Defendant called his cellular telephone using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice in an attempt to reach a third party in violation of the TCPA, and filed the suit on behalf of himself and those who received similar unintended calls from the Defendant. On Sept. 28, 2018, the parties filed a Notice of Class Action Settlement, subject to Court approval following notice to the class members and hearing, and requested 30 days to memorialize the terms of their settlement agreement, establish a class action notice and administration plan and the filing of an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement pursuant to Rule 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P. The case was stayed pending the filing of the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. In summary, the proposed settlement includes the creation of a non-reversionary common fund of $1 million and a separate payment of up to $269,500 to satisfy the cost of class notice and administration, for a total of $1,269,500. From the common fund, an incentive payment of $5,000 will be sought by the Plaintiff, up to $18,500 in costs incurred by counsel will be sought, and attorneys' fees not to exceed 30% will be sought. Approval of the incentive award, attorneys' fees and costs is not a condition of the settlement. Having found, for purposes of preliminary approval, Judge Whittemore finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate and that the settlement class warrants conditional certification. Accordingly, he ordered that a third-party class administrator acceptable to the parties will administer the settlement and notification to class members. All costs of the notice and the administration will be paid by the Defendant. Upon the recommendation of the parties, the Judge appointed the following class administrator: Angeion Group, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The form and substance of the postcard notice, claim form, and Question & Answer Notice are approved. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the class administrator will cause the postcard notice to be mailed to the class members as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 45 days after entry of the Order, that is, no later than May 17, 2019. The class administrator will confirm, and if necessary, update the addresses for the class members through a standard methodology that the class administrator uses to update addresses. The Question & Answer Notice, and relevant pleadings, will be made available to class members through a dedicated website. The class member who desire to be excluded from the class must send a written request for exclusion to the class administrator with a postmark date no later than 60 days after the Notice Deadline (105 days after entry of the Order), that is, no later than July 16, 2019. Any class member who intends to object to the fairness of the settlement must file a written objection with the Court within 60 days after the Notice Deadline (105 days after the Court's entry of the Order), i.e., no later than July 16, 2019. Any such class member must, within the same time period, provide a copy of their written objection to Class Counsel, Attention: Michael L. Greenwald, Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500, Boca Raton, FL 33431, and to Counsel for Defendant, Attention: Erin Hoffman, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, 2200 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402. The Claim Form attached as an exhibit to the Settlement Agreement and the claims process described in the Settlement Agreement are approved. The class administrator will mail a settlement check to each class member who submits a timely, valid claim form and does not exclude himself or herself from the class. The settlement checks will be sent via U.S. mail no later than 45 days after judgment becomes final. The Plaintiff may petition to receive an amount not to exceed $5,000 as acknowledgment of his role in prosecuting the case on behalf of the class members. The Final Fairness Hearing is set for Aug. 27, 2019 at 1:00 p.m. Pending final determination of whether the Settlement should be approved, all proceedings except those related to effectuating the Settlement are stayed. A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/BWM5In from Leagle.com. Waddell Williams, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse S. Johnson -- jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com -- Greenwald Davidson Radbil, PLLC & Michael L. Greenwald -- mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com -- Greenwald Davidson Radbil, PLLC. Bluestem Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ailen Cruz -- ACruz@wiandlaw.com -- Wiand Guerra King, PL, Erin L. Hoffman -- erin.hoffman@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, pro hac vice & Nathan A. Brennaman -- nate.brennaman@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, pro hac vice. BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES: Cook Hits Unremitted Insurance Premiums ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher T. Cook, in his own right and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bluestone Industries, Inc., Jillean Justice, James C. Justice III and Jame T. Miller, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00163, (S.D. W.V., March 8, 2019), seeks a refund of all deductions that were intended to pay for medical insurance; statutory, compensatory and liquidated damages; interest; attorneys' fees; costs; and all other legal and equitable remedies under the Fair Labor Standards and Act and the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act. Cook claims that he was deducted a medical insurance premium from his pay but this was not remitted to the insurance provider. His insurance was eventually cancelled due to non-payment. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite P1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 346-2889 Fax: (304) 346-2895 - and - Anthony M. Salvatore, Esq. Greg A. Hewitt, Esq. HEWITT & SALVATORE, PLLC 204 North Court Street Fayetteville, WV 25840 Phone: (304) 574-0272 Fax: (304) 574-0273 BOSE CORP: Judge Rejects Wiretapping Law Violation Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that an Illinois federal judge has rejected claims that Bose broke federal wiretapping law by secretly collecting and sharing the listening histories of its Bluetooth headphone users. The case is KYLE ZAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BOSE CORP., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, No. 17-cv-02928 (N.D. Ill.). A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxcfqgrh from Leagle.com. Kyle Zak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rafey S. Balabanian, Edelson PC, Eve Lynn J. Rapp, Edelson P.C., J. Eli Wade Scott, Edelson PC, Jay Edelson, Edelson PC & Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Edelson P.C. Bose Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Marc J. Zwillinger, ZwillGen PLLC, Robert F. Huff, Jr., ZwillGen PLLC, Jeffrey G. Landis, ZwillGen PLLC, pro hac vice & Nicholas A. Jackson, ZwillGen PLLC, pro hac vice. [GN] BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT: Court Issues Reply to Writ of Mandamus Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the District of California has issued a response to Bridgestone's petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging the Court's decision to appoint Glen Littleton as the Lead Plaintiff in the case, IN RE BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent, KALMAN ISAACS; et al., Real Parties in Interest, Case No. 19-70031, D.C. No. 18-cv-04865-EMC (N.D. Cal.). In response to Bridgestone's petition for a writ of mandamus, the Ninth Circuit issued an order providing that the Court may address the petition if it so desires. According to Bridgestone, the Court chose Mr. Littleton over Bridgestone as the Lead Plaintiff because he had greater diversity in investment in Tesla securities (e.g., both long and short positions), and ignored the fact that Bridgestone had a greater financial interest (a loss of approximately $3.87 million compared to Mr. Littleton's loss of approximately $3.52 million) in contravention of the PSLRA. Judge Chen holds that it is not an accurate characterization of the Court's rulings. The Court did not ignore the financial interests of the competing parties. Because Bridgestone's total loss was uncertain and could not be readily ascertained, it did not determine that Bridgestone had the largest financial interest. No doubt $1.64 million of Bridgestone's $3.87 million in claimed loss would be vigorously contested by the Defendants The Judge further holds that the Court also considered whether Bridgestone, who held only long positions, could under the circumstances adequately represent all members of the class which included not only those who took long positions but also those who took short positions. It acknowledges that those who hold long positions and those who hold short positions are not in conflict in all respects. Also, the injury sustained by both comes from buying securities at an artificially inflated price, though typically at different points in the respective transactions. In addition, short positions may be subject to unique defenses. The question of adequacy and typicality arose not only from differences in the breadth of investments held respectively by Bridgestone and Mr. Littleton, but also from the particular facts of the case, including the unique defense affecting over 40% of Bridgestone's damages claim. In sum, Judge Chen concluded that the Court complied with, and did not ignore, the directives of the PSLRA. A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/ZEksWM from Leagle.com. Kalman Isaacs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley Conrad Keller, Keller Lenkner LLC, Eric Marc George -- egeorge@bgrfirm.com -- Browne George Ross LLP, Carl Alan Roth -- croth@bgrfirm.com -- Browne George Ross LLP & Uri Seth Ottensoser -- so@kellerlenkner.com -- Keller Lenkner LLC, pro hac vice. FNY Investment Advisers, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew John Entwistle, Entwistle and Cappucci LLP, pro hac vice, Arthur Vincent Nealon, Entwistle and Cappucci LLP, Marc M. Seltzer, Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Walter Stocker, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Reed R. Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Robert Nicholas Cappucci, Entwistle and Cappucci LLP, pro hac vice. Elon Musk & Tesla, Inc., Defendants, represented by Dean S. Kristy, Fenwick & West LLP, Alison Clare Jordan -- ajordan@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan -- jbretan@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Kevin Peter Muck -- kmuck@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP & Mara Rachelle Ludmer -- mludmer@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP. Brad W. Buss, Ira Ehrenpreis, Antonio J. Gracias, James Murdoch, Kimbal Musk & Linda Johnson Rice, Defendants, represented by Dean S. Kristy, Fenwick & West LLP, Alison Clare Jordan, Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick & West LLP & Kevin Peter Muck, Fenwick & West LLP. Robyn Denholm, Defendant, represented by Alison Clare Jordan, Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick & West LLP & Kevin Peter Muck, Fenwick & West LLP. Bridgestone Investment Corporation Limited, Movant, represented by Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick Foti LLP. Donald Freeland, Alvin Abrams, Christopher Lyman & Rajinder Gaur, Movants, represented by Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. CALLFIRE INC: Faces Wigod Suit over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against CallFire, Inc. for alleged violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is captioned LEE WIGOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CALLFIRE, INC. a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02874 (C.D. Cal., April 15, 2019). Plaintiff Lee Wigod accuses CallFire, Inc. of sending unsolicited text messages to cellular telephone users: even after the users request for such messages to "Stop" and whose cellphone numbers are registered on the National Do Not Call registry. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks redress, including injunctive relief, for all persons injured by the Defendant's conduct. Defendant CallFire, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business located at 1410 2nd Street, Suite 200, Santa Monica, California 90401. CallFire is a cloud telephony services provider that provides mobile marketing services and text messaging platforms to its clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Aftergood, Esq. THE AFTERGOOD LAW FIRM 1880 Century Park East, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 550-5221 Facsimile: (310) 496-2840 E-mail: aaron@aftergoodesq.com - and – Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com CARIBBEAN SUPERCENTER: Cespedes Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARIO CESPEDES, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. CARIBBEAN SUPERCENTER, INC. a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No. 6:19-cv-00690 (M.D. Fla., April 11, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Supercenter is a Florida Profit Corporation that conducts business in Orange County, Florida. Supercenter is a company classified as, among other things, a grocery store. Supercenter operates a supermarket located at 5111 W. Colonial Drive, in Orlando, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3383 E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com CENTENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Sanchez Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court in Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., has yet to rule on the company's motion to dismiss. On November 14, 2016, a putative federal securities class action, Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., was filed against the Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In March 2017, the court entered an order transferring the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting and related disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the acquisition of Health Net violated federal securities laws. In July 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in September 2017. In February 2018, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss but has not yet issued a ruling. The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending itself against these claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially adverse impact on our financial position and results of operations. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States. Centene Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. CENTENE CORP: Class Certification Discovery Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that class certification discovery is occurring in the class action lawsuit related to Ambetter policies. On January 11, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Cynthia Harvey and Steven A. Milman against the Company and certain subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to meet federal and state requirements for provider networks and directories with regard to its Ambetter policies, denied coverage and/or refused to pay for covered benefits, and failed to address grievances adequately, causing some members to incur unexpected costs. In March 2018, the Company filed separate motions to dismiss each defendant. In July 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a First Amended Complaint that removed Steven Milman as a plaintiff, dropped Centene Corporation and Superior Health Plan as defendants, abandoned certain claims, narrowed the putative class to Washington State only, and added Centene Management Company as a defendant. In August 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. In response, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a Second Amended Complaint. In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On November 21, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Cynthia Harvey filed a Third Amended Complaint, on November 28, 2018, against Centene Management Company and Coordinated Care Corporation ("Defendants"), both subsidiaries of the Company. Defendants filed an answer on December 12, 2018. Class certification discovery is occurring. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Centene said, "Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially adverse impact on our financial position and results of operations." Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States. Centene Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. CJS SOLUTIONS: Gray FLSA Suit Transferred to Minnesota Dist. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit entitled SHANA GRAY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CJS SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC d/b/a THE HCI GROUP, Case No. 1:18-cv-07336, was transferred on April 11, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:19-cv-01008-PJS-TNL to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated At-The-Elbow Support Consultants ("ATEs") were improperly classified as independent contractors and were not paid proper overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. HCI is a Florida limited liability company that recruits, hires, and manages workers to assist and train healthcare staff with the implementation and administration of healthcare-related software at HCI's client organizations throughout New York and nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Rd., Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com CONDUENT INC: Employees' Fund Hits Share Drop Over Vendor Lapse --------------------------------------------------------------- Employees' Retirement System Of The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Conduent Inc., Ashok Vemuri and Brian Webb-Walsh, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-08237, (D. N.J., March 7, 2019), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses in this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees, and other costs and disbursements and such other relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff purchased Conduent common shares on the open market between February 21, 2018 and November 6, 2018. Conduent's reduced third quarter results and projected fourth quarter operating results caused by poor performance from an inherited legacy technology vendor that failed to deliver on service level agreements caused Conduent common stock to tumble $5.60 per share to $13.62, or down 29.1% on very heavy volume. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq. Audra DePaolo, Esq. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP Park 80 West–Plaza One 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401 Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Tel: (201) 845-9600 Fax: (201) 845-9423 Email: jwh@njlawfirm.com ad@njlawfirm.com - and - Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Andrew E. Lencyk, Esq. Fei-Lu Qian, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 759-4600 Fax: (212) 486-2093 Email: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com alencyk@wolfpopper.com fqian@wolfpopper.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Brunett Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit, DARLENE BRUNETT, the Plaintiff, vs. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00168-LA (E.D. Wisc., Filed Jan. 30, 2018), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: a. certifying a proposed class consisting of: "residents Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois where the collection letters sent to these residents listed (a) an amount owed that was less than $600 or (b) listed a proposed discharge of indebtedness that was for less than $600. Under either scenario, as a matter of law, no IRS Form 1099-C could be issued. Despite knowing this fact, Defendant included the 1099-C Disclosure language on letters sent to individuals owing less $600 or where a proposed discharge of indebtedness was for less than $600." b. appointing herself as Class Representative; and c. appointing James C. Vlahakis as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by Sections 1692(a)(3) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff filed suit based upon a collection issue sent to her by Defendant on February 17, 2018. This two Count proposed class action concerns the legality of all standard form collection letters used by Convergent. The collection letter (and hundreds like it) contained the following phrase: "Notice: The Internal Revenue Service may require financial institutions to file Form 1099-C (Cancellation of Debt) to report the discharge of indebtedness of $600 or more." The Plaintiff contends that the 1099-C Disclosure language constitutes a false, deceptive, and misleading representation in violation of Section 1692e because under no set of circumstances would the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") require Convergent or the creditor at issue (Comenity Bank) to file a IRS Form 1099-C. The 1099-C Disclosure language constitutes a false, deceptive, and misleading representation because the proposed scenario -- the issuance of a Form 1099-C cannot occur under in light of the amount owed and the proposed discharge of indebtedness.[CC] Attorney for Darlene Brunett and the proposed class members: James C. Vlahakis, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telepone: 630 581-5456 Facsimile: 630-575-8188 E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com CREDIT CONTROL: Jones Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, MARCUS JONES, pleading on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, vs. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-03882-JFL (E.D. Pa., Filed Sept. 10, 2018), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying a class consisting of: "all persons in the State of Pennsylvania, for whom Defendant sent a collection letter, on a debt that was beyond the statute of limitations, wherein the Defendant made a settlement offer on said debt without disclosing the debt is beyond the statute of limitations, which said letters violate the FDCPA, during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this initial action and ending 21 days after the service of the initial complaint filed in this action." The action arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in its attempt to collect a debt via a dunning letter sent to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed an initial complaint, alleging that Defendant violated the provisions of the FDCPA banning false, deceptive, or misleading collection conduct. The Defendant is a debt collector that regularly collects debts on behalf of third party creditors. In doing so Defendant sent collection letters to the Plaintiff and the putative Class Members which violated the FDCPA, the lawsuit says.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Nicholas Linker, Esq. Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com DAVITA INC: Judge Allows Shareholder Class Action to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that DaVita Inc. (NYSE: DVA) may face damages caused by a pending securities lawsuit action lawsuit. DaVita Inc. provides kidney dialysis services. Shareholder Class Action Alleging DaVita Made Materially False and Misleading Statements Survives Motion to Dismiss Investors filed a class action complaint against DaVita for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, DaVita may have been illegally obtaining revenues and profits by steering patients into unnecessary private insurance plans and using the American Kidney Fund as a vehicle to facilitate its scheme. On March 28, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge William J. Martinez denied DaVita's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, paving the way for litigation to proceed. DaVita Shareholders Have Legal Options Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. [GN] DBI SERVICES: Dozier Seeks to Certify Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit OSCAR DOZIER, individually, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, vs. DBI SERVICES, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00972-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an Order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid overtime wages: "all hourly-paid Technicians who work/worked for DBI Services, LLC companywide within the last three years who were/are required to complete DBI's "Daily Vehicle Inspection Report" inspection and/or related work before clocking-in and/or after clocking-out for their scheduled shifts in weeks where they worked over forty hours and were/are therefore not compensated at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act"; 2. directing Defendant to produce a list of all members of the Putative Class by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates of employment, cell phone number, and e-mail addresses in electronic and importable format, e.g. a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days of an entry of an order; 3. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to send Court-approved notice of this action to the putative class members of the proposed collective action via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text message; 4. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to send a reminder notice via mail, e-mail and text message to putative class members at the half-way point in the notice period; 5. approving a 90-day opt-in period from the date the Court- approved notice is sent during which the putative class members may join by returning their consents; and 6. allowing putative class members to electronically sign and return the Consent to Become an Opt-In Plaintiff. The putative class is limited to DBI's Technicians, who are similarly situated in regard to the method of their compensation and subject to DBI's common scheme and policy that is uniformly applied to all members of the defined putative class, where DBI requires its Technicians to perform and complete DBI's Daily Vehicle Inspection Report inspection and related work off-the-clock. DBI is third-party infrastructure contracting company that provides maintenance and operations services. DBI owns and operates worksites in 45 states, with multiple locations in most of the states in which it operates.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Michael N. Hanna, Esq. Chanelle Ventura, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A 600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: MHanna@forthepeople.com CVentura@forthepeople.com DIRECTV INC: Appeal from Arbitration Rulings in Imburgia Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, AMY IMBURGIA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DIRECTV, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B284473 (Cal. App.), Judge Frances Rothschild of the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division One, dismissed the Appellants' purported appeal from (1) the trial court's order granting the Respondent's renewed motion to compel arbitration; and (2) its subsequent order denying the Appellants' motion for new trial on the issue of arbitrability. In 2008, Appellants Imburgia and Kathy Greiner are the named Plaintiffs in a class action suit against Respondent DirecTV, alleging the early cancellation fees the company collected from the Appellants and similarly-situated California consumers were unlawful under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Civil Code section 1671, subdivision (d). The Appellants sought money damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorney fees, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. The desired injunctive relief included that that the Respondent be ordered to cease charging any consumers in California early cancellation fees. The Respondent's customer agreement requires that all disputes be arbitrated, but does not allow for class-based or representative claims in such arbitrations. Because class action waivers were unenforceable in California before AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the parties litigated their dispute for over two years, and the trial court certified a class. After Concepcion, the Respondent successfully moved to compel arbitration. The Appellants seek review of: (1) the order granting the Respondent's renewed motion to compel arbitration; and (2) a subsequent order denying the Appellants' motion for new trial on the issue of arbitrability. They contend that both orders, although not final judgments, are appealable under the "death knell doctrine," because they effectively terminate all class claims. Judge Rothschild disagrees. She finds that the trial court did not decertify the class or dismiss class claims, but rather stayed the litigation pending the outcome of arbitration. Moreover, the trial court suggested that appellants might be able to pursue their public injunction claims in court after the arbitration stay is lifted, potentially as representatives of the still-certified class. Thus, the death knell has not sounded for all absent plaintiffs' claims. For these reasons, she dismissed the Appellants' purported appeal from both orders in its entirety, and need not reach their arguments on the merits. A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/n9X71N from Leagle.com. Milstein Jackson Fairchild & Wade, Mark A. Milstein -- mmilstein@mjfwlaw.com -- Mayo L. Makarczyk -- mmakarczyk@mjfwlaw.com; Consumer Watchdog, Harvey Rosenfield, Pamela Pressley; Evans Law Firm, Inc., Ingrid Maria Evans; FEM Law Group, and F. Edie Mermelstein, for Plaintiff and Appellants Amy Imburgia and Kathy Greiner. Kirkland & Ellis, Melissa D. Ingalls -- rbladow@kirkland.com -- and Robyn E. Bladow -- rbladow@kirkland.com -- for Defendant and Respondent DirecTV, Inc. DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Brown Suit Class Cert. Ruling to 9th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant DIRECTV, LLC, filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jenny Brown, et al. v. DIRECTV, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01170-DMG-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 15, 2019, the Hon. Dolly M. Gee granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Court revised the Class and Subclass definition based on the parties' briefing, the September 21, 2018 hearing, and the Court's analysis in the order. The Court certified the Nationwide Class defined as: All persons residing within the United States who, within four years prior to and after the filing of this action, received a non-emergency telephone call(s) from DIRECTV and/or its third-party debt collectors regarding a debt allegedly owed to DIRECTV, to a cellular phone through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice and who did not provide the cellular phone number called on an initial application for DIRECTV service; The Court also certified this Nationwide Subclass: All persons residing within the United States who, within four years prior to and after the filing of this action, received a non-emergency telephone call(s) from DIRECTV and/or its third-party debt collectors regarding a debt allegedly owed to DIRECTV, to a cellular phone through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice and who were never DIRECTV customers. The appellate case is captioned as Jenny Brown, et al. v. DIRECTV, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-80045, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent JENNY BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr., Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 1320 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com - and - Daniel Morris Hutchinson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com - and - David C. Parisi, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 212 Marine Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com Defendant-Petitioner DIRECTV, LLC, is represented by: Hans Germann, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-4637 Telephone: (312) 701-8792 E-mail: hgermann@mayerbrown.com - and - Becca Wahlquist, Esq. SNELL & WILMER LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 929-2500 Facsimile: (213) 929-2525 E-mail: bwahlquist@swlaw.com ENVIROPLUS INC: Court Okays Notice to Class ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Jose Chavez, the Plaintiff, vs. Enviroplus, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07358 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman entered an order granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion to begin notice to members of the Plaintiff class.[BN] EQUIFAX INC: Investor Seeks Data Breach Class Action Status ----------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a German asset manager's parent company asked an Atlanta federal judge on March 29 to grant class action status to its suit accusing Equifax Inc. of misleading investors about its cybersecurity strength. [GN] ESKOM: De Beer Attorneys Prepare to File Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Francesca Villette, writing for IOL, reports that law firm De Beer Attorneys have called on South Africans who have suffered financial losses as a result of load shedding to get in touch as the firm prepare to take legal action against Eskom. Managing partner at the firm Elaine Bergenthuin said they were gearing for a class action against the power utility for losses suffered by businesses and individuals. They expected Eskom to argue that load shedding was neither wrongful nor negligent, as it was a responsible response to the electricity crisis. The power utility recently came under the spotlight after implementing rotational load shedding, citing shortage of capacity. But Bergenthuin said it could be argued that the electricity crisis was as a result of Eskom's negligence in maintaining the electricity infrastructure and it should therefore be held accountable for the losses suffered. "We have received a lot of interest and are calling people to come forward to strengthen the case," Bergenthuin said. Losses could include anything from damaged appliances to loss of profit, Bergenthuin said. "A cookie company, for example, which makes 10 000 cookies a day, could prove that, as a result of load shedding, they were able to make 5 000 cookies. They could show a loss in profit," Bergenthuin said. Eskom stated: "The General Public Liability policy has the current exclusion below. Based on this exclusion, load shedding events will not be covered. "No indemnity is granted by this policy against liability for: failure to supply arising out of any interruption of, variation or fluctuation in the supply of electricity, which is not consequent upon damage to generation and/or transmission plant or equipment." Anyone wishing to contact De Beer Attorneys can email eskom@debeerattorneys.com [GN] EXXONMOBIL CORP.: Court Denies Certification of 4 Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, et al., Case 2:17-cv-02477-DSF-SK (C.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 17, 2017), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer has denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify these subclasses: A. Soil and Groundwater Contamination Subclass: "Persons or entities owning or leasing real property -- at any point between February 18, 2012 and the present ("Property Damage Period") -- within the boundaries of the plume maps"; B. Operational Emissions Subclass "Persons or entities owning or leasing real property -- during the Property Damage Period -- within the "Contaminated Area," which shall mean the (to be modeled and mapped) locations where air emissions at any time exceeded safe levels and/or that are known to register as malodorous"; C. Explosion Debris Subclass 2 "Persons or entities owning or leasing real property within the 'Area of Debris,' which shall mean the (to be modeled) area where emissions and/or deposited particulate matter from the explosion on February 18, 2015 landed, migrated or otherwise impacted a portion of that property"; and D. Physical Exposure Subclass 3 "Persons who live and/or work within the (to be modeled) Area of Debris, Contaminated Area, or within the boundaries of the soil and groundwater plume maps who were physically exposed to the emissions and/or deposited particulate matter from the refinery from February 18, 2012 to the present." The Court finds that a class action is superior to other available methods for adjudicating the Soil Subclass's trespass claim. Due to the nature of the trespass -- subsurface contamination -- damages in any individual action are likely to be modest and outweighed by the time or expense of litigating the action, especially in light of the risk that an individual plaintiff might prevail on the merits but recover only nominal damages for failure to prove actual harm. Trying the issue of liability on a class-wide basis would mean that any subsequent individualized proceedings for class members could focus on the single issue that is truly individual -- whether that class member suffered harm as a result of the trespass. This makes a class action a superior method of adjudicating this controversy. Therefore, except for the Court's finding that typicality is not met and the Court's serious doubts regarding counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, the Court would otherwise find this subclass’s claim proper for class certification. The Plaintiffs also argue in the alternative that their Air Subclass can be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because it seeks abatement instead of damages. However, the Court notes that, to the extent the class is seeking only injunctive relief, it has been defined far too broadly. It includes properties where air emissions exceeded safe levels or were malodorous "at any time" since February 18, 2012. This subclass almost certainly includes many members whose properties do not currently meet these conditions, as well as members who have sold their properties and moved elsewhere. In short, "even though the validity of a (b)(2) class depends on whether 'final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole," Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 365 (emphasis in original), Plaintiffs' proposed class includes numerous individuals who have no standing to seek injunctive relief and who would not benefit therefrom. Certification of the Air Subclass under Rule 23(b)(2) is not warranted. This action arises out of the operations of an oil refinery in Torrance, California, formerly operated by Defendant ExxonMobil Corporation and currently operated by Defendant Torrance Refining Company LLC (TRC). On February 18, 2015, an equipment malfunction within the Refinery's Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) unit caused flammable hydrocarbons to unexpectedly flow into an electrostatic precipitator unit where they ignited. The resulting explosion released spent catalyst and hydrocarbons into the air, and sent ash filled with metals, fiberglass, and glass wool into nearby neighborhoods. On February 17, 2017, Plaintiffs -- individuals who live or work near the Refinery -- filed this putative class action against the former and current owners for harms allegedly related to that explosion and other emissions from the Refinery. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "negligently repaired, operated and/or maintained the Torrance Refinery, which resulted in the release of harmful pollutants, noxious odors, and excessive noise invading their land, causing diminished use and enjoyment of their properties, pollution of the land and air in and around their properties, and/or caused adverse health effects.[CC] FASHION NOVA: Garcia Brings Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ Nelly Garcia, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FASHION NOVA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-09558-JTM-KWR (E.D. La., April 19, 2019) seeks to stop Defendant's practice of sending unwanted text messages to the cellular telephones of consumers, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. The complaint relates that consumers who purchase products online from Fashion Nova receive unsolicited telemarketing and/or advertising text messages on their cellular telephones. Fashion Nova sends these text message advertisements to consumers without their written or oral consent. As a result, Defendant repeatedly violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). As a result, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the putative Class, seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unlawful text messaging activities, and an award of statutory damages to Plaintiff and the Class for each such violation, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Plaintiff is a natural person and resident of the State of Louisiana. Fashion Nova, Inc. is an online fashion retail company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Phone: (504)534-5005 Email: jmk@beaumontcostales.com FEDEX GROUND: Corley Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Kawaski Corley, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIV-DS1900867 (Cal. Super., January 9, 2019), was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 8, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-00429. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. William A. Baird, Esq. Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 Email: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com atamburelli@marlinsaltzman.com FedEx Ground is represented by: Scott Voelz, Esq. Alexander J. Larro, Esq. Christianna Kyriacou, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 Telephone: (213) 430 6000 Facsimile: (213) 430 6407 Email: svoelz@omm.com alarro@omm.com ckyriacou@omm.com FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Converters -------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a proposed class of drivers has filed suit in Arizona federal court accusing Fiat Chrysler Automobiles of selling them vehicles with faulty catalytic converters. [GN] FLINT, MI: Rick Snyder Reinstated as Water Class Action Defendant ----------------------------------------------------------------- Natasha Dado and Hank Winchester, writing for ClickOnDetroit, report that on April 1, former Michigan Governor Rick Snyder was reinstated as a defendant in the class action lawsuit brought by victims of the Flint Water Crisis. Snyder, as well as other government defendants in the suit, face charges of violating Flint citizens' right to bodily integrity as protected under the 14th Amendment. In late 2018, Flint residents asked U.S. District Court Judge Judith Levy to reconsider her decision removing Snyder as a defendant. In her ruling on April 1, Judge Levy noted that “the allegations plausibly describe 'conscience shocking' conduct." "We are grateful that the Court agrees former Governor Snyder should be held accountable for his role in the Flint water crisis," said Theodore J. Leopold, Partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and co-lead Plaintiffs' attorney. “The citizens of Flint were both forgotten and mistreated by those involved in the Flint water disaster. To this day, residents continue to suffer because of the reckless decisions of senior state and local officials, as well as private contractors, and we hope to provide a measure of justice and some much-needed relief to those still struggling to recover." In her ruling issued this morning, Judge Levy noted that: "Plaintiffs plausibly state that the Governor acted indifferently to the risk of harm they faced, demonstrating a callous disregard for their right to bodily integrity. This indifference manifested itself in two ways. Initially, the Governor was indifferent because instead of mitigating the risk of harm caused by the contaminated water, he covered it up. In private, he worried about the need to return Flint to DWSD water and the political implications of the crisis. But in public, he denied all knowledge, despite being aware of the developing crisis. As a result, plaintiffs were lured into a false sense of security. They could have taken protective measures, if only they had known what the Governor knew. Instead, the Governor misled them into assuming that nothing was wrong. Governor Snyder's administration even encouraged them to continue to drink and bathe in the water." [GN] FLOWERS BAKING: Button Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RICHARD BUTTON, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF HENDERSON, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; FBC OF HENDERSON, LLC, a business entity, form unknown; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-10116-RGK-AS (C.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 15, 2018), the Plaintiff will move the Court on May 20, 2019, for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all individuals employed by Defendants at any time during the period of four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit [October 15, 2014] and ending on a date as determined by the Court, and who have been employed as Branch Sales Managers or Area Sales Directors within the State of California"; 2. certifying Subclasses: Minimum Wages Subclass: "all Class members who were not compensated for all hours worked for Defendant at the applicable minimum wage"; Wages and Overtime Subclass: "all Class members who were not compensated for all hours worked for Defendant at the required rates of pay, including for all hours worked in excess of eight in a day and/or forty in a week"; Meal Period Subclass: "all Class members who were subject to Defendant's policy and/or practice of failing to provide unpaid 30-minute uninterrupted and duty-free meal periods or one hour of pay at the regular rate of pay in lieu thereof"; Rest Break Subclass: "all Class members who were subject to Defendant's policy and/or practice of failing to authorize and permit uninterrupted, duty-free, 10-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof, and failing to pay one hour of pay at the regular rate of pay in lieu thereof"; Expense Reimbursement Subclass: "all Class members who incurred necessary and reasonable expenses in connection with performing their job duties for Defendant and who were subject to a policy and/or practice under which such expenses were not reimbursed"; Wage Statement Subclass. "all Class members who, within the applicable limitations period, were not provided with accurate itemized wage statements" Unauthorized Deductions from Wages Subclass: "all Class members who were subject to Defendant’s policy and/or practice of deducting wages earned from their pay, including by requiring off the clock work and by rounding down hours worked"; Failure to Timely Pay Wages Twice Monthly Subclass. "all Class members who were subject to Defendant's policy and practice of not timely paying all wages earned when they were due and payable at least twice monthly"; Termination Pay Subclass: "all Class members who, within the applicable limitations period, either voluntarily or involuntarily separated from their employment and were subject to Defendant's policy and/or practice of failing to timely pay wages upon termination"; and UCL Subclass: "all Class members who are owed restitution as a result of Defendant's business acts and practices, to the extent such acts and practices are found to be unlawful, deceptive, and/or unfair".[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated: David Yeremian, Esq. Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com alvin@yeremianlaw.com G6 HOSPITALITY: Court Grants Bid to Remand Cummings Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case, CHRISTINA CUMMINGS, an individual on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. G6 HOSPITALITY LLC, a Limited Liability Company; MOTEL 6 OPERATING L.P., a Limited Partnership; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-00122-GPC-LL (S.D. Cal.). On Nov. 5, 2018, the Plaintiff, seeking to represent a class of non-exempt employees who were allegedly underpaid due to the Defendants' uniform policy and practice which failed to lawfully compensate these employees for all their overtime worked, filed a class action complaint in San Diego Superior Court alleging the following claims: (1) unfair competition; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to provide required meal periods; (5) failure to provide required rest periods; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; and (7) failure to provide wages when due. (ECF No. 1-2, at 2). On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") which detailed a new allegation pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. The Plaintiff's FAC alleged the amount-in-controversy for the aggregate claim of California Class Members was under $5 million. On Jan. 17, 2019, the Defendants removed the putative class action from state court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). On Feb. 15, 2019, the Plaintiff filed her motion to remand, challenging federal jurisdiction under CAFA. Her motion does not dispute either the diversity or the class size requirements under CAFA, but instead solely challenges the Defendants' assertion that the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied. The Defendants filed an opposition on March 5, 2019, which the Plaintiff replied to on March 12, 2019. The Defendants claim that the amount in controversy is $65,458,790. They arrive at this figure by adding their valuation of the damages from (1) the Plaintiff's claim for wage statement penalties, (2) the Plaintiff's claim for waiting time penalties, and (3) by assuming a 25% benchmark rate for attorneys' fees. Judge Curiel holds that applying the Ninth Circuit's framework to the Plaintiff's FAC, the Defendants' utilization of a 100% violation rate based on the Plaintiff's allegations of wage statement penalties and waiting time penalties is unreasonable. He finds that the utilization of a 100% violation rate to calculate the putative class's monetary recovery on the wage statement penalty claim is not grounded in real evidence. He also finds that the Defendants do not meet their burden that the Plaintiff's claims of waiting time violations exceeds the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement. He is not prepared to fault the Plaintiffs for not setting forth an alternative violation rate when the Defendants have not sustained their burden to show why their claimed rate was reasonable. Finally, the Defendants allege that the Plaintiff's request for attorney fees adds an additional $7,273,321 to the amount-in-controversy. They arrive at that total based upon a 25% "benchmark" recovery scheme. Although the Defendants are correct that attorney fees may be properly included in calculations of the amount-in-controversy, the Judge holds that they did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the underlying amount upon which those fees would be based is at least $4 million, as would be required to meet the $5 million minimum. Accordingly, their fee calculation is unsupported. For the reasons he stated, Judge Curiel granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. He vacated the motion hearing set for the matter on April 5, 2019. A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/f9ZEt4 from Leagle.com. Christina Cummings, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shani Or Zakay -- shani@zakaylaw.com -- Zakay Law Group, APLC. G6 Hospitality, LLC, a Limited Liability Company & Motel 6 Operating L.P., a Limited Partnership, Defendants, represented by Spencer C. Skeen -- spencer.skeen@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Timothy L. Johnson -- tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Jesse C. Ferrantella -- jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins & Nikolas Trpe Djordjevski -- nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC. G6 HOSPITALITY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Cummings Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants G6 Hospitality LLC and Motel 6 Operating LP filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Christina Cummings v. G6 Hospitality LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00122-GPC-LL, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit (assigned Case No. 37-02018-00056207-CU-OE-CTL) was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, and was later removed to the District Court. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The appellate case is captioned as Christina Cummings v. G6 Hospitality LLC, et al., Case No. 19-80046, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent CHRISTINA CUMMINGS, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, is represented by: Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 E-mail: aj@bamlawlj.com norm@bamlawlj.com kyle@bamlawlj.com - and - Shani O. Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5850 Oberlin Drive, Suite 230A San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 892-7095 Facsimile: (858) 404-9203 E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com Defendants-Petitioners G6 HOSPITALITY LLC and MOTEL 6 OPERATING LP are represented by: Nikolas T. Djordjevski, Esq. Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq. Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 E-mail: nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com spencer.skeen@ogletree.com GANNETT CO: Hall Sues to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages ------------------------------------------------------ Grace Hall, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gannett Co. Inc., An Arizona Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00296-JHM-RSE (D. Ariz., April 19, 2019) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act, and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act ("SCPWA" or "South Carolina Act"). Although Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have not been paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, asserts the complaint. Plaintiffs were employed by Gannett in Arizona during the relevant time period. Gannett operates call centers throughout the United States and holds itself out as a "next-generation media company that empowers communities to connect, act, and thrive".[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq. Corey Feltre, Esq. Stanley Lubin, Esq. LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C. 349 North Fourth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505 Phone: (602) 234-0008 Facsimile: (602) 626-3586 Email: nick@lubinandenoch.com - and - Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: austin@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com GENERAL CREDIT: Preliminary Writ of Prohibition Made Permanent -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Zel M. Fischer of the Supreme Court of Missouri made the preliminary writ of prohibition in the case, STATE EX REL. GENERAL CREDIT ACCEPTANCE COMPANY, LLC, Relator, v. THE HONORABLE DAVID L. VINCENT III, Respondent, Case No. SC97175 (Mo.), permanent. Helena Weatherspoon defaulted on payments owed to Car Credit Acceptance Co. pursuant to a consumer credit contract requiring her to make installment payments. Car Credit sent Weatherspoon notices informing her of the default and how to cure it. She did not cure the default. Car Credit assigned Weatherspoon's credit contract to General Credit Acceptance Co., LLC ("GCAC"). GCAC repossessed the vehicle, but Weatherspoon regained possession. Weatherspoon defaulted again, and GCAC again notified her of the default and how to cure it. She did not cure the default and voluntarily surrendered her vehicle to GCAC. GCAC mailed a presale notice informing Weatherspoon her vehicle would be sold in compliance with the Missouri Uniform Commercial Code. It sold the vehicle and mailed Weatherspoon a post-sale notice of her deficiency balance. Weatherspoon filed the underlying class action on behalf of all other similarly situated Missouri consumers alleging GCAC, and its predecessors or successors, violated statutory notice requirements relating to the repossession and disposition of collateral and collected unlawful interest following default and repossession of the collateral. She alleged the deficient notices caused her and all class members to suffer harm to their credit, character, and general reputation. Weatherspoon requested damages equal to the amount of any judgment wrongfully obtained by GCAC and a mandatory injunction compelling GCAC to return any money collected for deficiency judgments, time price differential, delinquency and collection charges from Plaintiff and the classes. She also requested statutory damages, an injunction preventing GCAC from collecting deficiency judgments from the class, and a declaration that GCAC's form right to cure, presale, and post-sale notices violate Missouri law. GCAC introduced evidence of statistical sampling showing approximately 87% of the potential class members' claims against GCAC were resolved by final deficiency judgments or were extinguished in bankruptcy. GCAC argued the evidence showed the proposed class was overbroad because the vast majority of the potential class members' claims were resolved in prior judicial proceedings. GCAC has no deficiency judgment against Weatherspoon, and she did not declare bankruptcy. The circuit court certified two classes and designated Weatherspoon as the sole class representative. The first class included all persons who are named as borrowers or buyers with a Missouri address on a loan or financing agreement with GCAC, assigned to GCAC or owned by GCAC; whose loan or financing agreement was secured by collateral; and who had the possession of their collateral taken by GCAC, voluntarily or involuntarily, from May 12, 2008 to present. The second class included all persons from Class 1 who had the possession of their collateral taken by GCAC involuntarily. GCAC filed a petition for permission to appeal the certification order pursuant to Rule 84.035. The court of appeals denied the petition. GCAC filed the underlying petition for a writ of prohibition asserting the circuit court abused its discretion by certifying the class. The Court issued a preliminary writ of prohibition. Judge Fischer finds that because approximately 87% of the individual class members' claims are either precluded by deficiency judgments or have been extinguished in bankruptcy, the vast majority of individual class members have no unresolved claim against GCAC. In addition, Jugde Fischer finds that it is unclear why the circuit court certified only a single subclass whose members constitute only a subset of the members of the class. It is unclear whether this single subclass was separated from the larger class and the subclass members' interests may diverge from those who had their vehicles returned voluntarily, such as Weatherspoon. This is the reason Weatherspoon is an inappropriate class representative. The circuit court should carefully consider the definition of those subclasses, if any, it may certify. The circuit court is prohibited from taking any further action other than to decertify the existing class, but it may consider whether to certify a class without the definition problems identified and that satisfies the typicality and other requirements for a class action. The Judge also finds that Weatherspoon's claims are not typical of the class because she did not suffer the same alleged injury as the class members. The second class consists of individuals "who had the possession of their collateral taken by GCAC involuntarily." Weatherspoon testified she voluntarily surrendered her vehicle to GCAC. GCAC also did not obtain a deficiency judgment against Weatherspoon. Weatherspoon's claim is not typical of the class because she was not injured by an involuntary repossession or by a deficiency judgment. The circuit court abused its discretion by certifying a class with Weatherspoon as the sole class representative because her claims are not typical of the class and she is not a member of the subclass. The circuit court is prohibited from certifying the class and subclass as presently defined. The court is not prohibited from considering whether Weatherspoon is typical of a redefined class, if a new class definition is proposed and meets the criteria set out in the rule and explained in the Opinion, nor is it prohibited from appointing a new or additional class representative should one be proposed with claims typical of the class and who otherwise satisfies the criteria set out in the rule. Judge Fischer concludes tha the circuit court abused its discretion by certifying an overly broad class with a class representative whose claims are not typical of the class. The preliminary writ of prohibition is made permanent, and the circuit court is directed to take no action inconsistent with his Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/9ofKfh from Leagle.com. General Credit Acceptance was represented by William Ray Price Jr. -- rprice@armstrongteasdale.com -- of Armstrong Teasdale LLP in St. Louis, (314) 621-5070. Timothy J. Wolf and Russel F. Watters of Brown & James PC in St. Louis, (314) 421-3400; and James F. Monafo -- jim.monafo@huschblackwell.com -- of Husch Blackwell LLP in St. Louis, (573) 635-9118. Weatherspoon was represented by Jesse B. Rochman -- rochman@onderlaw.com -- James R. Dowd -- dowd@onderlaw.com -- and Martin L. Daesch -- daesch@onderlaw.com -- of OnderLaw LLC in St. Louis, (314) 963-9000. G. Keith Phoenix and Timothy C. Sansone of Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard PC in St. Louis, (314) 231-3332. Two organizations filed briefs as friends of the Court. The Missouri Bankers Association was represented by Edwin G. Harvey, Maria G. Zschoche and David M. Mangian of Thompson Coburn LLP in St. Louis, (314) 552-6000. The National Consumer Law Center was represented by Dale K. Irwin -- dale@daleirwin.com -- of The Irwin Law Firm in Kansas City, (816) 359-8433. GOOGLE INC: Cy Pres Class Settlement Favors Class Action Lawyers ---------------------------------------------------------------- James R. Copland, writing for Bloomberg, reports that in recent weeks, allegations of an audacious college-bribery scheme have made headlines, implicating 50 well-heeled individuals and celebrities in corruptly arranging school admissions for their children. But another college-related scheme has gotten much less attention, and there's nothing illegal about it. On March 20, the U.S. Supreme Court sent Frank v. Gaos back to lower courts. In that case, lawyers had settled a class-action lawsuit with Google. The settlement had paid the absent class-action plaintiffs nothing, but funneled millions of dollars to the lawyers and their designated charities -- including three universities two of the three lawyers for the case had attended. Lawyers representing Pamela Gaos, two other named individuals and a "class" of other individuals alleged that Google had violated federal law by sharing users' search terms with other websites without the users' explicit consent. The class as defined includes essentially everyone in the U.S. who has used Google for an Internet search. Therein lies the rub. Class-action lawsuits -- which target a majority of large corporations each year, according to a 2015 survey -- add together hundreds, thousands or even millions of individual claims in a single legal action. They include absent plaintiffs, and extinguish their legal claims, unless the plaintiffs affirmatively "opt out" of the litigation. But in a class-action suit as large as this case against Google, it is next to impossible to notify absent class members about the lawsuit, to process claims and to distribute settlement proceeds. So the lawyers suing Google relied on a solution that has become all too common in resolving lawsuits of this type: the so-called cy pres class settlement. Borrowed from trust law, using a term that means "as near as possible," cy pres settlements enable lawyers to dole out their clients' money to nonprofits rather than to the clients themselves. Some plaintiffs' firms have specialized in this class-action-for-charity practice, styling themselves as disinterested humanitarians. The Ohio plaintiffs' firm Dworken and Bernstein boasts that it "has been responsible for the distribution of over $37 million to many deserving communal organizations since 2003." Giving class-action settlement money to charities chosen by attorneys, and affirmed by judges, creates at least the appearance that lawyers are favoring their own rather than their clients' interests. Why should lawyers be able to claim philanthropic credit for giving away their clients' money, without their clients' consent? David Levi, a former federal judge and former dean of the Duke University School of Law, has observed that the practice of judges signing off on charitable gifts potentially compromises judges' perceived impartiality. The risks are particularly acute, as Levi claims was often the case, when charities solicited judges to be considered for cy pres award dollars. Levi said the practice made him "more than a little uncomfortable." At least in cases like Gaos, it's also hard to see how this practice benefits the clients the lawyers are supposed to represent. Some $8.5 million in settlement proceeds from Google were to be divvied up among the lawyers, a claims administrator and various charities chosen by the lawyers. The charitable awards include $2.5 million set to be given to three law school centers at two of the three class lawyers' alma maters: Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, and Chicago-Kent's Center for Information, Society and Policy. Yet the absent plaintiffs got nothing. And the settlement did not require Google to change its practices; it actually specified that the company "will not be required or requested to make any changes to . . . the practices or functionality of Google Search." Although class members lost their right to sue Google individually, they were not contacted directly. Instead, these millions of plaintiffs would have known about the settlement only if they saw a website created for the case or read a press article about it. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever approved the practice of giving class-action settlement dollars to charities instead of victims. The idea was conceived in 1972 by a student writing a note in a student-edited law review. Since then, it has been used in more than 1,000 published federal court opinions. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for himself, argued that the court should throw out the Gaos settlement: "the fact that class counsel and the named plaintiffs were willing to settle the class claims without obtaining any relief for the class -- while securing significant benefits for themselves -- strongly suggests that the interests of the class were not adequately represented." But the other members of the court wanted lower courts to think about a jurisdictional issue first, before they decided the case. So, for now, expect lawyers to keep negotiating cy pres class settlements that give their favorite charities money. In the Gaos settlement, the amount of money the lawyers directed to their alma maters would make even Lori Loughlin blush. Unfortunately, this practice, as of now, remains legally sanctioned. Let's hope that either the Supreme Court or Congress steps in to put an end to it, sooner rather than later. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. [GN] GOOGLE INC: Dechert Attorneys Discuss Cy Pres Settlement Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael McGinley, Esq. -- michael.mcginley@dechert.com -- Priya Patel, Esq. -- ppatel@gunder.com -- Christina Guerola Sarchio, Esq. -- christina.sarchio@dechert.com -- and Jillian Taylor, Esq. -- jillian.taylor@dechert.com -- of Dechert LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that a cy pres-only settlement, designed to indirectly benefit class members, while class counsel and named plaintiffs receive monetary awards, recently came under scrutiny before the Supreme Court. A jurisdictional Article III standing issue (post-Spokeo) prevented the Justices from assessing whether cy pres settlements alone "satisfy the requirement that class settlements be 'fair, reasonable, and adequate'" consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court made clear that a class action settlement cannot be approved absent a determination that the court has jurisdiction over the matter. Critics of cy pres settlements can find support from Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the per curiam opinion and conveyed his belief that cy pres settlements "are not a form of relief to the absent class members and should not be treated as such." Prior to agreeing to class-wide settlement, defense counsel should ensure that all possible challenges have been exhausted, paying particular attention to standing in light of the Court's Spokeo decision. In Frank v. Gaos, plaintiff Paloma Goas brought a class action alleging that Google's transmission of users' search terms violated the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. ("SCA"). The SCA creates a private right of action that allows any "person aggrieved by any violation" of the statute to "recover from" the entity that "engaged in th[e] violation such relief as may be appropriate." § 2707(a). The SCA also prohibits an entity from "knowingly divulg[ing] to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service." Sec. 2702(a)(2). Google challenged Plaintiff's standing in the district court multiple times, but was ultimately unsuccessful. At the same time, the bar anxiously awaited rulings from the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court regarding standing. See, e.g., Edwards v. First American Corp., 610 F.3d 514, 517 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 567 U.S. 756 (2012) (holding that "[t]he injury required by Article III can exist solely by virtue of statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing"); Spokeo v. Robbins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016). The parties eventually negotiated a US$8.5 million class-wide settlement in which Google agreed to include certain disclosures on some of its webpages and would distribute more than US$5 million to cy pres recipients and more than US$2 million to class counsel and the class representatives. Absent class members would receive no monetary award. The use of cy pres awards has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. "In the class action context, cy pres refers to the practice of distributing settlement funds not amenable to individual claims or meaningful pro rata distribution to nonprofit organizations whose work is determined to indirectly benefit class members." Slip. Op. at *4, 586 U.S. ___ (2019) (citing Black's Law Dictionary 470 (10th ed. 2014)). Supporters of cy pres settlements believe it provides a meaningful mechanism for obtaining hefty settlements from businesses in cases where it can be hard to determine the scope of damages. The parties jointly selected the cy pres recipients to "promote public awareness and education, and/or to support research, development, and initiatives, related to protecting privacy on the Internet." Slip. Op. at *4 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The District Court approved the settlement over the objections of five class members, who then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. During the pendency of the Ninth Circuit appeal, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Spokeo v. Robbins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016). Spokeo clarified that a plaintiff may not establish standing by simply alleging a violation of a federal statute, but rather must identify some cognizable real-world harm. In doing so, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Edwards and the premise upon which Plaintiff Goas relied to establish standing. Ultimately, however, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Goas settlement without addressing the newly imposed Spokeo standard or the Court's rejection of Edwards. The Supreme Court granted certiorari "to review whether such cy pres settlements satisfy the requirement that class settlements be 'fair, reasonable, and adequate.'" Slip. Op. at *1 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)). In a per curiam opinion, the Court determined that a threshold jurisdictional question prevented it from being able to rule on the merits. Thus, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for the lower courts to "consider the standing question anew, applying the standard Spokeo articulated." Id. at *6. While the Court did not weigh in on the merits of cy pres settlements, it made clear that Spokeo applies to class action settlements. The Court noted its "obligation to assure [itself] of litigants' standing under Article III[,]" id. at 5, and that this "obligation extends to court approval of proposed class action settlements." Id. It emphasized that, "[a] court is powerless to approve a proposed class action settlement if it lacks jurisdiction over the dispute, and federal courts lack jurisdiction if no named plaintiff has standing." Id. at *6. Dissenting from the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas urged the court to consider the merits. He argued that cy pres settlements do not conform to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 because they "are not a form of relief to the absent class members and should not be treated as such." Slip. Op. at *2 (Thomas, J. dissenting). According to Justice Thomas, the lack of any direct benefit to class members from such cy pres settlements suggests that the interests of absent class members are not adequately represented and that the class action structure is not the "superior" method for adjudicating the claims at hand "when it serves only as a vehicle through which to extinguish the absent class members claims without providing them any relief." Id. at *3 (Thomas, J. dissenting). The Supreme Court may review another case raising the cy pres issue in the near future. The Court is currently considering a petition for certiorari in Perryman v. Romero, 906 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2018), pet. for cert. docketed, (Feb. 15, 2019) (No. 18-1074), in which certain class members argue that the cy pres settlement in that case, which allows leftover funds from a US$38 million settlement to go to universities instead of class members, does not conform to Rule 23. Although the Justice's comments about such settlements during oral argument in Frank v. Goas could indicate how they may eventually rule on the issue, the ultimate outcome remains unclear. During oral argument, Justices Kavanaugh and Alito criticized such settlements, saying that they raise "the appearance of favoritism and collusion[,]" and that "the class members get no money whatsoever," respectively. Justice Ginsburg, presenting a less critical view, said: "[p]ractically, the class members would get nothing, nothing at all, and here at least they get an indirect benefit." While the Supreme Court ended up not deciding the issue it granted certiorari to resolve, the Court's ruling in Frank v. Goas still offers several lessons to class action litigants. First, before agreeing to a class-wide settlement, defendants should vigorously argue and exhaust all available defenses, including standing—at all stages of the litigation. Second, though the Court did not rule on the propriety of cy pres settlements as a general matter, Justice Thomas' dissent and comments by other Justices during oral argument highlighted obvious concerns regarding their use. As a result, attorneys should take great care in structuring cy pres settlements given the Supreme Court's criticism of such arrangements. [GN] GRIDSUM HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NY Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gridsum Holding Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the briefing on defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is now underway. On April 25, 2018 and June 25, 2018, purported securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, Guosheng Qi, its chief executive officer and chairman, and Michael Peng Zhang, its co-chief financial officer, among other defendants. These lawsuits, which are captioned Xu v. Gridsum Holding Inc., et al., Case No. 18-CV-3655, and Li v. Gridsum Holding Inc., et al., Case No. 18-CV-5749, alleged, among other things, that "false and/or misleading statements" were made "and/or" the company failed to disclose its lack of effective controls over financial reporting, in connection with its announcement on April 23, 2018 that its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016 should no longer be relied upon. On September 17, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and ordered the lawsuits consolidated. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 30, 2018 that variously alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act for a putative class period between September 22, 2016 to April 20, 2018, against the company and its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants. On March 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended class action complaint, or the SAC. The court has entered a schedule for the defendants' motions to dismiss the SAC, and the briefing on defendants' motions is now underway. Gridsum Holding Inc. provides data analysis software for enterprises and government agencies in China. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Beijing, China. GRIDSUM HOLDING: Gordon Class Action Stayed ------------------------------------------- Gridsum Holding Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has stayed the class action suit entitled, Gordon v. Gridsum Holding Inc., et al. On July 2, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against the company and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers, among other defendants, variously alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act against them. The lawsuit, captioned, Gordon v. Gridsum Holding Inc., et al., Index No. 18-653342, is brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who "purchased or otherwise acquired" ADSs in the company's initial public offering on September 23, 2016, and are based on substantially the same allegations as the consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 22, 2019, an amended complaint was filed. On April 10, 2019, the court granted the company's motion to stay this action pending the determination of the federal action, and this action remains stayed. Gridsum Holding Inc. provides data analysis software for enterprises and government agencies in China. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Beijing, China. H&M SNOW PROS: Williams Seeks Overtime Premium Pay -------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against H&M Landscaping, Inc and H&M Snow Pros Inc. for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned ROBERT WILLIAMS, 11902 Honeydale Ave Cleveland, Ohio 44120, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. H&M SNOW PROS, INC c/o Statutory Agent Corporate Agents, Inc. 30195 Chagrin Blvd Ste 300 Pepper Pike Place Cleveland, Ohio 44124 and H&M LANDSCAPING, INC c/o Statutory Agent Corporate Agents, Inc. 30195 Chagrin Blvd Ste 300 Pepper Pike Place Cleveland, Ohio 44124, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00830 (N.D. Ohio, April 15, 2019). Plaintiff Robert Williams accuses the Defendants of implementing the practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt employees overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek. He also claims that the Defendants improperly classified him and other similarly-situated individuals as independent contractors. H&M Snow Pros, Inc and H&M Landscaping, Inc are Ohio companies that provide snow plowing and landscaping services to their customers in Ohio. These companies are specialized in removing snow and ice in large area, low tolerance sites. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 E-mail: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com INGRAM DISTRIBUTION: Perryman Seeks to Certify FLSA Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit OLLIE PERRYMAN On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INGRAM DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT, INC. A Tennessee Corporation, INGRAM BOOK GROUP, LLC, A Tennessee Limited Liability Company, LIGHTNING SOURCE, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01358 (M.D. Tenn.), Mr. Perryman asks the Court for an order: 1. authorizing the case to proceed as a collective action for overtime and/or minimum wage violations, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of: "numerous hourly employees with a shift differential employed by Defendant for the past three years who worked overtime hours with a shift differential and were denied the statutory required minimum wage and/or overtime premium for those on- call hours"; 2. directing the Defendant to produce to Plaintiff's counsel within seven days of the Order granting this Motion a list containing the names, the last known addresses, and phone numbers for all hourly employees with a shift differential nationwide of Defendants for the past three years that worked on-call hours; and 3. directing Plaintiff to send notice and consent to join, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by Defendant's counsel by first-class mail so that they can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Alan G. Crone, Esq. Laura Ann E. Bailey, Esq. Bailey H. Dorsey, Esq THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC 88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: 901 737 7740 Facsimile: 901 474 7926 E-mail: lbailey@cronelawfirmplc.com acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com bdorsey@cronelawfirmplc.com JAND INC: Denied Full Amount of Regular and OT Wages, Clark Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER CLARK and OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. JAND, INC. DBA WARBY PARKER and DOES ONE through TWENTY, Case No. CGC-19-575204 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 11, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff were denied the full amount of his regular wages, overtime wages, and paid time off wages. JAND, Inc., doing business as Warby Parker, engages in the manufacture, retail, and online retail of men's eyeglasses, women's eyeglasses, men's sunglasses, women's sunglasses, and gift cards. The Company was incorporated in 2009 and is based in New York City. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Kesten, Esq. KESTEN-LAW 101 Lucas Valley Road, Suite 273 San Rafael, CA 94903 Telephone: (415) 457-2668 Facsimile: (888) 619-3210 E-mail: steve@kesten-law.com - and - Peter F. Lacques, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER F. LACQUES 101 Lucas Valley Road, Suite 268 San Rafael, CA 94903 Telephone: (415) 454-2100 Facsimile: (888) 848-9519 JET MOUNTAIN: Huanca Action to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Pablo Huanca, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jet Mountain Development LLC and Eric Ross, individually, Case No. 19-cv-08229 (D. N.J., March 8, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Jet Mountain Development operates as Duke's Landscape Management where Huanca worked full time as a driver and landscape laborer. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Panther Partners' Class Action Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Jianpu Technology Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Panther Partners Inc., v. Jianpu Technology Inc. et al. On October 25, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed against the company, certain of its directors and officers, and others in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Panther Partners Inc., v. Jianpu Technology Inc. et al. (Case No. 18-cv-09848). The plaintiffs in the case allege, in sum and substance, that certain disclosures and statements made by the company in connection with its initial public offering contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. On January 10, 2019, the court entered an order appointing lead plaintiffs of this case, and on March 28, 2019, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. Jianpu Technology said, "The case remains in its preliminary stages. Litigation or any other legal or administrative proceeding, regardless of the outcome, is likely to result in substantial cost and diversion of our resources, including our management's time and attention." Jianpu Technology Inc. operates a platform that provides online discovery and recommendation services for financial products in the People's Republic of China. The company operates its platform under the Rong360 brand name. Jianpu Technology Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Beijing, China. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Over Benacol Spread Labels Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that consumers alleging Johnson & Johnson's buttery spread Benecol is falsely labeled as free of trans fats may pursue their suit as a class action, a federal court said March 29. The court certified two classes: one of California buyers and another of buyers in 10 states. The multi-state class must be limited to purchases made between August and December 2011 because of the applicable statute of limitations, Judge Morrison C. England Jr. wrote. [GN] KIMBERLY-CLARK: Choi Files Action Over Defective Tampon Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Janna Choi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00468 (C.D. Cal., March 8, 2019), seeks damages resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty of fitness and for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide manufactures, markets and sells "U by Kotex(R) Sleek(R) Tampon" products. Choi claims that they come apart upon removal and needs medical attention to remove tampon pieces left in the body, causing infections, vaginal irritation, localized vaginal injury and other symptoms. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Blair E. Reed, Esq. L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, 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 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com breed@bursor.com ykrivoshey@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 Facsimile: (949) 975-0514 E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com adhoover@reichradcliffe.com KIND LLC: Proskauer Rose Discusses Lift Stay in "All Natural" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lawrence I. Weinstein, Esq., Jennifer Yang, Esq., and Russell Kostelak, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that unlike a fine wine, a snack bar does not get better with age. Neither, apparently, does litigation. Last month, Judge William H. Pauley III in the Southern District of New York lifted a years-long stay in a lawsuit against KIND LLC concerning the allegedly false marketing of KIND snack products as "all-natural" and "non-GMO." In re KIND LLC "Healthy and All Natural" Litigation, No. 15-MD-2645. As we blogged about previously, the "all-natural" claims were originally stayed in 2016 in light of ongoing FDA rulemaking regarding the use of "natural" labeling, and the "non-GMO" claims were subsequently stayed in early 2018 pending the USDA's establishment of a national disclosure standard for bioengineered food. In December 2018, the USDA promulgated its "non-GMO" rules through the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, which became effective in February 2019. The FDA, however, is continuing its lengthy deliberative process. In considering this delay, Judge Pauley concluded that "[i]t is time for this multi-district litigation to move forward." Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in 2015, alleging that KIND deceptively marketed certain products as "all-natural" and "non-GMO" even though they purportedly contain synthetic and genetically modified ingredients, in violation of New York and other state laws. In September 2016, Judge Pauley stayed the "all-natural" claims pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, to wait for the FDA rulemaking process to run its course and provide guidance on the definition of the term "natural." In March 2018, the Court also granted KIND's motion to stay the "non-GMO" claims pending USDA action on a national disclosure standard for bioengineered food, which was expected to occur in July 2018. At the same time, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay of the "all natural" claims. In doing so, Judge Pauley recognized the "glacial pace" of the FDA in defining the term "natural." However, because there was a significant interest in litigating the "all natural" and "non-GMO" claims together, the Court continued to stay the "all natural" claims, but only through August 15, 2018—two weeks after the date on which the USDA was expected to promulgate the "non-GMO" standard. In doing so, the Court noted that the justification for lifting the stay on the "all natural" claims would be "substantially stronger" if the FDA failed to provide guidance by this date. The USDA promulgated its "non-GMO" rules through the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard on December 21, 2018. The Court therefore found in its February 2019 decision that there was no reason to continue the stay as to plaintiffs' "non-GMO" claims. However, all parties were in agreement that the "non-GMO" claims should not proceed without the "all natural" claims, again putting at issue whether the stay of the "all natural" claims should be lifted as well, despite the continued absence of FDA guidance on the definition of the term "natural." Judge Pauley noted that courts have split on the question of whether to lift similar stays of "natural" claims pending FDA rulemaking: some have declined to do so, others have lifted stays, and some have chosen not to stay these types of claims at all. But citing his prior determination that if the FDA provided no further guidance by August 2018, "the basis for lifting the stay w[ould] be substantially stronger, and that there was no reason to continue to stay the "non-GMO" claims, the Court concluded that the stay of the "all natural" claims should be lifted in this case. As a result, this lawsuit that began in 2015 will now proceed to discovery. In the meantime, KIND petitioned the FDA to update its regulations on nutrient content labeling because, in KIND's view, current regulations permit manufacturers to use nutrient content labeling in a way that misleads the public by concealing the use of added sugars and trans fats in products marketed as contributing to a healthy diet. Watch this space for further developments in-KIND. [GN] LEGACY LAND: Cozort Sues Over Unremitted Insurance Premiums ----------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Cozort, in his own right and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Legacy Land Management Corp., Kenneth Lambert, Sherri Lambert, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00161, (S.D. W.V., March 8, 2019), seeks a refund of all deductions that were intended to pay for medical insurance; statutory, compensatory and liquidated damages; interest; attorneys' fees; costs; and all other legal and equitable remedies under the Fair Labor Standards and Act and the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act. Cozort claims that he was deducted a medical insurance premium from his pay but this was not remitted to the insurance provider. His insurance was eventually cancelled due to non-payment. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite P1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 346-2889 Fax: (304) 346-2895 - and - Anthony M. Salvatore, Esq. Greg A. Hewitt, Esq. HEWITT & SALVATORE, PLLC 204 North Court Street Fayetteville, WV 25840 Phone: (304) 574-0272 Fax: (304) 574-0273 LEGACY MEASUREMENT: Florence Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ DARRELL FLORENCE, DERRICK FOSHEE, and CHRISTIAN KITCHENS, Plaintiffs, v. LEGACY MEASUREMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a Texas Corporation; LEGACY MEASUREMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, WDE JWM AGGREGATE, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, EDELMAN & GUILL ENERGY L.P., II, a Foreign Limited Partnership, and WHITE DEER ENERGY, L.P. II a Foreign Limited Partnership, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00129 (E.D. Tex., April 19, 2019) is a civil action brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988, (the "WARN Act") for Defendants' failure to give the required WARN Act written notice to Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals in connection with recent Mass Layoff and/or Plant Closing at Defendants East Texas site of employment and Brookfield Township, Ohio site of employment. According to the complaint, Defendants are liable for failing to provide Plaintiffs and the Class Members 60 days' advance written notice, as required by the WARN Act, says the complaint. Plaintiffs and the Class Members were "full-time employees" of Defendants as that term is used in the Warn Act. Defendants operate as a single business enterprise.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey T. Embry, Esq. Christopher P. Peirce, Esq. HOSSLEY & EMBRY, LLP 515 S. Vine Ave. Tyler, TX 75702 Phone: (903) 526-1772 Fax: (903) 526-1773 Email: jeff@hossleyembry.com cpeirce@hossleyembry.com LSB INDUSTRIES: June 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DENNIS WILSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Case No. 1:15-cv-07614-RA-GWG Plaintiff, v. LSB INDUSTRIES, INC., JACK E. GOLSEN, BARRY H. GOLSEN, MARK T. BEHRMAN, TONY M. SHELBY, and HAROLD L. RIEKER, JR. Defendants. This notice affects all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired LSB Common Stock or LSB Call Options, or sold LSB Put Options between November 7, 2014 and November 5, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"): YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $18,450,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on June 28, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Ronnie Abrams at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1506, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated January 19, 2019 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.LSBSecuritiesLitigation.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and the Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at Wilson v. LSB Industries, Inc. et al., c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91236, Seattle, WA 98111-9336, 833-402-1726. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than July 23, 2019. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than June 7, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than June 7, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, LSB, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Wilson v. LSB Industries, Inc. et al. c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91236 Seattle, WA 98111-9336 833-402-1726 www.LSBSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP ATTN: Casey E. Sadler, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (888) 773-9224 settlements@glancylaw.com By Order of the Court [GN] LYFT: Faces Class Action in California Over ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Alexandra Stassinopoulos, writing for The Daily Californian, reports that Disability Rights Advocates, or DRA, filed a class-action lawsuit against Lyft on March 20, alleging that the popular ride-sharing service violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, by not providing a wheelchair accessible vehicle, or WAV, service for Bay Area residents. DRA, a nonprofit disability rights organization based in California and New York, alleged in the suit that Lyft's failure to provide WAVs constitutes unequal service for its riders with disabilities. According to DRA attorney Melissa Riess, the situation is compounded by the fact that Lyft has also driven competing taxi companies that once provided WAVs out of the market. "Their service is basically unusable for people who use wheelchairs and need wheelchair accessible vehicles," said Riess. "It could be a really important option for people to get around, especially in the Bay Area, which is so car-centric. On behalf of this community, we've brought this lawsuit to compel Lyft to fulfill their legal obligations." In addition to their current suit against Lyft, DRA filed a similar class action against Uber in October 2018. Dorene Giacopini, president of the board of directors for Community Resources for Independent Living, which is a plaintiff in the class action, said that transportation services for people with disabilities are going "backwards" in the modern ride-sharing era. Giacopini alleged that the very existence of companies such as Lyft and Uber is causing the "disappearance" of taxis, including WAVs. Lyft spokesperson Lauren Alexander said in an email that Lyft considers accessibility "broadly" in its services and has entered into partnerships with public transit agencies across the country to create "innovative, on-demand WAV offerings." "Lyft is committed to ensuring that those who need rides most are able to get them," Alexander wrote in an email. "We think about accessibility broadly and know that many who were previously underserved by transit and taxis are now able to rely on Lyft for convenient and affordable rides." According to Alexander, riders who need a WAV can select "access mode" within the Lyft app to be connected to a list of WAV providers. The providers, which are grouped by area, include options such as East Bay Paratransit, private WAV providers and public transit options. DRA's suit, however, claims that this service is not comparable to those offered to other users. To use Paratransit, for example, one must meet eligibility requirements and fill out an application, according to Riess. She added that even if a customer meets these requirements Paratransit rides must be scheduled at least a day in advance. In court documents, DRA also alleged that Paratransit services can be late, even when scheduled up to two hours in advance. "You need to schedule (Paratransit rides) a day in advance," Riess said. "It's not like you can say, 'Oh there's not a WAV Lyft available, I'll schedule a paratransit.'" Berkeley District 4 Councilmember Kate Harrison said that in addition to not providing services for customers with disabilities, Lyft and other ride-sharing companies also impact alternate public transit options available to those users. Harrison said that ride-sharing services draw passengers away from public transit systems and often disrupt bus routes by pulling over at bus stops. "My own mother… can't take Lyft because they won't take her wheelchair," Harrison said. "They're negatively impacting seniors and the disabled (and) they're impacting our bus service." Harrison added that she is currently looking into implementing a local tax on ride-sharing companies to support public transit systems. [GN] MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as ANTHONY LENNEN and BETH LENNEN, the Plaintiffs, v. MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., MARRIOTT RESORTS TRAVEL COMPANY, INC., MARRIOTT RESORTS TITLE COMPANY, INC., MVC TRUST OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, FIRST AMERICAN TRUST, FSB, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, ORANGE COUNTY FLORIDA and MARRIOTT RESORTS HOSPITALITY CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-00855-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Smith denied a motion to certify class and to file a reply brief without prejudice to renewal if, and when, appropriate. The case comes before the Court without a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and motion for leave to file class certification reply brief. The motion to certify is no longer seasonable in light of the order on the motions to dismiss, the Court says.[BN] MDL 2492: Ashley Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, AUGUSTUS ASHLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-809 (Filed March 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02093 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of of generations of University of Arkansas, Monticello student-athletes. The Ashley case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Atkins Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, PATRICIA ATKINS, as attorney-in-fact of Patrick Atkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-809 (Filed Feb. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02091 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Illinois State University student-athletes. The Atkins case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554 9099 Facsimile: (713) 554 9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Carney Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SEAN CARNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00828 (Filed Feb. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02101 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Tulane University student-athletes. The Carney case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Robert T. Dassow, Esq. HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS, LLC 10201 N. Illinois Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46290 Telephone: 317 818 3100 Facsimile: 317 818 3111 - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Garay Suit Consolidated with Concussion Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The case, ANDREW GARAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-805 (Filed Feb. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02089 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations East Texas Baptist University student-athletes. The Garay case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Jefferson Suit Consolidated with Concussion Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, DAVID JEFFERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-779 (Filed Feb. 22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02082 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Butler student-athletes. The Jefferson case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Kloes Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, CHAD KLOES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-776 (Filed Feb. 22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02079 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of of LU student-athletes. The Kloes case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Phipps Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DONNA PHIPPS, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Morris Trent Phipps, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and BAYLOR UNIVERSITY,, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-819 (Filed Feb. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02099 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Baylor student-athletes. The Phipps case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Rodgers Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JOSHUA RODGERS, and ETRIC PRUITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-785 (Filed Feb. 22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02087 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of University of Southern Mississippi student-athletes. The Rodgers case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Schultz Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SCOTT SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and CONCORDIA COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-894 (Filed March 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02102 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Concordia student-athletes. The Schultz case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2492: Solomom-Jett Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DAVID SOLOMON-JETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-780 (Filed Feb. 22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02083 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania student-athletes The Solomom-Jett case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589-6370 Facsimile: 312 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com MDL 2672: 15 Cases in Clean Diesel Suit Remanded to State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. No. 3649, Case No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted ECF No. 3649 motion to remand to state court 15 cases that VWGoA removed to federal court based only on federal-question jurisdiction. Judge Breyer has reviewed the complaints, VWGoA's notices of removal, and VWGoA's opposition to the motion. For the same reasons articulated in a recent Order, he concludes that none of the federal issues identified by VWGoA will necessarily arise in adjudicating the Plaintiffs' claims, all of which are state-law claims. As a result, he concludes that the Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction over these cases. Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/YWSeVd from Leagle.com. Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer -- wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg -- jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC. MDL 2672: Bid to Remand 10 Cases to State Court Granted ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motions to remand the cases, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 3537, 3604, 3635, 4674, 4675, Cardenas, No. 3:16-cv-4533-CRB, Champoux, No. 3:16-cv-2598-CRB, Hebbe, No. 3:18-cv-0380-CRB, Mahan, No. 3:16-cv-3039-CRB, McCurley, No. 3:18-cv-0428-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), to state court. Judge Breyer has reviewed the complaints, VWGoA's notices of removal, and VWGoA's oppositions to the Plaintiffs' motions. For the same reasons articulated in a recent Order, he concludes that none of the federal issues identified by VWGoA will necessarily arise in adjudicating the Plaintiffs' claims, all of which are state-law claims. As a result,he concludes that the Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction over these cases. Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/zzkbY8 from Leagle.com. Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer -- wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg -- jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC. MDL 2741: Bruinsma Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit entitled SJOERD BRUINSMA and BROOK BRUINSMA v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00217 was transferred on April 11, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01931-VC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:16-md-02741-VC. The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup (R)-related injuries. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Brody, Esq. Brion B. Doyle, Esq. Seth B. Arthur, Esq. VARNUM LLP Bridgewater Place, P.O. Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352 Telephone: (616) 336-6000 E-mail: ajbrody@varnumlaw.com bbdoyle@varnumlaw.com sbarthur@varnumlaw.com MDL 2886: Smith Suit Consolidated in Allura Fiber Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled as Smith, et al. v. Plycem USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00071, was transferred on April 11, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston). The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01063-DCN to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled IN RE: ALLURA FIBER CEMENT SIDING PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2:19-mn-02886-DCN. The lawsuit is a consumer class action asserting unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Iowa Consumer Protection Act, negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and seeking damages and declaratory relief in connection with defective fiber cement siding designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, and sold by the Defendants.[BN] Plaintiffs Rebecca L. Smith, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, and Walter A. Smith, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, are represented by: Adam A. Edwards, Esq. Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: adam@gregcoleman.com greg@gregcolemanlaw.com rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Roger N. Braden, Esq. BRADEN HUMFLEET & DEVINE, PLC 7000 Houston Road, Suite 5 Florence, KY 41042 Telephone: (859) 414-0777 Facsimile: (859) 393-0930 E-mail: rnb@bhdlaw.net Defendants Plycem USA LLC and Elementia USA Inc. are represented by: Anthony Vale, Esq. Brian H. Callaway, Esq. Leah Greenberg Katz, Esq. Robert L. Hickok, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 981-4502 Facsimile: (215) 981-4750 E-mail: valea@pepperlaw.com callawab@pepperlaw.com katzl@pepperlaw.com hickokr@pepperlaw.com - and - Carol D. Browning, Esq. Chadwick A. McTighe, Esq. STITES & HARBISON, PLLC 400 W. Market Street, Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202-3352 Telephone: (502) 681-0516 Facsimile: (502) 779-8232 E-mail: cbrowning@stites.com cmctighe@stites.com MERCK & CO: Kaye Appeals Conn. Dist. Ct. Decision to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Roger H. Kaye and Roger H. Kaye, MD PC, filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Kaye, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-1546, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The appellate case is captioned as Kaye, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 19-952, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners Roger H. Kaye, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Roger H. Kaye, MD PC, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, are represented by: Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358-5345 E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com Defendants-Respondents Merck & Co. and Medlearning, Inc., are represented by: Edward Wood Dunham, Esq. WIGGIN AND DANA LLP 1 Century Tower 265 Church Street P.O. Box 1832 New Haven, CT 06508 Telephone: (203) 498-4400 E-mail: edunham@wiggin.com - and - Matthew H. Geelan, Esq. DONAHUE, DURHAM & NOONAN, PC 741 Boston Post Road Guilford, CT 06437 Telephone: (203) 458-9168 E-mail: MGeelan@ddnctlaw.com MERCK & CO: Sued by Taff Over Injuries From ZOSTAVAX Vaccine ------------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN TAFF and KRISTINE TAFF v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP AND DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., Case No. 3:19-cv-09601-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., April 11, 2019), alleges that the Defendants breached their duty by representing to the Plaintiffs, their healthcare providers, and the medical community that ZOSTAVAX's use did not carry the serious and increased risk of viral infection, such as those suffered by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers. The Plaintiffs bring these claims within the applicable statute of limitations because they and their healthcare providers did not discover and could not reasonably discover the defects and unreasonably dangerous condition of ZOSTAVAX vaccine. They argue that their ignorance of the defective and unreasonably dangerous nature of ZOSTAVAX and the causal connection between these defects and their injuries and damages is due to the Defendants' fraudulent conduct. Merck & Co., Inc., is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business located in Kenilworth, New Jersey. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. ("MSD") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merck and part of the Merck family of companies. Merck designed, researched, developed, manufactured, tested, labeled, advertised, promoted, marketed, sold, supplied, distributed, and/or introduced into the stream of commerce the ZOSTAVAX vaccine, to be administered to consumers throughout the United States. McKesson Corp. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business located in in Sacramento, California. McKesson, individually as an agent of Merck and/or MSD, packaged, labeled, re-packaged, marketed, promoted, supplied, distributed, sold, and/or introduced into the stream of commerce the ZOSTAVAX vaccine to consumers nationwide, including New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Margaret E. Cordner, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP 60 E. 42nd St., Suite 950 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 702-5000 Facsimile: (212) 818-0164 E-mail: mcordner@bernllp.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Demarco FDCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Mara J. Demarco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 622616/2018 was removed on April 11, 2019, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02130 to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[BN] Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc., is represented by: Matthew B. Corwin, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471-6200 Facsimile: (212) 935-1166 E-mail: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com MILLER & STARK: Holmes Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, SUMMER HOLMES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MILLER, STARK, KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01193-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla.) the Plaintiff ask the Court to: 1. certify a class of: "all persons within the United States who (a) received a non- emergency telephone call; (b) on his or her cellular telephone; (c) made by or on behalf of Defendant; (d) where such phone call was made with the use of an automatic telephone dialing system as defined under the TCPA and/or with an artificial or prerecorded voice; (e) at any time from October 10, 2014 to the date that class notice is disseminated"; 2. appoint Ms. Holmes as a class representative and Bursor and Fisher, P.A. as class counsel. Plaintiff alleges she was subjected to the same pattern or practice as every other class member: Defendant's common practice of using an automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial or prerecorded voice to place calls to cellular telephone numbers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Andrew Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 220 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: scott@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com MILLERCOORS LLC: Cardiel Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Henry Cardiel, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Millercoors, LLC and Does 1 to 100, Case No. 19STCV02979, filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on January 29, 2019, was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 8, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-01727. Cardiel worked as a machinist at Millercoors' Irwindale facility. He claims to be denied overtime wages and minimum wages, meal and rest periods, or premium pay when no meal and rest periods were provided, minimum wages, all wages due at termination, wage statements and reimbursement for business-related travel expenses.[BN] Cardiel is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd, Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 Email: david@yeremianlaw.com natalie@yeremianlaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 Email: sahagii@aol.com Defendant is represented by: Michael D. Mandel, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 Email: mmandel@mcguirewoods.com abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Webb Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark Webb, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00801 (E.D. Mo., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiffs developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 MONSANTO COMPANY: Wheelers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD L. WHEELER and NORMA G. WHEELER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00795 (E.D. Mo., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Mr. Richard L. Wheeler, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Richard L. Wheeler's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiffs developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MPA GRANADA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Schonton Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DANYELA SCHONTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MPA GRANADA HIGHLANDS LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-12151-DJC (D. Mass.), Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The case is a putative class action in which the Plaintiffs, Brazilian tenants and tenant applicants, allege that Defendants MPA Granada Highlands, Metropolitan Properties of America, Inc., Jeffrey J. Cohen, Marisa V. Cohen, Paula Nigro and Jacqueline Motta, discriminated against them in violation of the Fair Housing Act (Count I), the Civil Rights Act (Count II) and Mass. Gen. L. c. 151B, Section 4(6), (10) (Count III). All other counts of the amended complaint have been dismissed. The Plaintiffs allege discrimination based upon their Brazilian national origin between Jan. 1, 2016 and the present. Defendant Granada is a complex of 13 buildings and approximately 900 studio, one, two and three-bedroom apartments located on Kennedy Drive in Malden, Massachusetts. Defendant Metropolitan is the owner of Granada. Defendant Jeffrey J. Cohen is the CEO, President and sole director of Metropolitan. Defendants Marisa V. Cohen, Paula Nigro and Jacqueline Motta are employees, agents or servants of Metropolitan and/or Granada. The Plaintiffs initiated the case on Oct. 24, 2016, and filed the operative, amended complaint on July 11, 2017. The Defendants moved to dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in part, leaving Counts I-III as the only remaining counts. The The Plaintiffs now have moved for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), (3). They move for certification of the proposed class, comprised of all persons subjected to discrimination on the basis of Brazilian national origin in the leasing of rental housing at the Defendants' apartment complex, Granada Highlands, from Jan. 1, 2016 to date -- whether they were denied leases, denied renewal or subject to less favorable terms and conditions of occupancy compared to other tenants. The Court heard the parties on the pending motion and took the matter under advisement. Judge Casper denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. She concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to make the initial showing of ascertainability. Even if they had succeeded, however, they have also failed to satisfy Rule 23(a) and (b). A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/D62cJH from Leagle.com. Danyela Schonton, Sergio Luciano Schonton, Jehozadak Sanches Alves Pereira, Missieli Mason Souza, Ivonete Maximiano, Jasson Da Silva, Vinicios Jordao, Kwame Boadi Acheampong & Diane Souza Hugueney, Plaintiffs, represented by Ludovino P. Gardini -- info@gardinilaw.com -- Perez Gardini LLC, Stacey B. Marmorstein, Perez Gardini LLC, Craig J. Tiedemann, Tiedemann Law Firm, Hector E. Pineiro & Robert A. Scott, Law Office of Hector E. Pineiro, PC. Marcelo Ricardo Souza, Luiz Silva & Leonicio Silva, Plaintiffs, represented by Stacey B. Marmorstein, Perez Gardini LLC, Craig J. Tiedemann, Tiedemann Law Firm, Ludovino P. Gardini, Perez Gardini LLC & Robert A. Scott, Law Office of Hector E. Pineiro, PC. MPA Granada Highlands LLC & Metropolitan Properties of America, Inc., doing business as, Defendants, represented by Andrew C. Pickett , Jackson Lewis PC, Matthew Stephen Sheldon , Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas J. Hoffman , Jackson Lewis PC, James W. McGarry , Goodwin Procter, LLP & Jonathan R. Shank , Jackson Lewis PC. Jeffrey J. Cohen, Marisa V. Cohen, Paula Nigro & Jacqueline Motta, Defendants, represented by Andrew C. Pickett, Jackson Lewis PC, Douglas J. Hoffman, Jackson Lewis PC & Jonathan R. Shank, Jackson Lewis PC. MUELLER WATER: Faces Chapman Suit Over Undisclosed Warranty Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------- GLEN CHAPMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MUELLER WATER PRODUCTS, INC., GREGORY E. HYLAND, J. SCOTT HALL, EVAN L. HART, and MARIETTA EDMUNDS ZAKAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-03260 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating securities laws. Mr. Chapman alleges that the Defendants fail, among other things, to disclose to investors that the Company lacked adequate testing for product quality, and that certain products with radio components were susceptible to fail prematurely. As a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur increased expenses, including warranty costs, he says. Mueller Water Products is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal executive offices located in Atlanta, Georgia. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Mueller Water Products operates in two business segments: Infrastructure and Technologies. Infrastructure, formerly known as Mueller Co., manufactures valves for water and gas systems, fire hydrants, and a broad line of pipe repair products. Technologies, formerly known as Mueller Technologies, offers residential and commercial water metering, water leak detection, and pipe condition assessment products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212)682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com MYLAN: Must Face Class Action Over EpiPen, Judge Rules ------------------------------------------------------ Alia Paavola, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that Mylan must face a class-action lawsuit over its lifesaving allergy treatment EpiPen, a judge ruled, according to Bloomberg. Although the lawsuit will move forward, a judge narrowed the scope of it. Mylan still must face claims that it used anticompetitive tactics to block the introduction of a rival's epinephrine product and artificially inflated the price of the product in violation of antitrust laws. But the judge dismissed charges that the company made misleading statements, didn't disclose regulatory risks and fixed prices for some generic drugs. Plaintiffs claimed Mylan "blocked Sanofi from accessing a significant portion of the market for epinephrine autoinjectors." The lawsuit "adequately alleges both harm to competition in the relevant market and the predominance of anticompetitive effects," U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled. [GN] NCAA: Banks Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety ------------------------------------------------------------ Rodney Banks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01599-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind., April 22, 2019) seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of California State University, Northridge ("CSUN") student-athletes. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other CSUN football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit, asserts the complaint. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former CSUN football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable. Plaintiff Rodney Banks is a natural person and citizen of the State of Texas. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football program at Hampton.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com NEA-ALASKA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Crockett Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Carol Carman, Timothy C. Christopherson, Donn Liston, Kathryn McCollum, Dolores McKee and David Nees filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Tracy Crockett, et al. v. Nea-Alaska, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00179-JWS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, Anchorage. The nature of suit is stated as constitutionality of state statutes. The appellate case is captioned as Tracy Crockett, et al. v. Nea-Alaska, et al., Case No. 19-35299, 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 May 13, 2019; -- Transcript is due on June 11, 2019; -- Appellants Carol Carman, Timothy C. Christopherson, Donn Liston, Kathryn McCollum, Dolores McKee and David Nees' opening brief is due on July 22, 2019; -- Appellees Tyler E. Andrews, Mila Cosgrove, Lee Holen, Mantanuska-Susitna Borough School District, Matanuska-Susitna Education Association, Matthew McSorley, National Education Association, Nea-Alaska, Lon Needles and Jean M. Ward's answering brief is due on August 20, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KATHRYN MCCOLLUM, DAVID NEES, CAROL CARMAN, DOLORES MCKEE, DONN LISTON and TIMOTHY C. CHRISTOPHERSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Talcott J. Franklin, Esq. TALCOTT FRANKLIN P.C. 1920 McKinney Avenue, 7th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 326-5349 E-mail: alexander@talcottfranklin.com - and - Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq. MITCHELL LAW PLLC 106 East Sixth Street, Suite 900 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 686-3940 - and - John B. Thorsness, Esq. CLAPP, PETERSON, TIEMESSEN, THORSNESS & JOHNSON LLC 711 H Street Anchorage, AK 99501-3454 Telephone: (907) 272-9272 E-mail: jbt@cplawak.com Defendants-Appellees NEA-ALASKA, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, as representative of the class of all chapters and affiliates of NEA-Alaska, and NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION are represented by: Eric P. Brown, Esq. Scott A. Kronland, Esq. P. Casey Pitts, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 E-mail: ebrown@altshulerberzon.com skronland@altshulerberzon.com cpitts@altshulerberzon.com Defendant-Appellee MANTANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, as representative of the class of all school districts in the state of Alaska, is represented by: Saul R. Friedman, Esq. JERMAIN DUNNAGAN & OWENS P.C. 3000 A Street, Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone: (907) 563-8844 E-mail: sfriedman@jdolaw.com Defendants-Appellees JEAN M. WARD, in their official capacities as chair and board members of the Alaska Labor Relations Agency, LEE HOLEN, TYLER E. ANDREWS, MILA COSGROVE, MATTHEW MCSORLEY and LON NEEDLES, in their official capacities as chair and board members of the Alaska Labor Relations Agency, are represented by: Jeffrey G. Pickett, Esq. AGAK - OFFICE OF THE ALASKA ATTORNEY GENERAL (ANCHORAGE) 1031 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 223-0809 E-mail: bob.pickett@alaska.gov NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Final Settlement Hearing in Knurr Suit on June 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Northrop Grumman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court in the case, Steven Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., has set a final settlement approval hearing on June 7, 2019. On August 12, 2016, a putative class action complaint, naming Orbital ATK and two of its then-officers as defendants, Steven Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN), was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of purchasers of Orbital ATK securities for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, allegedly arising out of false and misleading statements and the failure to disclose that: (i) Orbital ATK lacked effective control over financial reporting; and (ii) as a result, it failed to record an anticipated loss on a long-term contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and supply small caliber ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. On April 24, 2017 and October 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints naming additional defendants and asserting claims for alleged violations of additional sections of the Exchange Act and alleged false and misleading statements in Orbital ATK's Form S-4 filed in connection with the Orbital-ATK Merger. The complaint seeks damages, reasonable costs and expenses at trial, including counsel and expert fees, and such other relief as deemed appropriate by the Court. On August 8, 2018, plaintiffs sought leave to file an additional amended complaint; defendants filed an opposition. The parties engaged in mediation on November 6, 2018. On December 27, 2018, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the litigation for $108 million subject to agreement on additional terms and to court approval. On February 22, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement and set a schedule for final settlement proceedings, including a final approval settlement hearing on June 7, 2019. Northrop Grumman said, "The company is also negotiating with and pursuing coverage litigation against various of its insurance carriers. The company intends vigorously to defend itself in connection with these matters." Northrop Grumman Corporation, a security company, provides products in the areas of autonomous systems, cyber, space, strikes, and logistics and modernizations in the United States, the Asia Pacific, and internationally. The company operates through four segments: Aerospace Systems, Innovation Systems, Mission Systems, and Technology Services. Northrop Grumman Corporation was founded in 1939 and is based in Falls Church, Virginia. NUTANIX INC: May 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------ Federman & Sherwood on April 1 disclosed that on March 29, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Nutanix, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTNX). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is March 2, 2018 through February 28, 2019. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Nutanix, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than Tuesday, May 28, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: Robin Hester FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN] NXIVM: Class Action Plaintiffs' Lawyer Provides Update ------------------------------------------------------ Frank Parlato, writing for ArtVoice, reports that the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the case Martinez & Leal v. Brontman-Igtet, Index No. 517921/2018, Omar Rosales, provided an update. The case is in New York State Supreme Court and alleges that Nxivm and its leaders, including Sara Bronfman-Igtet, engaged in a longstanding pattern of fraud against students of Nxivm classes. It is a class action lawsuit which means there is still time to join in the lawsuit if you were a victim and paid money for Nxivm classes. There is a chance to get your money back -- via Sara Bronfman-Igtet. The following is a report by Mr. Rosales. Mr. Rosales was also a Nxivm student for a time. Attorney Omar Rosales By Omar W. Rosales THE GOOD Acknowledgements First off, I wanted to thank everyone that contributes to the Frank Report, and most importantly, Frank Parlato. This website and forum have become a force for justice and have led to many new leads and a greater understanding of the criminal machine known as NXIVM and Executive Success Programs (ESP), Inc. By discussing the issues and hashing out different ideas, we have become a part of the narrative and the history of the takedown of one of the largest and most influential criminal enterprises in the history of New York -- the Bronfman-Raniere Crime syndicate. Second, it has been my great honor to represent each of the class members as we seek our collective justice and day of reckoning for the suffering, fraud, and crime committed by the senior members of NXIVM including Keith Raniere, Clare Bronfman, Sara Bronfman-Igtet, Kathy Russell, Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman, and Allison Mack. The journey has indeed been long, and we are not yet finished. Yet, I can see the bright rays of the morning sun on the horizon. The Lawsuit The class action lawsuit is proceeding smoothly. At this point, we have briefed the presiding Judge, the Hon. Paul Sweeney, on various issues regarding the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The steps in a class action lawsuit are: 1) surviving the Defendant's motion to dismiss, 2) conducting discovery, 3) certifying the class, 4) preparing for trial, 5) trial, and 6) judgment. The Defense's motion to dismiss is quite pedestrian. As an attorney that has litigated 10+ class actions against real companies such as Apple, Microsoft, and AdTelamerica, I can state that this is the weakest motion to dismiss that I have ever read. For your perusal, the motion to dismiss is attached here: Basically, twelve pages of nonsense. The Defense cannot dispute the extensive criminal charges against NXIVM leadership or the copious evidence of fraud and tax evasion. Nor can the Defense dispute the guilty plea of Nancy Salzman and Lauren Salzman where they admit that NXIVM and ESP, Inc., was indeed a racketeering enterprise. In fact, more guilty pleas are expected. So, where exactly is Sara Bronfman-Igtet? I think the more important question is, why is she hiding? Would an innocent person alternate their locations between England, France, and Morocco? Wouldn't an innocent person instead visit their only 100% blood sibling, under house arrest, and offer words of encouragement? Is there a possibility that the Northern District of New York will pick up the ball and attempt to clean its image with a prosecution of Raniere and unindicted co-conspirators? Will the Albany County DA or New York AG pick up the torch and finally take the last steps to dismantle NXIVM? Who knows? So, why is Sara alternating her locations between England, France, and Morocco? Hmmm… THE BAD Since taking on this case, I've had several interesting encounters with what I call the Bronfman litigation machine and its smelly tentacles/testicles. Since filing the lawsuit, I have: Been followed by a PI (I encircled him and took pictures of him) Had two credit card accounts hacked (someone called with my account numbers and pretended to be me to get account info, but did not know the passwords) Had an old brokerage account hacked (see credit card hijinks above) Been threatened with a New York Bar complaint Had someone pose as me and attempt to get my tax returns And none of these things ever happened to me before! Coincidence? Hmmm… Luckily, I can assure you my paper trail is minimal and my life is not super-exciting. I don't run up tabs at strip clubs, massage parlors, escorts, etc. I didn't pay my way into my college or law school (Vanderbilt and The University of Texas School of Law on my own, thank you very much). And I don't purchase exotic weaponry or have illegal shotguns, bump stocks, or fully automatic weapons in my possession. So, fortunately for me, my life REALLY IS quite mundane when it comes to nefarious activities. (Note: I have never used the word 'nefarious' in a sentence as I didn't grow up in 1920s world of bootlegging, speakeasys, hideouts, or Tommy Guns). So, please keep searching. Knock yourself out. You won't find anything, because there is nothing there. One thing you may not understand about me is that I don't give up. I will find a way or make one. And I will fight for you, for this class, for refunds, against this beast, with my last breath. THE UGLY So, who exactly are these miscreants (I actually do like that word) that are representing our very own on-the-lam heiress Sara Bronfman? Here they are: John J. McDonough. He is lead counsel for Sara. Although he has never defended a class action lawsuit, he pretends to know everything. Obnoxious and noxious, he does share some similarities with Keith Raniere. Extreme litigation tactics including: witness intimidation and harassment. Trying to hide evidence. Painting critics as degenerates and criminals. Hmmm…sound familiar? There is something interesting. McD's bio notes the following: “High-net-worth individuals and celebrities hire John to resolve private commercial litigation when confidentiality and discretion are nearly as important as the ultimate resolution." So, is McD working for Clare Bronfman also? Did Clare disclose this to Judge Garaufis? Rachel Bevans. The young acolyte. With three years of legal experience. And never defended a class action lawsuit either. In fact, Ms. Bevans was so confident of her legal abilities, she sent this threatening document to my landlord: Tell me, Ms. Bevans. On what basis are you threatening my landlord and stating that the Court will hold them in Contempt – if neither myself nor my landlord is a party to the lawsuit? Then, she filed this doozy with the Court: Notice of Objection. In other words, the Bronfman Civil Trial Team doesn't want Judge Sweeney to know about what is happening in the criminal case. I wonder why??? SUMMARY That is the latest in our quest to issue refunds to students. Knock me down 6 times, I will get back up 7. We will not quit. We will not waiver. We will prevail. Thanks, OWR [GN] OHIO MULCH: Wolfe, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, Wolfe, et al, On behalf of themselves and other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Ohio Mulch Supply, Inc., et al, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-1698-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act: Flat Rate Driver Subclass: "all current and former drivers of Defendants who during the previous three years worked over 40 hours in any workweek who were compensated by a flat rate per delivery regardless of how many hours were worked"; and Hourly Rate Driver Subclass: "all current and former drivers of Defendants who during the previous three years worked over 40 hours in any workweek who were compensated at their normal hourly rate (i.e. straight time) for all hours worked per workweek" Collectively, the Flat Fee Driver Subclass and Hourly Rate Driver Subclass are referred to as the "216(b) Class" or "216(b) Class Members". 2. approving the form and substance of an agreed-upon Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit; 3. approving the form and substance of the Consent to Join; 4. approving a 60-day period for individuals to return their Consent Forms to join the case from the date the Notice and Consent Form are sent; 5. directing Defendants to provide names, last known address, phone numbers,, and location(s) worked for the putative collective class members, in Microsoft Office Excel format to Plaintiffs' Counsel no later than 14 days from the date this Stipulation is approved by the Court; and 6. subject to Court approval of this Stipulation, directing Plaintiffs' Counsel to send the court-approved Notice Packet (containing the agreed-upon Notice and Consent Form) by mail, and nothing further, to the putative collective class members within seven days of receiving the information from Defendants.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614 949-1181 Facsimile: 614-386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614 787-4878 Facsimile: 614 957-7515 E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com Attorneys for the Defendants: Jan E. Hensel, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 191 W. Nationwide Blvd, Ste. 300 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: 614 227-4267 E-mail: jan.hensel@dinsmore.com ONONDAGA COUNTY: Class Action Certification Sought -------------------------------------------------- In the case is captioned, J.B., a minor by and through her parent and natural guardian TEREIA DUFF; J.M., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian NICOLE SMITH, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ONONDAGA COUNTY; RYAN MCMAHON, Onondaga County Executive in his official capacity; EUGENE CONWAY, Onondaga County Sheriff, in his official capacity, the Defendants, Case no. 5:19-cv-00137-LEK-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order on May 17, 2019, certifying the proceeding as a class action together with such other relief as may be just.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Joshua Cotter, Esq. Joshua T. Cotter, Esq. Samuel C. Young, Esq. LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, INC. 221 South Warren Street, 3rd Fl. Syracuse, NY 13202 OXNARD SCHOOL: M.B. Seeks to Certify Class of Students ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit M.B., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, F.B. et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. OXNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04304-JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on June 10, 2019, for an order: 1. certifying Plaintiffs' claims as a class action: "all students in Oxnard School District who have or may have disabilities and who have been or will be subject to the District's policies and procedures regarding identification and evaluation of students for purposes of providing services or accommodations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act" 2. appointing Plaintiffs A.E., M.L., and D.C. as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Plaintiffs' class claims arise under three statutes that establish related standards: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504).[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Patricia Van Dyke, Esq. Janeen Steel, Esq. LEARNING RIGHTS LAW CENTER 1625 W. Olympic Blvd, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90015-4684 Telephone: (213) 489-4030 Facsimile: (213) 489-4033 E-mail: janeen@learningrights.org patsy@learningrights.org - and - Melissa Riess, Esq. Jessica Agatstein, Esq. Stuart Seaborn, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center St., 4th Fl. Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 E-mail: sseaborn@dralegal.org mriess@dralegal.org jagatstein@dralegal.org - and - Shawna L. Parks, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SHAWNA L. PARKS 4470 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 107-347 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Phone/Fax: (323) 389-9239 E-mail: sparks@parks-law-office.com PENGUIN NATURAL: Gallardo Hits Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Eddy Gallardo, on behalf of all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Penguin Natural Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19STCV08035, (Cal. Super., March 8, 2019), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for overtime and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, and failure to authorize or permit required rest periods. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory penalties for Defendant's failure to provide accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment; injunctive relief and other equitable relief; and reasonable attorney's fees and costs and interest pursuant to the California labor Code, the Unfair Business Practices provision of the California Business and Professions Code, and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Penguin -- https://www.penguinfoods.com -- is a food products supplier where Gallardo worked at its Los Angeles County facility as a production employee from approximately May 2016 to March 2018. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820 Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com PROGRESSIVE MAINTENANCE: Superintendents Seek Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Teodoro Garcia and William Martinez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE MAINTENANCE LLC and PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT OF N.Y. CORP. d/b/a PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT, and KEN MIDDLETON and ALLAN ARKER, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03518 (S.D. N.Y., April 21, 2019) is a civil action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated building superintendents who worked for Defendants, to recover overtime compensation owed to them pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). According to the complaint, throughout the entirety of their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs consistently worked more than 40 hours each week, even though they were not exempt and they were not paid overtime. The NYLL and Wage Theft Prevention Act require employers to provide all employees with an accurate wage statement each time they are paid. However, throughout the relevant time period, Defendants paid Plaintiffs and the collective wages without an accompanying statement that accurately listed the number of overtime hours worked, says the complaint. Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers worked as building superintendents for Defendants. Progressive Maintenance LLC is a domestic limited liability company and was an "enterprise engaged in interstate commerce".[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 RAY AND FRANK: Former Workers Seek Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Johnny Fernandez and Rescalvo Mercenario (a/k/a Ricardo), individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RAY AND FRANK LIQUOR STORE INC. (D/B/A RAY AND FRANK'S LIQUOR STORE) and RAYMOND FRIAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03496 (S.D. N.Y., April 19, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they worked, notes the complaint. Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a liquor store, located at 706 Ninth Avenue, New York, New York 10019 under the name "Ray and Frank's Liquor Store".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Battistini Action Alleges TCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLO BATTISTINI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02718 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2019) is an action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placing through their agent(s), automated collection calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the TCPA and related regulations, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. The Defendants' telephone calls to Plaintiff utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial and/or prerecorded voice message, for non-emergency purposes, and in the absence of Plaintiff's express consent, invitation or permission, violated the TCPA, says the complaint. Plaintiff is an individual who was at all relevant times residing in Chicago Illinois. RPM is a limited liability company of the State of Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Levin, Esq. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. 333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103 Northbrook, IL 60062 Phone: (224) 218-0882 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com RED HAT: Class Suits Related to IBM Merger Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- Red Hat, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2019, that the class action suits related to the company's merger with International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) have been dismissed. On October 28, 2018, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with International Business Machines Corporation, a New York corporation ("IBM"), and Socrates Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of IBM ("Sub"), pursuant to which, among other things, Sub will merge with and into the company, with Red Hat surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of IBM (the "Merger"). The company's Board of Directors and the Board of Directors of IBM each approved the Merger and the Merger Agreement, and the company's stockholders approved the adoption of the Merger Agreement at a special meeting of stockholders on January 16, 2019. The transaction is expected to close in the latter half of 2019, subject to certain conditions, including receipt of regulatory approvals. Until the closing, the company will continue to operate as an independent company. Three putative class action complaints were filed against Red Hat and its Board of Directors relating to the Merger with IBM. The company received the following complaints, each filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware: Charles Orgel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Hat, Inc., et al. (filed December 18, 2018), Michael Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Hat, Inc., et al. (filed December 19, 2018) and Christopher Nunn Bishop, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Hat, Inc., et al. (filed December 21, 2018) (together, the "Actions"). The complaints in the Actions alleged that the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy Statement") that was filed with the SEC on December 12, 2018 omitted purportedly material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, rendering the Proxy Statement false and misleading. On January 4, 2019, the parties reached an agreement whereby the Actions were dismissed as moot in exchange for supplemental disclosures filed by the Company. Those supplemental disclosures were filed by the Company as definitive additional proxy soliciting material on Schedule 14A with the SEC on January 4, 2019. The Actions were dismissed on January 8, 2019 and January 9, 2019. Plaintiffs in the Actions have reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees for causing the filing of the supplemental disclosures. Red Hat, Inc. provides open source software solutions to develop and offer operating system, virtualization, management, middleware, cloud, and storage technologies to various enterprises worldwide. The company was formerly known as Red Hat Software, Inc. and changed its name to Red Hat, Inc. in June 1999. Red Hat, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina. RESURGENT CAPITAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned CYNTHIA JOHNSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES LP and LVNV FUNDING LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00465-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com SANTEE COOPER: Failed to Disclose Project Status, Turka Says ------------------------------------------------------------ A federal securities class action complaint has been filed against the South Carolina Public Service Authority and Lonnie N. Carter for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned MURRAY C. TURKA, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY and LONNIE N. CARTER, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01102-RMG (D.S.C., April 15, 2019). This class action has been brought on behalf of purchasers of South Carolina Public Service Authority mini-bonds between May 1, 2014 and July 31, 2017 for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule l0b-5 promulgated thereunder. The mini-bonds were sold and marketed exclusively to residents of South Carolina, customers of the South Carolina Public Service Authority, and electric customers of the Bamberg Board of Public Works, South Carolina and the City of Georgetown, South Carolina. In May 2008, SCANA Corporation and Santee Cooper reached agreement as joint owners to build two new 1,117-megawatt AP1000 nuclear reactors at the V.C. Summer site. The ownership interest was split with SCANA taking a 55% ownership stake and Santee Cooper the remaining 45% share. These two nuclear reactors would be the first new nuclear power plants to be built in the Unites States since the 1980s. If the nuclear project were completed by Jan. 1, 2021, SCANA and Santee Cooper would qualify under the Energy Policy Act for nuclear tax credits worth approximately $2.2 billion. Yet, the January 2021 goal for the completion of the project was always a pipedream. Despite statements to the contrary, by at least 2015 the Nuclear Project was hopelessly behind schedule. Still, executives at Santee Cooper disclosed nothing of this to mini-bond investors. Defendants knew that the nuclear project's failure would sacrifice critical tax credits Santee Cooper would need to fulfill its debt obligations. And Defendants knew that the information they kept quiet was material to purchasers of Santee Cooper mini-bonds was material. Despite this knowledge, Defendants chose to actively conceal this information from Mini-Bond holders. Accordingly, Plaintiff Murray Turka asserts that the Defendants have violated the Securities Exchange Act by their failure to disclose this material information to the investing public. South Carolina Public Service Authority, a state-owned utility that is also known as Santee Cooper, produces, distributes, and sells electric power within the counties of Berkeley, Calhoun, Charleston, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester, Orangeburg, and Sumter, South Carolina. Lonnie N. Carter served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Santee Cooper during the Class Period. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William E. Hopkins, Esq. J. Clay Hopkins, Esq. HOPKINS LAW FIRM, LLC 12019 Ocean Highway Post Office Box 1885 Pawleys Island, SC 29585 Telephone: (843) 314-4202 E-mail: bill@hopkinsfirm.com - and - Christopher L. Nelson, Esq. James M. Ficaro, Esq. THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. 22 Cassatt Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 225-2677 E-mail: cln@weiserlawfirm.com jmf@weiserlawfirm.com SNAP INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Initial Public Offering ---------------------------------------------------------------- Snap Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself against a class action suit related to its initial public offering (IPO). Beginning in May 2017, the company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters for its IPO were named as defendants in securities class actions purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's Class A common stock, alleging violation of securities laws in connection with the IPO. Snap said, "Management believes these lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend them. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this matter remains uncertain." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Snap Inc. operates as a camera company in the United States and internationally. The company offers Snapchat, a camera application that helps people to communicate through short videos and images. The company was formerly known as Snapchat, Inc. and changed its name to Snap Inc. in September 2016. Snap Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California. SOUTH CAROLINA: Child Welfare System Struggles to Meet Goals ------------------------------------------------------------ John Kelly, writing for The Chronicle of Social Change, reports that South Carolina's child welfare system is struggling to meet its goals under a class-action lawsuit settlement brought by Children's Rights, a nonprofit litigator based in New York City. Tennessee recently exited such a settlement with the same organization after a nearly two-decade roller coaster ride. It appears the former will attempt to learn directly from the latter. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) announced that he has tapped a senior Tennessee child welfare official to take over his state's Department of Social Services (DSS). Mike Leach, deputy commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, will lead an agency presiding over troubling trends in the state, as the number of children entering foster care continues to rise. Mike Leach spent the past 10 years at the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, which recently exited a class-action lawsuit settlement. Photo courtesy of South Carolina Governor's Office. "This is a very important day," said McMaster, at an event introducing Leach. "It is clear that transformative leadership is required in South Carolina to resolve the daunting and frustrating issues that the Department of Social Services faces." Leach was only recently named deputy director in Tennessee, in May of 2018, and spent the decade before that climbing the agency's ladder. He started in 2008 as a program director for systems integration, where he ran point on the initiatives specifically related to Tennessee's class-action settlement in the Brian A case. Leach then became director of the state's independent living program, and more recently led its performance and quality improvement division. This year, Tennessee successfully exited the Brian A settlement, 19 years after Children's Rights took the state to court. The lawsuit stemmed from struggles with high worker caseloads, and a lack of foster home options that led to overuse of emergency shelters. Those problems are also at the heart of Michelle H., the lawsuit against South Carolina DSS that brought the system under a settlement in 2016. Under the agreement, DSS agreed to address staggering caseloads, improve its maltreatment investigation practice, and reduce the number of young children placed into group homes and other "congregate care" settings. But DSS' struggle with workforce issues has remained. According to recent reporting by The State, a local news site, nearly 1,000 full-time positions are unfilled at an agency with about 4,000 employees. Last November, frustrated with the pace of reform, Children's Rights filed a contempt motion. The situation worsened in early 2019 when legislative budget leadership, angered over DSS' inability to answer certain questions, refused to include funds related to the settlement in the state's $9 billion budget. Aside from the lawsuit, the state's foster care capacity trends are alarming. The number of youth in foster care is up 47 percent since 2012, according to federal and state data collected for The Chronicle of Social Change's "Who Cares" project. At the same time, the number of foster homes in the state has declined, and the number of youth living in congregate care has nearly doubled. While the "Who Cares" project identified a massive shift toward relying on relatives in many states, the percentage of South Carolina foster youth placed with relatives has declined by 45 percent since 2012. Leaders at Children's Rights gave Leach high marks as a candidate to inherit these problems. "Michael Leach has a clear passion for serving kids and families and is committed to making the system better," said Litigation Director Ira Lustbader, who serves as co-counsel on both settlements. "We look forward to having [him] in South Carolina and working to get a sufficient number of caseworkers and family placements and for basic health care needs of this vulnerable group of our children." DSS' former director, Susan Alford, retired in July 2018. Joan Meacham will remain as interim director until Leach is confirmed by the State Senate. [GN] SOUTHLAND ROYALTY: Court Denies Bids to Exclude Expert Testimonies ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the cases, GERALD ULIBARRI and WHITE RIVER ROYALTIES, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHLAND ROYALTY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant. GERALD ULIBARRI, Plaintiff, v. ENERGEN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case Nos. 1:16-cv-215-RB-JHR, 1:18-cv-294-RB-SCY (D. N.M.), Judge Robert C. Brack of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Proposed Opinion Testimony of Defendant's Expert Mark Lambert; and (ii) denied as moot Southland's Conditional Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Donald A. Phend, CPA. Southland holds the lessee's interest in numerous oil and gas lease agreements under which it produces natural gas from "gas only" wells in New Mexico. The Plaintiffs hold the lessor's interest in several such lease agreements. They allege that, since Jan. 1, 2015, Southland has been consistently underpaying royalties it owes on the sales proceeds of natural gas and related products that Southland produces pursuant to their lease agreements. The Plaintiffs argue that Southland has breached the lease agreements by engaging in a common method of calculating royalty payments that (1) calculates a value for the royalties that is substantially less than the sale proceeds received on the sale of gas, including residue gas, the natural gas liquid products, and condensate, which came from the Plaintiffs' and the Class members' Southland Wells; and also (2) improperly deducts costs for gathering, compression, processing, Natural Gas Processors Tax, natural gas liquids transportation and fractionation, and other costs and expenses. The Plaintiffs seek to bring the action on behalf of a putative class including all individuals and entities who have been paid royalties by Southland at any time since Jan. 1, 2015, and hold a lessor's interest in a lease agreement that contains one of four different types of royalty payment provisions. The four types of royalty provisions that delineate the proposed class include: "proceeds royalty provisions," "gross proceeds royalty provisions," "greater of market value or gross proceeds royalty provisions," and "gross proceeds without deduction of post-production costs royalty provisions." In this contract dispute over oil and gas royalty payments, the Court takes up the Parties' competing motions to exclude expert testimony in advance of a class certification hearing. The main issue before the Court is whether consideration of how natural gas products are processed, transported, and sold after extraction from specific wells is relevant to the Court's determination of whether class certification is proper in this case. In the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Proposed Opinion Testimony of Defendant's Expert Mark Lambert, they argue that Mr. Lambert's opinions regarding well-specific natural gas quality and composition, post-production activities, and midstream gas processing are not "relevant to any issue related to class certification." Southland argues that it specifically sought Mr. Lambert's testimony because the Plaintiffs' proffered expert in oil and gas royalty accounting, Donald Phend, offers his opinions on the same topics. In its conditional Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Donald A. Phend, CPA, Southland urges the Court to exclude Mr. Phend's testimony if it excludes Mr. Lambert's testimony. The Plaintiffs counter that the statements in Mr. Phend's expert report regarding well conditions and gas production are not opinions but background facts which cannot be disputed and will assist the Court in understanding how the gas produced from the Class members' wells was treated, processed, and sold. Having considered the submissions of the parties and relevant law, Judge Brack finds that the testimony of both proffered expert witnesses is admissible at the class certification stage. He (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Proposed Opinion Testimony of Defendant's Expert Mark Lambert; and (ii) denied as moot Southland's Conditional Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Donald A. Phend, CPA. The Judge will admit Mr. Lambert's testimony and thus need not take up Southland's conditional motion to exclude Mr. Phend's testimony based on lack of qualification to opine on engineering issues. Given that Mr. Phend's accounting expertise is specific to oil and gas production and he has decades of experience in the field, Mr. Phend's various statements regarding oil and gas production that inform his opinions on natural gas royalty accounting are admissible. In addition, the Judge finds that asking the Court to exclude Mr. Lambert's testimony as irrelevant before ruling on the certification issue, however, is akin to asking the Court to adopt Plaintiffs' preferred contract interpretation before hearing the evidence and arguments on both sides. Disagreement over the law relevant to the Court's class certification decision is not a strong argument for excluding the testimony of an expert witness. A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/9ofKfh from Leagle.com. Gerald Ulibarri, Plaintiff, represented by A. Michael Chapman, Newbold Chapman & Geyer, P.C., George Barton -- gab@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George Barton, P.C. & Stacy Burrows -- stacy@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George A. Barton, PC. Southland Royalty Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew A. Zidovsky -- mzidovsky@montand.com -- Montgomery & Andrews, P.A., Sharon Theresa Shaheen -- sshaheen@montand.com -- Montgomery & Andrews & Mark D. Christiansen, McAfee & Taft, P.C., pro hac vice. STEINHOFF INTERNATIONAL: VEB Temporarily Suspends Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Fin24 reports that Steinhoff announced on April 2 that it had reached an agreement with an investment group suing it and that legal action would again be temporarily halted for six weeks. Investment group VEB/European Investors sued the embattled multinational retailer in a Dutch court over its financial statements and prospectuses which VEB says are incorrect and misleading. Steinhoff is domiciled in the Netherlands. This is the second time that VEB has temporarily suspended its court action. In an update to shareholders, Steinhoff said that "the suspension will grant Steinhoff time to continue the ongoing restructuring of its business, make further progress with the internal investigations and finalise its 2017 and 2018 financial statements". "VEB/European Investors agreed to the extension because it further supports the stabilisation of the company, which is in the interests of both the current and former shareholders of Steinhoff." The suspension will now last until May 15. "After the suspension, VEB/European Investors and Steinhoff are both free to continue the legal proceedings or to reach a settlement for affected shareholders through negotiations," said Steinhoff. [GN] STORED VALUE: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Humphrey EFTA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Republic Bank & Trust Company and Stored Value Cards, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled AMBER HUMPHREY, on behalf of herself and the class v. STORED VALUE CARDS, D/B/A NUMI FINANCIAL, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01050, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge James S. Gwin granted in November 2018 the Plaintiff's motion to certify the three proposed classes: a nationwide class for the Plaintiff's claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), and two Ohio classes for Ohio law conversion and unjust enrichment claims. Ms. Humphrey brings the class action complaint against the Defendants alleging that they wrongfully issued unsolicited and activated debit cards to her and the class members. She says this distribution of unsolicited and activated debit cards was illegal and caused them to suffer fees they had never agreed to. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Stored Value Cards, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-303, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent AMBER HUMPHREY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, fka Amber Horvath, is represented by: Stephen M. Bosak, Jr., Esq. Matthew A. Dooley, Esq. Ryan M. Gembala, Esq. O'TOOLE MCLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA 5455 Detroit Road Sheffield Village, OH 44054 Telephone: (440) 930-4001 E-mail: sbosak@omdplaw.com MDooley@omdplaw.com rgembala@omdplaw.com Defendants-Petitioners STORED VALUE CARDS, INC., dba Numi Financial, and REPUBLIC BANK & TRUST COMPANY are represented by: Terry W. Posey, Jr., Esq. THOMPSON HINE 10050 Innovation Drive, Suite 400 Miamisburg, OH 45342 Telephone: (937) 443-6857 E-mail: Terry.Posey@ThompsonHine.com SUNOCO: 3 Chester County Residents Settle Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Jon Hurdle, writing for State Impact Pennsylvania, reports that three Chester County residents who sued Sunoco over its construction of the Mariner East pipelines have agreed to settle on undisclosed terms. Two of the plaintiffs, Russell and Mary March, live on Lisa Drive, a suburban development that became a poster child for opponents of the pipelines after sinkholes appeared at a construction site there in late 2017 and again in the early months of 2018 and 2019. The third plaintiff, Jared Savitski, lives on a nearby street that is also along the pipeline route. Their attorney, Andrew Neuwirth, confirmed the suit had been settled, but declined to discuss its terms or say why his clients had agreed to settle. "Neither I nor my clients are permitted to discuss terms," he said. In the suit, filed with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in March 2018, the plaintiffs accused Sunoco of failing to adequately study the unstable local geology that led to the sinkholes; causing an underground explosion of drilling fluid next to the Marches' home; damaging their home, and risking a catastrophe by building the new pipelines close to the Mariner East 1 line that was already carrying natural gas liquids. The suit accused Sunoco of negligence and several other counts in its construction practices. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the settlement. In its formal response to the suit, filed last October, Sunoco admitted that an "above ground subsidence occurred" on or around Nov. 11, 2017, and said the hole was "immediately investigated and stabilized." But it denied building the pipeline at Lisa Drive, in West Whiteland Townsip, without being fully aware of the geology there, and denied the plaintiffs' claims that it knew or should have known that using horizontal directional drilling in the fragile geology would likely result in an explosion of drilling fluids. And the company denied that the suit was a legitimate class action. Rich Raiders, an environmental and land-use attorney who is not connected with the case, said Sunoco's decision to settle, despite its denials, may show that it accepts the merits of the plaintiffs' case, or that it didn't want the negative publicity of taking the case to trial after two turbulent years of spills and shutdowns during pipeline construction. Sunoco's public reputation in Pennsylvania has taken a heavy battering during the last two years of construction, and it's likely the company has decided it's time to try to mend fences with the public, and is beginning to do that by backing down from a legal fight with the Lisa Drive residents, he said. "The court of public opinion is going to hold that there was merit, regardless of what the court of law says," said Raiders, who has clients who are fighting Sunoco over other aspects of the pipeline project. "How else can they minimize the damage caused by all this? The only way they can really minimize this stuff is to keep the neighbors happy." The appearance of sinkholes in the back yards of several Lisa Drive homes also prompted a Public Utility Commission judge in May 2018 to temporarily halt both the construction of the new pipelines and the operation of the existing line at that location, saying that the combined operation risked an explosion that would endanger public safety. In January, the PUC halted the operation of Mariner East 1 again after a new sinkhole appeared yards from where the others had opened up in 2017 and 2018. [GN] T ROWE PRICE: 401(k) Plan Related Suit Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself from a class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, over its 401(k) Plan. On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit alleges breaches of ERISA's fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14, 2011, to the time of judgment. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of the complaint as a class action. T. Rowe Price believes the claims are without merit and is vigorously defending the action. T. Rowe Price said, "This matter is in the early stages of litigation and we cannot predict the eventual outcome or whether it will have a material negative impact on our financial results, or estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from any negative outcome." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm provides its services to individuals, institutional investors, retirement plans, financial intermediaries, and institutions. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc. and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland. TEXARKANA BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES: Faces Vannucci et al. Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Texarkana Behavioral Associates, L.C., and its parent company, Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned CARMILO VANNUCCI and ROCKELL BOGAN, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TEXARKANA BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES, L.C. and ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-05076-TLB (W.D. Ark., April 15, 2019). Vannucci et al. assert that Texarkana has violated FLSA by failing to pay wages. Founded in 2000, Texarkana Behavioral Associates, L.C. owns and operates a mental health facility in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The company provides psychiatric and behavioral health services for children/adolescents and adults. The company also provides psychiatric review and consultation, medication management, case management, psychological testing, and recreational activities, as well as individual, group, and family therapy services; and psychiatric assessment and evaluation, and medication management services. Headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee, and established in January 2005, Acadia Healthcare aims to develop and operate a network of behavioral health facilities across the country. Acadia provides psychiatric and chemical dependency services to its patients in a variety of settings, including inpatient psychiatric hospitals, specialty treatment facilities, residential treatment centers, outpatient clinics and therapeutic school-based programs. At Dec. 31, 2018, Acadia ran a network of 583 behavioral healthcare facilities with approximately 18,100 beds in 40 states, the United Kingdom and Puerto Rico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 TRIGREEN EQUIPMENT: Doherty Files Class Action Under FACTA ---------------------------------------------------------- Tina Doherty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Trigreen Equipment, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00417, (N.D. Al., March 8, 2019) seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Defendant sells and services land equipment, including tractors, lawn care equipment and utility vehicles. On July 19 2018, Doherty purchased certain items from Trigreen's store located in Athens AL using her debit card. She claims that the electronically printed paper receipt reflected the entire expiration date of the debit card, thereby compromising her account's security. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Festa, Esq. HOWARD - FESTA, LLP P.O. Box 1903 Mobile, AL 36633 Tel: (251) 431-9364 Fax: (251) 431-9368 Email: jfesta@howardfesta.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Tel: (305) 479-2299 Email: efilings@shamisgentile.com - and - Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 14 NE First Ave., 10th Floor Miami, FL 33132 Tel: (786) 351-8709 Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com TULSA INSPECTION: Flynn Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Flynn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tulsa Inspection Resources, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00230 (W.D. Tex., March 8, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tulsa is an oil and gas associated services company specializing in pipeline inspection, pipeline integrity services, and non-destructive examination services to the oil and gas industry. Flynn, an oil field worked, claims that he was paid a salary regardless of the number of hours he worked in a 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 UNION LOCAL 237: Wynn Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Kevin Fulton, Awilda Guzman, Jose Otero, John Williams and Brian Wynn filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion and order issued on March 13, 2019, in their lawsuit entitled Wynn, et al. v. Union Local 237, I.B.T, Case No. 17-cv-3167, 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 retroactive and prospective lost wage damages, reimbursable expenses, attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant through their agents, servants, and/or employees, violated the Plaintiffs' rights as protected under Title VII, and violated the Plaintiffs' rights as protected under the New York City Human Rights Law, Administrative Code. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has a policy and/or practice which disparately impacted Black and other Minority employees, when it came to the adequacy of their pay; and their right to receive commensurate pay as Plasterer Tenders/Plasterer Helpers. The appellate case is captioned as Wynn, et al. v. Union Local 237, I.B.T, Case No. 19-962, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Brian Wynn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Awilda Guzman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Jose Otero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; John Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Kevin Fulton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Lee S. Nuwesra, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LEE NUWESRA 60 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 370-8707 E-mail: lnuwesra@optonline.net Defendant-Appellee Union Local 237, I.B.T, is represented by: John H. Byington, III, Esq. ARCHER, BYINGTON, GLENNON & LEVINE, LLP 1 Huntington Quadrangle P.O. Box 9064 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 249-6565 Facsimile: (631) 777-6906 E-mail: jbyington@abgllaw.com VIP KITCHEN: Zhang Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Premium Pay ----------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against VIP Kitchen LLC trading as VIP Restaurant and Rong Bin Zheng for alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and of the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL). The case is captioned CHUN XIN ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against VIP KITCHEN LLC doing business as VIP RESTAURANT, and RONG BIN ZHENG, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-09961 (D.N.J., April 15, 2019). Plaintiff Chun Xin Zhang alleges that the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the FLSA, that he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. Pursuant to NJWHL, Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, reimbursement for expenses relating to tools of trade, liquidated damages equal to the sum of unpaid minimum and overtime, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and attorney's fees and costs. VIP Restaurant is a Chinese restaurant located at 202B Main St, Lakewood, New Jersey. Owner-operator Rong Bin Zheng manages the day-to-day operations of the restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ge Qu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Ave. Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: rqu@hanglaw.com WESTPAC: Court Rebukes Hasty Commencement of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Kirsty Sutherland, Esq., and David Hertzberg, Esq., of Corrs Chambers Westgarth, in an article for Lexology, report that the Federal Court has issued a rebuke of Maurice Blackburn's hasty commencement of a consumer class action against Westpac. The judgment is a timely reminder, in a post-Financial Services Royal Commission climate, that the costs and burdens associated with class actions procedure should not be imposed on defendants until plaintiffs' claims are properly articulated. In reasons published on 25 March 2019 in the Tate v Westpac Banking Corporation proceeding, the Honourable Justice Perram declined to make a common fund order. His Honour did so on the basis that the Tates had not yet articulated their claim. In the Federal Court of Australia, there are two ways to commence proceedings: 1. By originating application accompanied by a 'concise statement'; or 2. By originating application accompanied by statement of claim or affidavit. In commercial and corporations matters, the Court encourages parties to use the more informal concise statement process. One perceived advantage of the concise statement process is that it quickly brings the dispute before a judge, which facilitates the early identification of the real issues in dispute. It also allows faster commencement of proceedings. In a highly competitive class action market, the attraction of using the concise statement process to quickly commence proceedings is readily apparent. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Class Actions Practice Note states that the concise statement process will 'usually' be inappropriate for use in class actions. Nonetheless, in Tate v Westpac Banking Corporation, the Applicants commenced proceedings by way of concise statement. His Honour was less than impressed by this course, noting that: “In doing so, [the Applicants] have shirked the burden of articulating what their case is." His Honour observed that the procedural mechanisms for case managing class actions -- which include making and communicating common fund orders, opt out notices and class closure orders -- are all “very expensive and burdensome" and should not be imposed until class members properly articulate their claim in accordance with the Class Actions Practice Note. Accordingly, his Honour ordered that the plaintiffs file a Statement of Claim and postponed the question of whether to make a common fund order and orders for discovery until after the plaintiffs had done so. In a climate where firms are rushing to commence class actions, in part because of an attitude that the first to commence is the most likely to survive a beauty parade, Perram J's comments are a welcome reminder that the 'class action machinery' should not be imposed on defendants lightly. Prosecuting a class action takes time. Plaintiffs rush it at their own risk. [GN] XPO LOGISTICS: Robbins Geller to Lead in Labul Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the case, LARRY LABUL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. XPO LOGISTICS, INC., BRADLEY S. JACOBS, JOHN J. HARDIG, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-CV-2062 (VLB) (D. Conn.), Judge Vanessa L. Bryant of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the motion of the Pension Funds for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and approved its selection of Robbins Geller as the Lead Counsel. On Dec. 14, 2018, Mr. Labul sued the Defendants, alleging that the Defendants defrauded investors in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. He brought the action on behalf of himself and all others who purchased or otherwise acquired XPO securities between Feb. 26, 2014 and Dec. 12, 2018, inclusive. XPO is a corporation that provides transportation and logistics services to customers in various industries in the United States and internationally. The Plaintiff acquired XPO common stock allegedly at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. He claims the stock he owned lost value and caused him damage when a report revealed the untruth of XPO's representations as to its financial stability and success. The Plaintiff alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendant XPO made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business, operational and compliance policies. He alleges the beginning of the Class Period on Feb. 23, 2015, when XPO filed an Annual Report Form 10-K with the SEC, reporting a net loss of $63.6 million, or $2 per diluted share, on revenue of $2.36 billion for 2014, compared to a net loss of $48.53 million, or $2.26 per diluted share, on revenue of $702.3 million for 2013. It also reported its debt obligations and estimated future amortization expense for amortizable assets for the next five years. The Plaintiff alleges that the statements in XPO's 10-Ks were materially false and misleading and failed to disclose that: (i) XPO's highly touted aggressive M&A strategy had yielded only minimal returns to the Company; (ii) XPO was utilizing improper accounting practices to mask its true financial condition, including inter alia, under-reporting of bad debts and aggressive amortization assumptions; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading. On Dec. 14, 2018, Mr. Labul filed the action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired XPO securities between Feb. 26, 2014 and Dec. 12, 2018, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against XPO and the Individual Defendants. The same day, he published notice of the action. On Feb. 12, 2019, six putative Plaintiffs moved for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and for appointment of their counsel as the Lead Counsel. As competing motions were filed, one party withdrew her motion recognizing that other parties had a greater financial stake in the action. Three others filed notices of non-opposition to the competing motions in recognition of the fact that other parties had a greater stake, with Mr. Cooper and Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund expressing their continued willingness and ability to serve as the Lead Plaintiff should the Court determine that the other Lead Plaintiff movants with larger losses are not appropriate class representatives Motions for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff by Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund ("Pension Funds"); and the Trustees of Local 464A Funds United Food and Commercial Workers Union Pension Fun and Local 464A United Food and Commercial Workers Union Welfare Service Benefit Fund ("Local 646A"), remain. On Feb. 27, 2019, Defendants XPO and Jacobs filed a Notice of Relevant Information Concerning the Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Counsel, advising the Court that they believed the Pension Funds implicates a significant issue that warrants careful consideration at this time. The Notice explained an alleged ongoing effort by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to unionize XPO facilities and a lawsuit pending in Illinois state court against the Teamsters concerning trespass at an XPO facility near Chicago. The Pension Funds filed additional memoranda in response to Defendants' Notice and in further support of their motion for appointment. Local 464A also filed opposition and reply memoranda in support of its motion for appointment. Judge Bryant holds that the Pension Funds have made a sufficient preliminary showing of satisfaction of the Rule 23 requirements. This, along with the fact that they claim the greatest loss, entitles the Pension Funds to a rebuttable presumption that they are the most adequate Lead Plaintiff under the PSLRA. The Pension Funds claim to have suffered the greatest losses of the movants, approximately $1,222,938 under both the "last in, first out" and "first in, first out" calculations. The Pension Funds have chosen Robbins Geller to prosecute the case on behalf of the class. Robbins Geller has submitted a firm resume setting forth its extensive experience in prosecuting securities fraud actions. Based on its proven track record as counsel in securities class actions, Robbins Geller is approved as the Lead Counsel. For these reasons, Judge Bryant granted the motion of the Pension Funds for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff for the proposed Class in the action, and approved its selection of Robbins Geller as the Lead Counsel for the Class. Further, she denied as moot the motions for appointment of Bradley Cooper, Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund, and XPO Investor Group. A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Ruling and Order is available at https://is.gd/165AIH from Leagle.com. Larry Labul, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon L. Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Schaefer -- dschaefer@bswlaw.com -- Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman. XPO Logistics, Inc. & Bradley S. Jacobs, Defendants, represented by Daniel Sinnreich -- dsinnreich@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Evan A. Kubota -- ekubota@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, pro hac vice, James I. Glasser, Wiggin & Dana & Martin Flumenbaum -- mflumenbaum@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, pro hac vice. Bradley Cooper, Movant, represented by Brian P. Murray -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Elena Paraskeva, Movant, represented by William H. Narwold, Motley Rice LLC. Local #817 IBT Pension Fund, Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund & Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund, Movants, represented by Christopher M. Barrett, Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP. Local 464A United Food and Commercial Workers Union Pension and Welfare Service Benefit Funds, Movant, represented by George C. Springer, Jr., Rogin Nassau LLC. XPO Investor Group, Movant, represented by Shannon L. Hopkins, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. ZAPPOS: Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Data Breach Case Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Victoria Hudgins, writing for Legaltech News, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to settle a circuit split concerning if actual and immediate damages are needed to adequately allege an injury from a data breach, leaving some jurisdictions hotspots for data breach class action filings because of a lower threshold for standing. On March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court declined Zappos' petition for writ of certiorari in a case involving the 2012 data breach of Zappos' computer systems that led to hackers stealing 24 million customers' names, email and physical addresses and partial credit card information. Although no fraudulent charges were reported by breached customers, class action suits followed after Zappos revealed the breach. The central issue of the case was whether individuals whose data is breached have Article III standing without concrete injury. Last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that imminent risk of identity theft from the breach was enough to establish standing to sue for customers who weren't fraud victims. That view differs with the higher bar needed to adequately allege injury in the First, Second, Fifth and Eight circuits. The Supreme Court's inaction on the matter means there won't be a uniform view anytime soon, and the Ninth, Third, Sixth, Seventh and D.C. circuits will likely see the most fillings for class action data breach lawsuits. Plaintiffs will want to bring class actions in circuits "where the courts recognize you have standing without showing you suffered actual losses, monetary or otherwise," said Jones Walker partner and privacy and data security team co-chair Andy Lee. "It's geographical now, it has been, that's because the split has been there for a while in terms of history from the last 10, 12 years. This has been sent up to the Supreme Court a couple of times and it hasn't accepted cert yet." The circuit courts' varying decisions is partially based on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 Spokeo v. Robins ruling, which held Article III standing requires concrete harm. Fox Rothschild U.S. chief privacy officer and partner Mark McCreary said the Spokeo ruling was a "big deal" that hasn't translated over to data breach litigation. "There have been courts that have leaned toward allowing speculative risk causes of action, such as a heightened risk of future identity theft, and permitting standing for those cases," McCreary said. Plaintiffs attorney and founder of Edelson law firm Jay Edelson said litigating breach cases is less a question of standing but damages. "Standing is a jurisdictional requirement and Spokeo was pretty clear that you don't need to have out-of-pocket harm to have standing in court," Edelson noted. "If a company promises to deliver a product with a certain amount of security and they didn't, the consumer overpaid for that. . . . That's how they've been harmed. To us that's the best damages theory," he added. [GN] ZESTFINANCE INC: Sued Over Excessive Pay Day Loan Interest Rate --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Brueggemann, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that while it awaits the results of an appeal, ZestFinance -- a company founded by the former chief information officer of Google -- is facing another claim over payday loans that allegedly featured triple-digit interest rates. The most recent lawsuit was filed by a Houston woman in Los Angeles federal court against ZestFinance Inc.; its founder, former Google executive Douglas Merrill; and BlueChip Financial, claiming the defendants engaged in making so-called payday loans at excessive interest rates. The Houston woman's lawsuit is similar to another woman's class action suit that was filed earlier in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the same defendants that claims she was charged excessive interest rates on payday loans involving a Native American tribe. In the Washington case, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Bryan rejected motions by the defendants to require the woman, Teresa Titus, to go through arbitration, allowing the case to proceed in court. In their motion, the defendants argued that the loan agreements specified that any dispute would go to arbitration. Titus argued that the arbitration clause in the loan is unenforceable because it circumvented federal and state laws. The issue is on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Titus' suit alleges that the defendants are part of a "rent-a-tribe scheme" for making payday loans. Non-tribal entities ZestFinance and Merrill allegedly provided the capital, marketing, underwriting and other resources for BlueChip Financial, doing business as Spotloan. Spotloan is organized under the laws of the Turtle Mountain band of Chippewa Indians and makes usurious loans to Washington residents and to persons located throughout the United States, the suit alleges. The suit further alleges that, under a rent-a-tribe scheme, a payday lender -- typically one that does most of its lending over the internet -- affiliates with a Native American tribe to circumvent federal law. The suit alleges that borrowers were charged rates above what is allowed in Washington – as high as 490% annual interest. "Construing the contract as a whole, giving meaning to each provision, it appears that the intent of the contract is that the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians law applies, to the exclusion of federal and state law, except where those laws are specifically mentioned as applying to the contract," Bryan said in his court ruling denying arbitration. Bryan wrote that the defendants' "choice-of-forum and choice-of-law clauses operate as a prospective waiver of a party's right to pursue federal statutory remedies, and so the arbitration clause is invalid." [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Still Pending at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to lift stay remains pending in the bankruptcy cases of Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. The Company states, "On or about April 28, 2015, eight litigants who filed asbestos claims in California state court (hereinafter, "Petitioners") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy (hereinafter "life stay motion"). Under relevant provisions of the bankruptcy rules and on the filing of the D/C bankruptcy action, all pending litigation claims against D/C were stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy action. In their motion, Petitioners asked the bankruptcy court to lift the stay in the bankruptcy court to name D/C and/or its alternate entities as defendants in their respective California state court asbestos actions and to satisfy their claims against insurance policies that defend and indemnify D/C and/or their alternate entities. The Petitioner's motion to lift stay thus in part has as an objective ultimate recovery, if any, from, among other things, insurance policy proceeds that were allegedly assets of both the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estates. "Kaanapali, the EPA, and the Navy are claimants in the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy and the Fireman's Fund policies are allegedly among the assets of the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estate as well. For this and other reasons, Kaanapali, the EPA and the Navy opposed the motion to lift stay. "After briefing and argument, on May 14, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in In Re D/C Distribution, LLC, Bankruptcy Case No. 07-12776, issued an order lifting the stay. In the order, the court permitted the Petitioners to "proceed in the applicable nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law. Claimants are entitled to settle or enforce their claims only by collecting upon any available insurance Debtor's liability to them in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law. No recovery may be made directly against the property of Debtor, or property of the bankruptcy estate." Kaanapali, Firemen's Fund and the United States appealed the bankruptcy court order lifting the stay. "In March 2016, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court order finding that the bankruptcy court did not apply relevant law to the facts in the case to arrive at a reasoned decision. On appeal the district court noted that the law requires consideration of a number of factors when lifting a stay to permit certain claims to proceed, including consideration of the adequacy of remaining insurance to meet claims still subject to the stay. Among other things, the court noted that the bankruptcy court failed to explain why it was appropriate for the petitioners to liquidate their claims before the other claimants whose claims remained subject to the stay. The district court remanded the case for further proceedings. It is uncertain whether such further proceedings on the lift stay will take place. "The parties in the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies have reached out to each other to determine if there is any interest in pursuing a global settlement of the claims in the Oahu Sugar and D/C bankruptcies insofar as the Fireman's Fund insurance policies are concerned. If such discussions take place, they may take the form of a mediation or other format and involve some form of resolution of Kaanapali's interest in various of the Fireman's Fund insurance policies for Kaanapali's various and future insurance claims. Kaanapali may consider entering into such discussions, but there is no assurance that such discussions will take place or prove successful in resolving any of the claims in whole or in part." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/7xmBfm ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Williams Industrial Unit Defends PI Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that it intends to "vigorously defend" all currently active asbestos-related actions, all without liability. The Company also said it does not anticipate that any of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. The Company states, "A former operating unit of the Company has been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits. Neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material that allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions. "In 2006, the Company filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon the Company's emergence from bankruptcy in January 2008 extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had filed asbestos claims against it before that time. The Company believes the bankruptcy court's discharge order should serve as a bar against any later claim filed against it, including any of its subsidiaries, based on alleged injury from asbestos at any time before emergence from bankruptcy. In any event, in all of the asbestos cases finalized post-bankruptcy, the Company has been successful in having such cases dismissed without liability. "Moreover, during 2012, the Company secured insurance coverage that will help to reimburse the defense costs and potential indemnity obligations of its former operating unit relating to these claims. "The Company intends to vigorously defend all currently active actions, all without liability, and it does not anticipate that any of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. However, the outcomes of any legal action cannot be predicted and, therefore, there can be no assurance that this will be the case." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/wWDq0y ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fox Rothschild Discusses DeVries Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- Chris Temple, Esq., partner at Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that colleagues and clients frequently pose the question whether after more than forty years the asbestos litigation juggernaut has finally neared its inevitable conclusion. The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Air and Liquid Systems Corp v. DeVries 586 U.S. ___ (2019) demonstrates why the tide of asbestos litigation is hardly receding. To the contrary, rulings such as the Court's rendition of current federal maritime common law can reasonably be expected to energize a surge in claims in the national asbestos tort system. The DeVries decision embraces, but does not specifically acknowledge, two fundamental factors that have sustained asbestos litigation since its inception: 1) the cases usually involve substantial time delays between dates of manufacture, the alleged causative interaction with the product, and the manifestation of actual injury; and 2) the imposition of new and evolving legal obligations which did not exist at the time the products were originally manufactured and sold. At issue in DeVries is the resolution of a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeal on the question whether a product manufacturer is liable under federal maritime common law for failing to warn original customers about the subsequent use and incorporation of replacement parts manufactured by others. The Court held that under federal tort law in the maritime context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to believe the that product's users will realize that danger. Notably, the Court's ruling is stated in the present tense because the Court is actually applying this "new" articulation of the law to defendant product manufacturers with respect to their conduct surrounding products made and sold many decades ago and long before the court precedents giving rise to the defendants' duties were fully conceived, much less written. Article I Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws, but that provision has generally been applied in the context of criminal or civil sanctions imposed to punish persons for past acts. Akin to an ex post facto law but in the civil litigation context, the Court in DeVries has imposed legal duties and obligations on product manufacturers for past conduct undertaken at a time when no such duty existed or could have been reasonably anticipated. As the dissent notes, the majority decision imposes "a duty [the product manufacturer defendants] could not have anticipated then and one they cannot discharge now. They can only pay." The retrospective imposition of previously non-existent obligations on manufacturers remains a key feature fueling the asbestos litigation system in the U.S. A closer view of some case facts confirms at least part of the dissent's observation. One of the plaintiffs in the Devries case was the widow of a sailor who served in the U.S. Navy from 1957 to 1960 aboard a Navy ship originally built and commissioned during World War II. Plaintiff alleged that the sailor encountered asbestos released from parts of equipment installed on the ship during his service. Although the date of the equipment's manufacture and installation are not revealed in the opinion, it is reasonable to conclude that the original products at issue in the case were likely manufactured and installed sometime in the early 1940s and replacement parts were added or substituted sometime later but before 1960. Plaintiff claimed the onset of asbestos-related disease sometime after 2009 and filed suit in late 2012. As is quite common in asbestos litigation, one plaintiff's case generally involves a product made in the 1940s, the alleged exposure to harm occurred some 15 to 20 years later, and the actual injury did not manifest for yet another 50 years. The time delay between manufacture and lawsuit in this case was more than 70 years. There is nothing in the record that outlines the state of the law or the legally recognized duties that were imposed upon manufacturers at the time of manufacture or sale in the 1940s. Every case cited by the Court with respect to the requirements of tort or product liability law post-dates the manufacture of the product and the plaintiff's exposure to the alleged harm. Stated another way, there is no analysis whether a manufacturer of equipment for sale to the U.S. Navy had at the time of manufacture a recognized legal duty to warn the government that aftermarket replacement parts manufactured by some other company may pose a hazard. Any duty such a manufacturer had in the context of this case was applied retrospectively 70 years later. The real effect of the Devries decision is that a manufacturer supplying critical equipment to the U.S. Navy during wartime exigencies in 1943 should have issued a written warning based on a legal duty that would not be recognized by the law until the Court's opinion decades later. This embraces the very concept of ex post facto -- a law passed today that punishes behavior and imposes liability for conduct that was by all accounts appropriate and lawful at the time. In this environment, it is little wonder that asbestos litigation is and will remain as vibrant as ever. Mr. Temple can be reached at: Chris M. Temple, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP BNY Mellon Center 500 Grant St., Suite 2500 Pittsburgh PA 15219 Tel: (412) 394-5549 Fax: (412) 391-6984 Email: ctemple@foxrothschild.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Genesis Has $9MM Asset Retirement Liability ------------------------------------------------------------ Genesis Healthcare, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that it has a liability for the asset retirement obligation associated primarily with the cost of asbestos removal aggregating approximately US$9.0 million, which is included in other long-term liabilities. Genesis Healthcare states, "Certain of the Company's leased and owned real estate assets contain asbestos. The asbestos is believed to be appropriately contained in accordance with environmental regulations. If these properties were demolished or subject to renovation activities that disturb the asbestos, certain environmental regulations are in place, which specify the manner in which the asbestos must be handled and disposed. "At December 31, 2018 and 2017, the Company has a liability for the asset retirement obligation associated primarily with the cost of asbestos removal aggregating approximately US$9.0 million and US$9.8 million, respectively, which is included in other long-term liabilities. The liability for each facility will be accreted to its settlement value, which is estimated to approximate US$19.8 million through the estimated settlement dates extending from 2019 through 2042. Due to the time over which these obligations could be settled and the judgment used to determine the liability, the ultimate obligation may differ from the estimate. Upon settlement, any difference between actual cost and the estimate is recognized as a gain or loss in that period. "Annual accretion of the liability is recorded each year for the impacted assets until the obligation year is reached, either by sale of the property, demolition or some other future event such as a government action." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2UqBSuC ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Faces 29 PI Suits at Jan. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- GMS Inc.'s subsidiaries are still facing 29 pending asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits as of January 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2019. The Company states, "The building materials industry has been subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products as well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event that the use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or property damage or violated environmental, health or safety or other laws. "Such product liability claims have included and may in the future include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. In particular, certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed prior to 1979. "Since 2002 and as of January 31, 2019, approximately 988 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been filed and we vigorously defend against them. Of these, 949 have been dismissed without any payment by us, 29 are pending and only 10 have been settled, which settlements have not materially impacted our financial condition or operating results." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/2Tk17ue ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gorman-Rupp Says Suits Don't Have Material Impact ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Gorman-Rupp Company said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that asbestos-related claims and associated legal expenses generally have been covered by the Company's insurance, subject to applicable deductibles and limitations. The Company states, "For nearly twenty years, numerous business entities in the pump and fluid-handling industries, as well as a multitude of companies in many other industries, have been targeted in a series of lawsuits in several jurisdictions by various individuals seeking redress to claimed injury as a result of the entities' alleged use of asbestos in their products. "Since 2001, the Company and some of its subsidiaries have been involved in this mass-scaled litigation, typically as one of many co-defendants in a particular proceeding. The allegations in the lawsuits involving the Company and/or its subsidiaries have been vague, general and speculative. Most of these lawsuits have been dismissed without advancing beyond the early stage of discovery, some as a result of nominal monetary settlements recommended for payment by the Company's insurers. "The claims and related legal expenses generally have been covered by the Company's insurance, subject to applicable deductibles and limitations. Accordingly, this series of lawsuits has not, cumulatively or individually, had a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated results of operations, liquidity or financial condition, nor is it expected to have any such impact in the future, based on the current knowledge of the Company." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2Ohh43b ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grandma Lost 7 Relatives to Asbestos Exposure -------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Himelfield, writing for Examiner Live, reported that a great-grandmother, who died from exposure to asbestos, lost seven relatives following their exposure to the deadly insulation material. Celia Brackenbury, 82, died in August from mesothelioma, a cancer of the lung lining most commonly caused by exposure to asbestos. An inquest, at Wakefield Coroner's Court, concluded that Ms Brackenbury, from Liversedge , had died from industrial disease. Before her death Ms Brackenbury had lost seven relatives, including a brother, uncles and a nephew, to conditions linked to asbestos, her solicitors Irwin Mitchell said. Lucy Andrews, asbestos disease specialist lawyer for Irwin Mitchell, said: "This is a truly terrible case which once again highlights the devastating consequences of asbestos exposure. "Celia's death is perhaps made even more tragic by the fact that seven other members of her family all died as a result of asbestos-related conditions too." Ms Brackenbury, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma approximately two years before her death, had instructed the solicitors to investigate the cause of her disease. It is alleged she contracted the cancer after working at British Belting and Asbestos (BBA), Cleckheaton, between 1951 and 1960. Ms Brackenbury's job worked out the cost of everything made by the firm, at Scandinavia Mills, and she often had to enter production areas for further information. She also recalled the extensive presence of asbestos at the site. Celia's husband Donald, 82, said: "It was truly awful to see how mesothelioma affected Celia in the final years of her life and the entire family misses her so much. She was an incredible wife, mother and grandmother and not a day goes by when we do not think about her. "Asbestos has touched Celia's family so much down the years and it was hard to take that she herself was ultimately affected by it too." Ms Brackenbury's family have now warned employers to check their premises for asbestos and other hidden hazardous materials. The warning comes in time for Workers' Memorial Day (Sunday 28 April), an international day of remembrance and action for workers killed, disabled, injured or made unwell by their work. Donald added: "This year's Workers' Memorial Day and its theme on dangerous substances is very welcome as it is putting issues like asbestos firmly in the spotlight. This material should not be allowed to impact on other lives and employers need to ensure workers are protected from it." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.5-Bil. Liabilities at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. recorded total liabilities of US$2,491 million related to asbestos matters at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related personal injury actions related to North American Refractories Company ("NARCO"), which was sold in 1986, and Bendix Friction Materials ("Bendix") business, which was sold in 2014." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/rZqoZL ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $897MM NARCO Liabilities at Mar. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$897 million at March 31, 2019, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor company North American Refractories Company (NARCO), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "Honeywell's predecessor, Allied Corporation owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. When the NARCO business was sold, Honeywell's predecessor entered into a cross-indemnity agreement with NARCO which included an obligation to indemnify the purchaser for asbestos claims. Such claims arise primarily from alleged occupational exposure to asbestos-containing refractory brick and mortar for high-temperature applications. NARCO ceased manufacturing these products in 1980, and the first asbestos claims were filed in the tort system against NARCO in 1983. Claims filings and related costs increased dramatically in the late 1990s through 2001, which led to NARCO filing for bankruptcy in January 2002. Once NARCO filed for bankruptcy, all then current and future NARCO asbestos claims were stayed against both NARCO and Honeywell pending the reorganization of NARCO. "Following the bankruptcy filing, in December 2002 Honeywell recorded a total NARCO asbestos liability of US$3.2 billion, which was comprised of three components: (i) the estimated liability to settle pre-bankruptcy petition NARCO claims and certain post-petition settlements (US$2.2 billion, referred to as "Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability"), (ii) the estimated liability related to then unasserted NARCO claims for the period 2004 through 2018 (US$950 million, referred to as "NARCO Trust Liability"), and (iii) other NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations totaling US$73 million. "As of March 31, 2019, our total NARCO asbestos liability of US$897 million reflects Pre-bankruptcy NARCO liability of US$154 million and NARCO Trust Liability of US$743 million. Through March 31, 2019, Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability has been reduced by approximately US$2 billion since first established in 2002, largely related to settlement payments. The remaining Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability principally represents estimated amounts owed pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures. The other NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations were paid in 2013 and no further liability is recorded. "As of March 31, 2019, Honeywell has not made any payments to the NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims as any Annual Contribution Claims which have been paid since the Trust became operational have been funded by cash dividends from HWI. "Honeywell continues to evaluate the appropriateness of the US$743 million NARCO Trust Liability. Despite becoming effective in 2013, the NARCO Trust has experienced delays in becoming fully operational. Violations of the Trust Distribution Procedures and the resulting disputes and challenges, a standstill pending dispute resolution, and limited claims payments, have all contributed to the lack of sufficient normalized data based on actual claims processing experience in the Trust since it became operational. As a result, we have not been able to further update the NARCO Trust Liability. The US$743 million NARCO Trust Liability continues to be appropriate because of the unresolved pending claims in the Trust, some portion of which will result in payouts in the future, and because new claims continue to be filed with the NARCO Trust. When sufficiently reliable claims data exists, we will update our estimate of the NARCO Trust Liability and it is possible that a material change may need to be recognized. "Our insurance receivable of US$301 million as of March 31, 2019, corresponding to the estimated liability for asserted and unasserted NARCO asbestos claims, reflects coverage which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is recoverable for asbestos claims. While the substantial majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/rZqoZL ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to face lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos that may be in certain wire and cable, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. Houston Wire & Cable states, "The Company, along with many other defendants, has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact, distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any injuries. "The Company maintains general liability insurance that, to date, has covered the defense of and all costs associated with these claims. In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs. "In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims that the Company believes it could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2VfgVjo ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Tosses Claims Citing Del. Contractor Law --------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McParland, writing for Law.com, reported that the Superior Court has rejected an attempt by a union carpenter to hold three companies liable for asbestos-related injuries he allegedly sustained while working for an independent contractor at the firms' Delaware facilities. In a 29-page opinion, Judge Vivian L. Medinilla on April 18 said that Delmarva Power & Light Co., Getty and Sunoco did not owe plaintiff Werner Rath a duty of care stemming from his alleged exposure to the harmful substance while working alongside other tradesmen during his 27-year career with contractor Catalytic Inc., which was hired to perform work at the companies' facilities in Delaware City and Claymont. The ruling cited a line of Delaware Supreme Court cases holding that landowners are generally not liable to employees of individual contractors, except under a limited set of circumstances. According to Medinilla's opinion, Rath claimed to belong to a specific subset of asbestos plaintiffs that did not work directly with the substance and thus was required to show he was injured as a result of other workers on the defendants' property. Rath alleged in court papers that he was required to "stand by" after constructing scaffolding at the sites, while pipefitters, boilermakers and other tradesman worked on piping and insulation that were negligently maintained by the defendants. But Medinilla said Rath's argument improperly tried to include DP&L, Getty and Sunoco among the groups that could be held responsible for workers' asbestos injuries. Under Delaware law, she said, landowners can only be held accountable in such cases if they actively controlled the manner or method of a plaintiff's work, voluntarily assumed safety responsibility at the site, or took "possessory" control of the work area. In her ruling, Medinilla said that none of the three firms ever exercised control over the work sites, finding that only Rath's employer, Catalytic, did. According to the opinion, Rath never sought worker compensation benefits from Catalytic and instead tried to impose liability on the landowners based on the acts of Catalytic's employees. "This is problematic," Medinilla wrote. "The record is clear that Catalytic was the only contractor at the various facilities and was the sole employer of all the employees of the different trades that were working there, including the insulators, pipefitters and laborers that worked alongside Rath," she said. An attorney for Rath was not immediately available to comment. Counsel for Sunoco and DP&L did not return calls Monday seeking comment on the ruling, and an attorney for Getty declined to comment. Rath was represented by Donald P. Blydenburgh and Patrick I. Andrews of Levy Konigsberg in New York and Thomas C. Crumplar of of Jacobs & Crumplar in Wilmington. DP&L was represented by Robert S. Goldman and Lisa M. McLaughlin of Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall in Wilmington. Getty was represented by James F. Harker of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman in Wilmington. Sunoco was represented by Francis Gondek and Nicholas E. Skiles of Swartz Campbell in Wilmington. The case is captioned Rath v. 3M. A full-text copy of the Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3gbet8x from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Kaanapali Land, LLC still faces personal injury suits related to asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. The Company states, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to other entities, and D/C Distribution Corporation ("D/C"), a subsidiary of Kaanapali Land, have been named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos. While there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). "Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on the sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. Each entity defending these cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these cases. The defense of these cases has had a material adverse effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to file a voluntary petition for liquidation. "Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there can be no assurance in this regard." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/7xmBfm ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds Mum-of-Four Dies of Asbestos Cancer ---------------------------------------------------------- Don Mort, writing for The Yorkshire Post, reported that a widower has appealed for help to find out if his wife's asbestos-related cancer was caused when she worked at a manufacturing company in the early 1960s. Mother-of-four Patricia Yeadon, from Leeds, died aged 72 just six months after she first developed severe chest pain and was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Husband Colin, 74, of Yeadon, Leeds, instructed specialist lawyers to launch an investigation after an inquest found she died from the disease, which is linked to exposure to asbestos. Law Firm Irwin Mitchell is seeking information about her time working at Lewis & Co, on Globe Road, Leeds in 1960 and 1961. Mr Yeadon, a retired lorry driver, said: "Patricia was working at the company when I first met her and as far as I'm aware she was only there a matter of months. After a short time working for another company we had our first child and she stopped work until the early 1970s. "It was awful to see how mesothelioma affected her and her health deteriorated in just a few short months. Losing her so quickly was a huge shock and the entire family still misses her so much. "Patricia was such a loving and caring person and we still miss her every day. Our family is not the same without her." Mr Yeadon appealed for information ahead of Workers' Memorial Day in April 28, an annual event to commemorate those who died as a result of their work. The theme of this year's event is "dangerous substances -- get them out of the workplace." In the UK around 2,500 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma every year. Lucy Andrews, Irwin Mitchell's legal expert representing Mr Yeadon, said: "This is sadly yet another tragic case where we believe an individual has gone on to develop an asbestos-related illness many years after exposure to the material. "Asbestos has affected so many lives through the decades and it is welcome that this year's Workers' Memorial Day is all about shining a spotlight on the impact that this material and many others have had." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Faces PL Suits at Dec. 31, 2018 -------------------------------------------------------------- Manitex International, Inc. remains a defendant in several multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. The Company states, ""In certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company’s products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/2K3Dn9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Had $188.3MM Reserves at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Markel Corporation recorded US$188.3 million for asbestos-related reserves on a gross basis at December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. The Company states, "At December 31, 2018, asbestos-related reserves were US$188.3 million and US$63.4 million on a gross and net basis, respectively. Net reserves for reported claims for A&E exposures were US$74.4 million at December 31, 2018. Net incurred but not reported reserves for A&E exposures were US$8.7 million at December 31, 2018. Inception-to-date net paid losses and loss adjustment expenses for A&E related exposures totaled US$647.7 million at December 31, 2018. "The Company's reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses related to A&E exposures represent management's best estimate of ultimate settlement values based on the Company's statistical analysis of these reserves, which is reviewed by the Company's independent actuaries. A&E exposures are subject to significant uncertainty due to potential loss severity and frequency resulting from the uncertain and unfavorable legal climate. A&E reserves could be subject to increases in the future; however, management believes the Company's gross and net A&E reserves at December 31, 2018 are adequate." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2TUx7tf ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 62,522 PI Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Metropolitan Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that there are approximately 62,522 asbestos personal injury claims pending at year end December 31, 2018. The Company also disclosed that there are 3,359 new claims filed in 2018. Settlement payments during the year amounted to US$51.4 million. The Company states, "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances. "Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty to the plaintiffs — it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials. "The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2HSYpuq ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Asbestos Claim Reform Bill Moving Forward ------------------------------------------------------------------- John Breslin, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that proposed legislation aimed at reforming the way asbestos civil actions are dealt with in Missouri courts is moving forward and is scheduled to be debated in the Senate. But those driving the legislation, Senate Bill 69, are not sure it will pass all votes and in both chambers as there remains only a month left in the legislative session. SB69 states that plaintiffs suing in civil court must provide all information relating to any claim made to separate bankruptcy trusts set up to compensate those harmed by asbestos, many of whom suffer from mesothelioma. Further, the bill allows defendants to object not later than 60 days prior to the trial date if they believe all information has not been provided. Supporters characterize the bill as helping those harmed by protecting funds in bankruptcy trusts. Critics claim the proposals will allow defendants to delay the progress of suits to the point where the plaintiffs may be dead. The bill, which passed the Government Reform Committee, is currently on the informal calendar, but will be debated and voted on "for perfection" on Tuesday. Changes will be introduced in the Senate. But both the sponsor of the bill, Sen. Lincoln Hough (R-Springfield), and lobbyist Rich AuBuchon, representing the MIssouri Civil Justice Reform Coalition, which describes itself as a pro-business tort reform group, say that it is not clear that it will pass this year. "There are several tort reform issues on the informal calendar and, as of now, I'm not sure which ones will receive floor time," Hough told the St. Louis Record. AuBuchon, who is also helping to advance a bill in the House, said he remains hopeful the bill will pass but "we are in the last month of the session, and that late, it is about timing" with other pieces of legislation vying for advancement. "It does not diminish its importance, but we might have to wait until it comes back next year," AuBuchon told the St. Louis Record. Under current laws, a claimant can file for relief for asbestos-related injuries or diseases via an asbestos trust funded by companies that had to file bankruptcy because of pending and future claims and through civil actions. But those supporting reform claim "double dipping" happens, and increasingly so. Claimants are filing claims to the trust, then taking action in civil action against other companies that remain solvent. "What we are seeing in Missouri is an outgrowth of what Illinois saw, (that is) a proliferation of asbestos actions" in court, AuBuchon said. The bill requires claimants to disclose claims they have filed with asbestos trusts when that same claimant is making a civil case, Hough told the Columbia Missourian newspaper, adding that it creates fairness for both the claimant and businesses. The Missouri Chamber of Commerce, in a statement, said the bill "would allow for the fair allocation of fault and ensure plaintiffs receive fair compensation for their injuries, while not letting trial attorneys pursue multiple avenues of recovery." "It would also prevent the depletion of limited trust fund resources so that future claimants will still be able to receive compensation," the chamber added. However, Bart Baumstark, a St. Louis attorney who represents asbestos claimants, told the Columbia Missourian the bill is aimed at delaying court dates, and justice. "What this bill does, is it allows (the court) to wait 60 days before a trial, and with the way it is written now they will absolutely get a continuance from that trial date. Now you senators may say to yourselves, 'What's one continuance?' That's the difference between life and death for our clients. . . . . Fifty percent of our clients don't make it to their trial date," Baumstark said. AuBuchon said the trust funds were set up to help those harmed and that the bill protects that money for future claimants that deserve to be adequately compensated. He stressed that supporters of the bill are "not making the assertion that harmed individuals not be made whole." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 86 Suits at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. still defends itself against approximately 86 asbestos-related personal injury cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 86 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 188 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages against named defendants. In each of the three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at US$3.0 million compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive damages; one count at US$1.0 million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0 million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any. "Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date and, based upon available information, our management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial position." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2UfIpZR ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 460 Open Claims at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended March 31, 2019, that it is aware of approximately 460 open and active asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. The Company states, "These claims consist primarily of non-PC Relationship Claims and claims against a subsidiary of PPG. The Company is defending the remaining open and active claims vigorously. "Since April 1, 2013, a subsidiary of PPG has been implicated in claims alleging death or injury caused by asbestos-containing products manufactured, distributed or sold by a North American architectural coatings business or its predecessors which was acquired by PPG. All such claims have been either served upon or tendered to the seller for defense and indemnity pursuant to obligations undertaken by the seller in connection with the Company's purchase of the North American architectural coatings business. The seller has accepted the defense of these claims subject to the terms of various agreements between the Company and the seller. The seller's defense and indemnity obligations in connection with newly filed claims ceased with respect to claims filed after April 1, 2018. "PPG has established reserves totaling approximately US$180 million for asbestos-related claims that would not be channeled to the Trust which, based on presently available information, we believe will be sufficient to encompass all of PPG's current and potential future asbestos liabilities. These reserves include a US$162 million reserve established in 2009 in connection with an amendment to the PC plan of reorganization. These reserves, which are included within Other liabilities on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets, represent PPG's best estimate of its liability for these claims. PPG does not have sufficient current claim information or settlement history on which to base a better estimate of this liability in light of the fact that the Bankruptcy Court's injunction staying most asbestos claims against the Company was in effect from April 2000 through May 2016. PPG will monitor the activity associated with its remaining asbestos claims and evaluate, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such claims, its insurance assets then available, and all underlying assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for these claims is required. "The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including (i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii) the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims; (iv) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process, including a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (v) the outcome of any trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vi) the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure for which PPG is allegedly responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; and (vii) potential changes in applicable federal and/or state tort liability law. All of these factors may have a material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates. As a potential offset to any future asbestos financial exposure, under the PC plan of reorganization PPG retained, for its own account, the right to pursue insurance coverage from certain of its historical insurers that did not participate in the PC plan of reorganization. While the ultimate outcome of PPG's asbestos litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, PPG believes that any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse effect on PPG's consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/qvGwMW ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has At Most 500 Cases in US, 50 in Europe ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tenneco Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that its current docket of active and inactive asbestos-related cases is less than 500 cases in the United States and less than 50 in Europe. The Company states, "For many years we have been and continue to be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos. Our current docket of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases in the United States and less than 50 in Europe. "With respect to the claims filed in the United States, the substantial majority of the claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in our line of Walker(R) exhaust automotive products although a significant number of those claims appear also to involve occupational exposures sustained in industries other than automotive. A small number of claims have been asserted against one of our subsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars. We believe, based on scientific and other evidence, it is unlikely that U.S. claimants were exposed to asbestos by our former products and that, in any event, they would not be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of industries. Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages. "With respect to the claims filed in Europe, the substantial majority relate to occupational exposure claims brought by current and former employees of Federal-Mogul facilities in France and amounts paid out were not material. A small number of occupational exposure claims have also been asserted against Federal-Mogul entities in Italy and Spain. "As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an increased number of these claims. We vigorously defend ourselves against these claims as part of our ordinary course of business. In future periods, we could be subject to cash costs or charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to us. To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, we have regularly achieved favorable resolutions. Accordingly, we presently believe that these asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse impact on our annual consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2FM6Ns8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.2-Bil. Net Reserves at March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc. has net asbestos reserves of US$1,243 million at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. Travelers Companies states, "The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos claims. Factors underlying these claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the focus by plaintiffs on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought bankruptcy protection in previous years. The bankruptcy of many traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other participating insurers. "The Company continues to be involved in disputes, including litigation, with a number of policyholders, some of whom are in bankruptcy over coverage for asbestos-related claims. Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company, but which could result in settlements for larger amounts than originally anticipated. Although the Company has seen a reduction in the overall risk associated with these disputes, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims. As in the past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement opportunities. "In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It is possible that the filing of other direct actions against insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future. It is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs would be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to any such claims and has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions. "Because each policyholder presents different liability and coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the factors which the Company may consider in the course of this review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved; past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims; allocated claim adjustment expense; the potential role of other insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if any, for that claim. "Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first three months of 2019 and 2018 were US$38 million and US$33 million, respectively. Net asbestos reserves were US$1.24 billion at March 31, 2019, compared with US$1.25 billion at March 31, 2018." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/NplpL3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Trustee Objects to FCR Appointment -------------------------------------------------------- Andrew R. Vara, the Acting United States Trustee for Region 3, objects to the motion of Imerys Talc America, Inc., and its affiliated debtors seeking an order appointing James L. Patton, Jr., as the legal representative of future talc personal injury claimants, nunc pro tunc to the Petition Date. The U.S. Trustee does not object to the appointment of an FCR, which is an important and appropriate form of relief in a chapter 11 case involving significant present and future tort claim liabilities. The U.S. Trustee though does object to the Debtors' request to appoint Mr. Patton as FCR, which disregards the Court's statutory authority and responsibility to independently select the FCR and exercise its discretion in soliciting or considering other candidates. The U.S. Trustee points out that the Bankruptcy Code requires that the Court select and appoint the FCR, the fiduciary charged with protecting the due process rights of future claimants who are unknown and absent. The future claimants will not have a later opportunity to replace the FCR should he fail in meeting his fiduciary responsibility to represent the future claimants' interests effectively. This is an important constitutional consideration that requires the selection and appointment process to yield an independent and effective FCR. The Court's appointment of an FCR should also not be the subject of an adversary proceeding or contested matter, the U.S. Trustee further points out. As requested in a separate filing by the U.S. Trustee, in order for the Court to meet its statutory appointment obligation, FCR candidates should be considered by the Court in a collective proceeding, where the candidates are evaluated by the Court on equal footing. Deference should not be given to the Debtors' or any other party's nominee, the U.S. Trustee said. Therefore, the U.S. Trustee asks that the Court defer decision on the Motion and on appointment of the FCR for future talc claimants until the time when the Court may conduct such a proceeding. ********* 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 ***