/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190520.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 20, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 100 Headlines 24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces Schick Suit over Autodialled Calls ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Shaulov Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ADP LLC: Pederson Suit Asserts FCRA Breach ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Under-Values Total Losses of Insureds, Says Suit AMERICAN LIMOUSINE: Thompson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages AMERICAN RENAL: Safirstein Metcalf Files Securities Fraud Suit ARCADIA RECOVERY: Wieder Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ARKANSAS TOTAL: Care Coordinators Class Certified in Hatch Suit ASPIRATION PARTNERS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York AT AND T MOBILITY: Ayala's Class Cert. Bid Denied; May Amend Suit AT&T INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit AUTOLIV INC: Insurer's Antitrust Lawsuit Ongoing AVIS BUDGET: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Venerus Suit to 11th Cir AWESOME OFFICE: Fischler Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach BEAN BOX: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act BOB MOORE AUTO: Brown Files Class Suit under FDCPA BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Securities Suit over Transvaginal Mesh BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Resolves 41,000 Mesh-Related Suits BUREAUS INVESTMENT: Ostreicher Files Class Suit Under FDCPA CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Herington Asserts Breach of Contract CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Ostreicher Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York CAREER GROUP: Olsen Alleges Violation Under Disabilities Act CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Park Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York CELGENE CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Thalomid & Revlimid Cases Pending CELLULAR SALES: Wins Bid to Decertify FLSA Class in Holick Suit CF MEDICAL: Marquez Files Class Action Asserting FDCPA Breach CITIBANK NA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Revitch Suit CKS FINANCIAL: Weinberg Disputes Collection Letter Validity CLEANER WORLD: Mesidor Claims Unpaid Overtime Wages CLOUD INTERMEDIATE: English Suit Dismissed With Prejudice CN TRANSPORTATION: Rogers Sues over Biometric Privacy Issues COFFEE MEETS BAGEL: Denied Overtime, Breaks, Paystubs, says Bustos CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $21.1MM in Obligation to be Paid in 2019 CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Paul Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York COOLSPA LLC: Olsen Sues over Website's Limited Accessibility CREDIT CONTROL: Friedman Files FDCPA Class Action in New York DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Paul Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York DYNACAST LLC: Colon Sues over Illegally Collected Biometric Data ENEL AMERICAS: Artisanal Fishermen Suit v. Unit Still Under Review ENEL AMERICAS: Suit over Refund of Tariff Cost Charges Underway FALCON TRANSPORT: Hlebovy Seeks 60 Days' Worth of Pay and Benefits FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Refused Payments to Insureds, McGowan Suit Says FORD MOTOR: Hubert Files Product Liability Suit in Illinois GB COLLECTS: Camarda Files Class Suit Under FDCPA GEICO INDEMNITY: Wingo Files Class Suit for Breach of Contract GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Sims Seeks OT, Minimum Pay for Store Cashiers GOOGLE INC: Butler Snow Discusses Article III Standing Rulings H&R ACCOUNTS: Kornegay Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina HARISHIVJI INC: Delivery Worker Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages HEALTHIQ RE: Violates Calif. Wage and Hour Laws, Merida Suit Says HFF INC: Sabatini Files Suit Over JLL Merger Deal HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Throndson Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls INFUSION MANAGEMENT: Viverette Hits Biometrics Data Sharing JAMAlCA BEAIUNGS: Griffith Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Akingboye Talc Suit Removed to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bakman Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Barrette Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bauer Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bautista Talc Suit Removed to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bernal Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Bafalon Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Balasow Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JUUL LABS: Reid Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KIA MOTORS: Jens Files Suit Over Defective GDI Engine KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Stonehocker Sues Over Unpaid Wages LEHIGH VALLEY: Payne Moves to Certify Female Workers Class LITHIA MOTORS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Mendoza TILA Suit LIVE WELL FINANCIAL: Williams Sues Over WARN Act Violation M LEONARD: Inman Asserts Breach of FDCPA in California MASTERCARD INC: GBP14BB Interchange Fees Class Action Revived MASTERCARD INC: Skadden Arps Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling MENDOTA INSURANCE: Harrell Files Class Suit Over Insurance Dispute MIDLAND CREDIT: Gonzales Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Certify Club Dancers Class Filed NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid in Daniel Suit NCAA: Proebstle Seeks Damages for Student-Athlete's Injuries NEPTUNO RESTAURANTS: Denied Toribio Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay NEW YORK HEALTH: Doncouse Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NORTHWEST PALLET: Grandberry Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. POKEMON COMPANY: Website not Blind-friendly, Claims Dennis RADIUS GLOBAL: Faces Shapiro Suit over Unsolicited Phone Calls RAPID PARTS: Denied OT Pay, Wage Notices, Paystubs, Lopez Says SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Pontones Seeks Certification of FLSA Class SOLIDCORE HOLDINGS: Andrews Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act SYNTER RESOURCE: Englander Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York TRINET GROUP: No Appeal in Welgus Class Suit TWITTER INC: May 23 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Olukayode Seeks OT Pay for Consultants US PAPER MILLS: Shortchanges Workers Wages, Winter Suit Says V. G. MIRROR: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Ordenano Suit Says VALVE CORP: G.G. Appeals W.D. Washington Ruling to Ninth Circuit VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Illegally Shared Geo-data, Morrison Says VIVI BUBBLE: Bunting Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act WELLCARE HEALTH: Nasisi Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA WEST MEMPHIS FENCE: Class Cert. Denied; Renewed Bid Due July 29 WETSCH ABBOTT: Johnson Appeals Order and Judgment to 8th Circuit WILL COUNTY, IL: Dunn Moves to Certify Class and Four Subclasses ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN: Santos Sues Over Defective Airbags ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Plotkin Files Class Suit in New York [*] Harvard Law Students Fight Mandatory Arbitration Agreements [*] New Class Action Procedural Rules Under Paycheck Fairness Act [*] Next Wave of Class Actions to Come from Massive Data Breaches [*] Number of Class Actions v. Foreign Companies Up 39% in 2018 ********* 24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces Schick Suit over Autodialled Calls --------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. and Zoom Media Group, Inc. for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned DEBORAH SCHICK, Plaintiff, v. 24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC. and ZOOM MEDIA GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02193-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 23, 2019). Plaintiff Deborah Schick, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, alleges that Defendants 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. and Zoom Media Group, Inc. violated TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system to place non-emergency telemarketing calls to her cellular phone without prior, express, written consent. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of California with its principal place of business at 12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 500, San Ramon, California. 24 Hour Fitness operates over 400 fitness clubs in 13 different states. 24 Hour Fitness contracts with Zoom Media to place telemarketing calls to businesses that may want to purchase advertising space at 24 Hour Fitness clubs. Zoom Media Group, Inc., is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business at 999 de Maisonneuve West, Suite 1000, Montreal Quebec, Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven M. Tindall, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612-1406 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: smt@classlawgroup.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com jmurray@terrellmarshall.com amcentee@terrellmarshall.com ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Shaulov Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accounts Receivable Technologies Inc. The case is styled as Alexander Shaulov individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Accounts Receivable Technologies Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02735 (E.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Accounts Receivable Technologies (ART) is a debt collection agency located in Piscataway, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com ADP LLC: Pederson Suit Asserts FCRA Breach ------------------------------------------ Benjamin Pederson, individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, ADP Payroll Services, Inc., Automatic Data Processing, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00827 (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2019), seeks all damages and injunctive relief for violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and California Civil Code. ADP provides consumer reporting, investigation and background checks, as well as payroll services throughout the country. Pederson claims that they collected consumer reports without providing and/or obtaining a lawful and compliant disclosure required by law. Pederson applied for employment in the County of San Bernardino and discovered that were able to secure background disclosure forms. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Singer, Esq. J. Jason Hill, Esq. Kristina De La Rosa, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 Email: msinger@ckslaw.com jhill@ckslaw.com kdelarosa@ckslaw.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 ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Under-Values Total Losses of Insureds, Says Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID A. WALKER, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00701-RDP (N.D. Ala., May 8, 2019) is an Alabama class action arising from Defendants' systemic and intentionally wrongful under-valuation of total losses involving the vehicles of Allstate first party insureds. According to the complaint, Allstate is not fair and honest in providing valuations to Allstate insureds whose vehicles have been involved in an accident and are determined to be a total loss. Through its auto insurance policy contracts, Allstate has agreed to provide, inter alia, collision coverage for losses resulting from damage to insureds' vehicles. When the costs of repairs exceed a specified percentage of the vehicle's value, Allstate declares the vehicle a total loss and must fairly adjust that total loss claim by properly valuing the insured vehicle. Allstate has contracted with CCC to receive Market Valuation Reports ("CCC Reports") to determine the "Base Vehicle Value" of a total loss vehicle and the "Adjusted Value" after any "Condition Adjustment" and applicable deductible. Through this agreement with CCC, Allstate and CCC have engaged in a scheme to artificially deflate the value of total loss claims with the specific intent to pay first party insureds less than the actual pre-loss value of total loss vehicles by making improper downward "Condition Adjustment." Plaintiff and the putative Class are Allstate automobile insurance policy holders whose vehicles Allstate determined to be a total loss, and who have been subject to Allstate and CCC's scheme to artificially deflate the value of their total loss claims by making such improper downward "Condition Adjustments". When it entered into the Policies at issue in this case with Plaintiff and Class Members, Allstate was aware, but failed to disclose to Plaintiff and the Class, that CCC's Reports would wrongfully undervalue total loss vehicles and that Allstate would intentionally underpay total loss claims based on the CCC Reports. Through this scheme, Allstate and CCC have engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of Alabama law, and their respective contractual obligations and have thereby uniformly damaged Allstate insureds in Alabama in a readily ascertainable dollar amount, says the complaint. Plaintiff David A. Walker was the owner of a 2008 Subaru Impreza Sedan (the "Vehicle"). Allstate issued its Automobile Policy No. 0455477893 (the "Policy") to Plaintiff which insured the Vehicle. That Policy was in effect in May 2017. Allstate issued automobile liability insurance Policies, including coverage for property damage and first-party total loss claims.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan H. Waller, Esq. WALLER LAW OFFICE, PC 2001 Park Place, Suite 900 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 313-7330 Email: jwaller@waller-law.com - and - Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-2434 Email: jcohen@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com AMERICAN LIMOUSINE: Thompson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ ERNEST THOMPSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN LIMOUSINE GROUP, LLC d/b/a ADDISON LEE, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-04133 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019) is an action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), New York's Wage and Hour Laws ("NYLL"), and New Jersey's Wage and Hour Laws ("NJWHL"). More specifically, Plaintiff asserts that he and members of the Class, as non-exempt employees, are entitled to recover all unpaid wages for off the-clock work; overtime compensation for hours in excess of 40 in the workweek; and for liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees. Plaintiff and members of the Class were not paid overtime compensation by Defendant for all hours worked each week, in excess of 40 hours, and has willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the NJWHL, NYLL and FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a full time, uniformed chauffeur from November 1, 2017 to April 8, 2019. Addison Lee Group is a London-based private hire chauffeured taxi company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Bennett Blau, Esq. Shelly A. Leonard, Esq. BLAU, LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC 23 Green Street, Suite 303 Huntington, NY 11743 Phone: (631) 458-1010 Email: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com AMERICAN RENAL: Safirstein Metcalf Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Safirstein Metcalf LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: ARA) between August 10, 2016 and March 27, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased American Renal securities during the Class Period and would like more information about the shareholder class action, please contact Safirstein Metcalf LLP at 1-800-221-0015, or email info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 28, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) American Renal's financial statements for fiscal years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 contained in its Annual Reports for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and its condensed consolidated financial statements in quarterly reports from 2016 through 2018 were false and could not be relied upon; (2) American Renal had material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Contact: Peter Safirstein, Esq. Safirstein Metcalf LLP The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: 1-800-221-0015 Email: info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com [GN] ARCADIA RECOVERY: Wieder Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC. The case is styled as Asher Wieder individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02731 (E.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC provides accounts receivable management solutions to organizations for bridging the gap between services rendered and payments received.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com ARKANSAS TOTAL: Care Coordinators Class Certified in Hatch Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James M. Moody, Jr., granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, for Disclosure of Contact Information and to Send Notices in the lawsuit titled TAQUILLA HATCH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ARKANSAS TOTAL CARE, INC., CENTENE CORPORATION and CENTENE MANAGEMET COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00580-JM (E.D. Ark.). The Court finds that conditional certification is proper under the Fair Labor Standards Act for purposes of notice and discovery, and accordingly, certifies the class requested by the Plaintiff: All Care Coordinators for Arkansas Total Care, Inc. and Centene Corporation at any time since August 27, 2015. The form of notice proposed by the Plaintiff is appropriate and is approved. The Court orders the Defendant to provide to counsel for the Plaintiff the names and addresses of all persons, who were employed by them as Care Coordinators during the specific time within 14 days from the entry of this Order. The Defendant shall provide the information in electronic format only if it is currently maintained in electronic format. The Court authorizes a 90-day opt-in period from the date the notice is mailed. The lawyers for the Plaintiff are authorized to issue the notice and consent forms by mail. They are also authorized to send a reminder postcard thirty days after the initial notice is mailed. The Plaintiff's request to provide notice via electronic mailing or text message is denied.[CC] ASPIRATION PARTNERS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aspiration Partners, Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Aspiration Partners, Inc., Aspiration Financial, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02739 (E.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Aspiration Partners, LLC is a principal investment firm and is based in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com AT AND T MOBILITY: Ayala's Class Cert. Bid Denied; May Amend Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Stephen V. Wilson issued an order in the lawsuit captioned Natasha Ayala v. AT and T Mobility Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-08809-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal.): -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint; and -- denying motion for class certification. Judge Wilson opines that amendment is warranted under the liberal pleading standards of Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Plaintiff's proposed amendments and new causes of action are not clearly futile. The Plaintiff is ordered to file the Second Amended Complaint within seven days of this Order, and the Defendant's answer shall be due 21 days after the Plaintiff files the Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed on the same date as the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, but the Court finds it procedurally improper to allow the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to continue as filed in light of the Plaintiff's amendment to the operative complaint. Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as moot. The parties are given 30 days from the date of this Order to conduct any necessary discovery as to the new allegations in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, for purposes of a renewed motion for class certification. Following discovery, the Plaintiff may file a properly-noticed motion for class certification on or before June 3, 2019.[CC] AT&T INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who acquired the Company's shares pursuant to its Registration Statement issued in connection with AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner in June 2018, or purchased the Company's shares between October 22, 2016 and October 24, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 31, 2019. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian, of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. AT&T increased prices for DirecTV Now service while discontinuing promotional discount offers for the service at the same time. This resulted in existing customers leaving the service when their discount expired, and new customers avoiding the service altogether based on high prices. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about AT&T, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. Contact: Brian Schall, Esq. Sherin Mahdavian, Esq. The Schall Law Firm 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 Website: www.schallfirm.com Email: info@schallfirm.com brian@schallfirm.com. sherin@schallfirm.com [GN] AUTOLIV INC: Insurer's Antitrust Lawsuit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------ Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend an antitrust lawsuit initiated by an insurer (and its affiliated entities) that opted out of the end-payor class settlement. The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti-competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. The Company, several of its subsidiaries, and its competitors were named as defendants in a total of nineteen purported antitrust class action lawsuits filed between June 2012 and June 2015. Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and were consolidated in the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases sought to represent four purported classes: direct purchasers, auto dealers, end-payors, and truck and equipment dealers, who purchased occupant safety systems or components directly from a defendant, indirectly through purchases or leases of new vehicles containing such systems, or through purchases of replacement parts. In May 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered into separate settlement agreements with the direct purchasers, auto dealers, and end-payors, which were granted final approval by the MDL court in 2015 and 2016. In April 2016, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the truck and equipment dealers' class, which was granted final approval by the MDL court in 2016. The class settlements do not resolve any claims of settlement class members who opt-out of the settlements or the unasserted claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities. Several individuals and one insurer (and its affiliated entities) opted-out of the end-payor class settlement, including the Company's settlement. In September 2016, the insurer (and its affiliated entities) that opted out of the end-payor class settlement filed an antitrust lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on various grounds was granted in part and denied in part in August 2018. Since this decision, various amended pleadings and motions have been made by the parties. Autoliv said, "To date, no decision has been rendered by the Court. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of this matter." Autoliv, Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, and supplies automotive safety systems to the automotive industry. Autoliv, Inc. was founded in 1953 and is headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden. AVIS BUDGET: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Venerus Suit to 11th Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants filed an appeal from a Court ruling issued in the lawsuit entitled HEATHER VENERUS v. AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC and BUDGET RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 6:13-cv-00921-CEM-GJK, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 15, 2019, the Hon. Carlos E. Mendoza issued an order in the lawsuit denying the Defendants' Dispositive Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Article III Standing and Defendants' Motion for Relief from Final Judgment, and granting the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Taxation of Costs. The Court redefined the Class as follows: All individuals who (1) rented an Avis or Budget vehicle in the State of Florida after June 12, 2008, pursuant to a prepaid voucher, and (2) whose Rental Receipt contained the notation "SLI .00/Day Accepted" or "ALI .00/Day Accepted. Excluded from the Class are all such renters who have been involved in accidents and who have outstanding claims for liability or uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, as well as all such renters whose liability or uninsured/underinsured motorist claims have been paid by Defendants. The appellate case is captioned as Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, et al. v. Heather Venerus, Case No. 19-90003, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent HEATHER VENERUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Christopher J. Lynch, Esq. HUNTER WILLIAMS & LYNCH, PA 2977 McFarlane Rd., Suite 301 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 443-6200 E-mail: Clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com - and - Edmund A. Normand, Esq. Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq. NORMAND, PLLC 62 W Colonial Dr., Suite 209 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: Ed@EdNormand.com Jacob@ednormand.com Defendants-Petitioners AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC, and BUDGET RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC., are represented by: Philip Glatzer, Esq. MARLOW CONNELL ABRAMS ADLER NEWMAN & LEWIS 4000 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 570 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (305) 446-0500 E-mail: pglatzer@marlowconnell.com - and - Irene Oria, Esq. Robert T. Wright, Jr., Esq. FISHERBROYLES, LLP 199 E Flagler St. Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 536-2838 E-mail: irene.oria@fisherbroyles.com robert.wright@fisherbroyles.com - and - Brian C. Frontino, Esq. Cristina Boullon Rodriguez, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-9900 E-mail: Bfrontino@stroock.com cbrodriguez@stroock.com AWESOME OFFICE: Fischler Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach -------------------------------------------------- Awesome Office Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Awesome Office Inc. doing business as: Snacknation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02636 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2019). Awesome Office, Inc., doing business as SnackNation, provides snack delivery services. The company curates and delivers consumer packaged goods to the customers. The company was incorporated in 2014 and is based in Culver City, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com BEAN BOX: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------- Bean Box, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bean Box, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02635 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2019). Bean Box is a coffee subscription service that highlights Seattle's best coffee roasters.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com BOB MOORE AUTO: Brown Files Class Suit under FDCPA -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bob Moore Auto Group LLC. The case is styled as Leslie Brown, on behalf of all other putative plaintiffs, similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bob Moore Auto Group LLC, BMAG Luxury 1 LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, Jozef Daren Dabrowski, Tony G Grissom Tony G Grissom, Acting in his official capacity as an agent of Bob Moore Auto Group, L.L.C. and BMAG Luxury 1, L.L.C., John Doe Towing Services, John Doe Tow Truck Driver #1 and John Doe Tow Truck Driver #2, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00409-R (W.D. Okla, May 3, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Bob Moore Auto Group, LLC operates as an automotive dealer in Greater Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Edmond, Norman, and Moore, Oklahoma. It offers new and used cars, trucks, and SUVs; parts and accessories, as well as services; and finance options. Bob Moore Auto Group, LLC was founded in 1950 and is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence K Donahoe, Esq. LKDLAW PC PO Box 31375 Edmond, OK 73003-0023 Tel: (405) 282-1225 Fax: (405) 282-1298 Email: lkdlaw@me.com BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Securities Suit over Transvaginal Mesh --------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company faces a class action suit in the the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company's false and/or misleading statements and failure to disclose facts related to transvaginal surgical mesh products. On April 24, 2019, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Boston Scientific Corporation, Michael F. Mahoney, its Chief Executive Officer, and Daniel J. Brennan, its Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws based on false and/or misleading statements and failure to disclose facts related to the Company's transvaginal surgical mesh products. Boston Scientific said, "We have reviewed the allegations and believe the suit is without merit. We will defend vigorously." Boston Scientific Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices for use in various interventional medical specialties worldwide. It operates through three segments: MedSurg, Rhythm and Neuro, and Cardiovascular. The company was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Resolves 41,000 Mesh-Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that, of the approximately 51,000 cases and claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products, approximately 41,000 have met the conditions of settlement and are final. Boston Scientific said, "As of April 23, 2019, approximately 53,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us." On April 16, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered that all manufacturers of surgical mesh products indicated for the transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse stop selling and distributing their products in the United States immediately, stemming from the FDA's 2016 reclassification of these devices to class III (high risk) devices, and as a result, the Company ceased global sales and distribution of surgical mesh products indicated for transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse. The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the U.S. and include eight putative class actions. There were also fewer than 25 cases in Canada, inclusive of one certified and three putative class actions and fewer than 25 claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of 2013, the company received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. Boston Scientific said, "As of April 23, 2019, we have entered into master settlement agreements in principle or are in the final stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 51,000 cases and claims. These master settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. Of the approximately 51,000 cases and claims, approximately 41,000 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing." Boston Scientific Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices for use in various interventional medical specialties worldwide. It operates through three segments: MedSurg, Rhythm and Neuro, and Cardiovascular. The company was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts. BUREAUS INVESTMENT: Ostreicher Files Class Suit Under FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No 15 LLC. The case is styled as Baruch Ostreicher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No 15 LLC, Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-03938 (S.D. N.Y., May 2, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Bureaus Investment Group LLC is a debt collector located in Evanston, Illinois. .[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Herington Asserts Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA HERINGTON, for herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, operating as CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 19CECG01465 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., April 30, 2019) is a class action complaint against Defendants for breach of contract. The complaint asserts that California State University, Fresno failed to provide to the tuition-paying class members the services and accredited training programs it advertised as its Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner ("PMHNP") program, despite receiving their tuition. Ms. Herington seeks to obtain redress for all persons injured as a result of Defendant's failure to provide the promised accredited training. Fresno State operates the PMHNP program out of its School of Nursing. The program is a one-year post-master's program designed to "prepare primary care nurse practitioners to provide a full range of psychiatric services to patients throughout the life cycle." Fresno State advertised the program as a "formally constructed program that meets the requirements for national certification by the American Nurse Credentialing Center as an Adult Psychiatric and Mental Health or Family Psychiatric and Mental Health Nurse Practitioner." Further, Fresno State's published materials and orientation seminars all touted the fact that the program meets the requirements for national certification by the American Nurse Credentialing Center (ANCC). Based on these representations, Fresno State entered into standardized contracts with dozens of nursing students hoping to receive their certificate of completion from the program and become accredited, nationally certified psychiatric nurse practitioners. Each student paid Defendant tuition in excess of several thousand dollars. The terms of the standardized contract established the price students were required to pay for their classes, and established the nature and quality of the classes and the academic credits they would receive by enrolling. However, the complaint alleges that Fresno State's PMHNP program is not only currently unaccredited, but it has never had accreditation from the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE), and graduates cannot become certified by the ANCC. Despite taking thousands of dollars of tuition from each of its students and promising them an accredited training program which they could use to get national certification, Fresno State instead provided a substandard curriculum which was not accredited, the graduates of which were not even legally able to take required certification exams. Even worse, as the ANCC seemingly failed to confirm the accreditation status of Fresno State as it has administered the certification exams for the past four years, students of the program who successfully passed the boards have had their results nullified after the fact, once the ANCC became aware of Fresno State's lack of accreditation. Shockingly, Fresno State continued to recruit more students into its program even after it knew about its lack of accreditation. It also made oral statements through its professors to current students that the issue would be resolved and that "accreditation was not needed for their program." By failing to provide courses that were properly accredited by the CCNE, Defendant breached its contracts with the students of its PMHNP program, says the complaint. Plaintiff Andrea Herrington is a registered nurse and family nurse practitioner, and a former student of the Fresno State PMHNP program. Board of Trustees of the California State University is the State of California acting in its higher education capacity. California State University, Fresno is one of several universities that is governed by the Board of Trustees of the California State University.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto G. Ripamonti, Esq. Alec Segarich, Esq. LOHR RIPAMONTI & SEGARICH LLP 140 Geary Street, 4F San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 294-0448 Facsimile: (415) 354-3275 Email: roberto.ripamonti@lrllp.com alec.segarich@lrllp.com CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Ostreicher Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management Services, LP. The case is styled as Bella Ostreicher individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital Management Services, LP, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-04217 (S.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Capital Management Services L.P., a collections agency, providing delinquent receivables resolutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic st Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com CAREER GROUP: Olsen Alleges Violation Under Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Career Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Career Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02642 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2019). Career Group, Inc., doing business as Career Group Companies, provides human capital staffing and recruiting services. It offers placement services for full time, temporary, and freelance positions. The company provides staffing services for administrative staff. It caters to advertising, architecture, medical and healthcare, non-profit, design, cosmetics, entertainment, fashion, finance, investment banking, retail, technology, and venture capital industries. Career Group, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is based in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Park Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC. The case is styled as Nancy Park individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02726 (E.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection account and debt control.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com CELGENE CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Thalomid & Revlimid Cases Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion for class certification in the antitrust lawsuits related to the sales of Thalomid(R) and Revlimid(R) is still pending. On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the company violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories allegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples of our THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for ANDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products, and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and a putative class of third-party payers, is seeking injunctive relief and damages. In February 2015, the company filed a motion to dismiss IUB's complaint, and upon the filing of a similar putative class action making similar allegations by the City of Providence (Providence), the parties agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence’s complaint. In October 2015, the court denied our motion to dismiss on all grounds. The company filed its answers to the IUB and Providence complaints in January 2016. On June 14, 2017, a new complaint was filed by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the IUB case, making similar allegations and adding three new plaintiffs – International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund (Local 39), The Detectives' Endowment Association, Inc. (DEA) and David Mitchell. Plaintiffs added allegations that the company's settlements of patent infringement lawsuits against certain generic manufacturers have had anticompetitive effects. Counsel identified the new complaint as related to the IUB and Providence cases and, on August 1, 2017, filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of IUB, Providence, Local 39, DEA, and Mitchell. On September 28, 2017, the same counsel filed another complaint, which it identified as related to the consolidated case, and which made similar allegations on behalf of an additional asserted class representative, New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund (NEC). The NEC action has been consolidated with the original action involving IUB, Providence, DEA, Local 39, and Mitchell into a master action for all purposes. On October 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class. On February 26, 2018, the company filed its opposition to the plaintiffs' motion and a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all state law claims where the plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a class. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings on April 2, 2018, and the company filed its reply on April 13, 2018. The plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their class certification motion on May 18, 2018. Fact discovery in these cases closed on May 17, 2018 and expert discovery closed on December 11, 2018. On October 30, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Celgene’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. On December 14, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class certification. The company's opposition to Plaintiff's new motion for class certification was filed on January 25, 2019 and the plaintiffs' reply in support of their new motion for class certification was filed on February 15, 2019. No trial date has been set. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, discovers, develops, and commercializes therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide. Celgene Corporation was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New Jersey. CELLULAR SALES: Wins Bid to Decertify FLSA Class in Holick Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Norman A. Mordue issued a memorandum-decision and order in the lawsuit captioned JAN P. HOLICK, JR., STEVEN MOFFITT, JUSTIN MOFFITT, GURWINDER SINGH, JASON MACK, WILLIAM BURRELL, and TIMOTHY M. PRATT, Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CELLULAR SALES OF NEW YORK, LLC, and CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC., Case No. 1:12-cv-00584-NAM-DJS (N.D.N.Y.): -- granting the Defendants' Motion to Decertify Plaintiffs' Conditionally Certified FLSA Collective Action; -- denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- ruling that the action shall proceed on behalf of the named Plaintiffs only; -- dismissing without prejudice the claims of the Opt-In Plaintiffs; -- ordering the Clerk to provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties in accordance with the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York. The named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law against the Defendants asserting claims for alleged violations of minimum wage and overtime requirements. After careful review of the record and consideration of the parties' arguments, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are similarly situated to the degree necessary to maintain an FLSA collective action, or to certify a Rule 23 class action. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' disparate and highly individualized experiences with the Defendants are not conducive to the production of representative evidence required to proceed collectively. The Plaintiffs' inability to present common proof demonstrating the nature of their employment relationship with the Defendants frustrates the possibility of collective resolution and militates against considerations of fairness and procedure, Judge Mordue opines.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald G. Dunn, Esq. Daniel A. Jacobs, Esq. Christopher M. Silva, Esq. GLEASON, DUNN, WALSH & O'SHEA 40 Beaver Street Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 432-7511 Facsimile: (518) 432-5221 E-mail: rdunn@gdwo.net djacobs@gdwo.net The Defendants are represented by: Ryan O. Cantrell, Esq. Charles L. Carbo, III, Esq. Julie R. Offerman, Esq. CHAMBERLAIN, HRDLICKA LAW FIRM 1200 Smith Street, Suite 1400 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 658-2536 Facsimile: (713) 658-2553 E-mail: ryan.cantrell@chamberlainlaw.com larry.carbo@chamberlainlaw.com julie.offerman@chamberlainlaw.com - and - Joseph M. Dougherty, Esq. Benjamin M. Wilkinson, Esq. David T. Luntz, Esq. HINMAN, STRAUB LAW FIRM 121 State Street Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 436-0751 E-mail: jdougherty@hinmanstraub.com bwilkinson@hinmanstraub.com dluntz@hinmanstraub.com CF MEDICAL: Marquez Files Class Action Asserting FDCPA Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CF Medical LLC. The case is styled as Veronica Marquez aka Veronica Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CF Medical LLC, Assetcare LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00751 (D. Nev., May 2, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. CF Medical LLC is a full service medical billing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert M Tzall, Esq. Law Offices of Robert M. Tzall 1481 Warm Springs Rd, Suite 135 Henderson, NV 89014 Tel: (702) 666-0233 Email: robert@tzalllegal.com CITIBANK NA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Revitch Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William Alsup denies the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled JEREMIAH REVITCH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CITIBANK, N.A., Case No. 3:17-cv-06907-WHA (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Jeremiah Revitch filed this putative class action in December 2017, alleging that Citibank, N.A., called him multiple times on his cell phone using an autodialer despite him not being a Citibank customer. The Plaintiff continued to receive these calls even after he told Citibank that it had reached a wrong number. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff asserted two claims for negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The proposed amended class is defined as: Jeremiah Revitch and all persons in the United States (1) whose cellular telephone is identified in Defendant's Contact Utilities Database; (2) who between March 17, 2014, through August 21, 2018; (3) were called on their cellular telephone by Defendant or its agent/s using its Aspect Unified dialer; and (4) where such person was not listed in Defendant's records as the intended recipient of the calls. Individualized issues of consent will predominate at trial, making class certification impractical in this case, Judge Alsup concludes. Judge Alsup adds that the Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that certification of a FRCP 23(b)(3) class would be appropriate. The case will proceed to trial as scheduled as an individual case, according to the order.[CC] CKS FINANCIAL: Weinberg Disputes Collection Letter Validity ----------------------------------------------------------- Alexander J. Weinberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CKS Financial, LLC and John and Jane Does Numbers 1 Through 25, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02666 (E.D. N.Y., May 6, 2019), seeks actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On January 17, 2017, CKS attempted to collect from Weinberg an allegedly defaulted financial obligation with a past-due balance. Said letter failed to provide information regarding how to dispute the validity of the Debt and request validation as required by law, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com CLEANER WORLD: Mesidor Claims Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- Guerline Mesidor, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. A Cleaner World Dry Cleaners, Inc., A Cleaner World, Inc. and Ross Lipton, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-21759, (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a dry cleaning service where Mesidor worked as an attendant. He claims to have worked approximately an average of 60-67 hours per week without being paid overtime compensation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com CLOUD INTERMEDIATE: English Suit Dismissed With Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware granted a motion to dismiss the class action captioned ARON ENGLISH and RICHARD PEPPE, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES K. NARANG, PAUL A. DILLAHAY, JAMES P. ALLEN, PAUL V. LOMBARDI, CINDY E. MORAN, AUSTIN J. YERKS, DANIEL R. YOUNG, CLOUD INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, LLC, CLOUD MERGER SUB, INC., and H.I.G. CAPITAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2018-0221-AGB. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. In January 2016, the board of directors of NCI, Inc.--a Delaware corporation headquartered in Virginia that provides enterprise solutions and services to United States "defense, intelligence, health and civilian government agencies"--engaged two financial advisors to solicit interest in a sale of the company. In July 2017, after a sale process that lasted 18 months and resulted in at least five other firms expressing interest in acquiring NCI, the company entered into a merger agreement to sell the company for $20 per share in cash to affiliates of H.I.G. Capital, LLC. The transaction was structured as a tender offer followed by a merger. Charles Narang, NCI's founder who held about 34% of NCI's shares and about 83.5% of the company's voting power, tendered his shares for the same per-share consideration that every other stockholder received in the transaction. In March 2018, over seven months after the transaction closed, two former stockholders--Plaintiffs Aron English and Richard Peppe--of NCI filed this action asserting claims against NCI's directors for breach of fiduciary duty and against H.I.G. and its affiliates for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved to dismiss these claims under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief. Their lead argument is that the complaint must be dismissed under Corwin v. KKR Financial Holding LLC because a majority (approximately 73.6%) of NCI's disinterested stockholders tendered their shares in an uncoerced and fully-informed tender offer, subjecting the transaction to business judgment review. Plaintiffs advance two reasons why they believe Corwin should not apply. First, they contend that the transaction should be subjected to entire fairness review on the theory that Narang orchestrated a sale of the company for less than fair value to address a personal need for liquidity prompted by his retirement as the company's CEO in 2015 at seventy-three years of age. Second, they contend that the other stockholders who tendered their shares were not fully informed when they did so because the recommendation statement for the transaction was misleading and omitted material information. For these reasons, the court concludes that neither of Plaintiffs' theories against applying Corwin holds water based on the facts plead in the complaint and the court's precedents. Thus, the transaction is subject to business judgment review and Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief, rules the Court.[BN] CN TRANSPORTATION: Rogers Sues over Biometric Privacy Issues ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against CN Transportation Limited for its violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The case is captioned RICHARD ROGERS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. CN TRANSPORTATION LIMITED, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2019-CH-05129 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., April 22, 2019). Through his role as a truck driver, Plaintiff Richard Rogers was required to visit various rail yards, including those owned and operated by CN, to pick up and drop off various loads. At such facilities, Rogers was required to scan his biometric identifiers and/or biometric information, into the biometric system. Using the biometric system, CN collected, captured, stored, and otherwise obtained biometric identifiers and associated biometric information from Rogers and other truck drivers to allow and track them access to its facilities. However, CN failed to provide any written disclosures describing the purpose and duration of such use. It also failed to make publicly available any retention or destruction policies and to obtain informed written consent from Rogers and other similarly situated individuals prior to the biometric data collection and prior to dissemination of their biometrics to any of its technology vendors. CN is a Delaware company that conducts, and is licensed by the Illinois Secretary of State to conduct, business in Illinois. CN is headquartered in Montreal, Canada and conducts business throughout Cook County. CN is one of the largest freight railroad networks and railroad operators in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Gerbie, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th FL Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com jheikali@gmail.com COFFEE MEETS BAGEL: Denied Overtime, Breaks, Paystubs, says Bustos ------------------------------------------------------------------ Vanessa Bustos and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc., Arum Kang, Dawoon Kang and Does 1-60 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19 -575734 (Cal. Super., May 6, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, reimbursement of business-related expenses, failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders. Coffee Meets Bagel operates an online dating service where Bustos worked in customer support. She claims to be misclassified as an independent contractor, and thus denied the basic benefits of an employee. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: CARLOS JATO, Esq. 819 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Tel: (415) 771-6174 Fax: (415) 474-3748 E-mail: cgjato@jato-law.com - and - Daniel Berko, Esq. 819 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Tel: (415) 771-6174 Fax: (415) 474.3748 E-mail: daniel@berkolaw.com CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $21.1MM in Obligation to be Paid in 2019 --------------------------------------------------------------- Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's remaining loss accrual related to a class action lawsuit over royalty interest claims totals $21.1 million at March 31, 2019, representing additional settlement obligations expected to be satisfied in the third quarter of 2019. In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company. The Petition, as amended, alleged the Company improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and sought recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the proposed class. The Company denied all allegations and denied that the case was properly brought as a class action. Due to the uncertainty of and burdens of litigation, in February 2018 the Company reached a settlement in connection with this matter, which was subsequently approved by the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma in June 2018. Under the settlement, the Company initially expected to make payments and incur costs associated with the settlement of approximately $59.6 million and accrued a loss for such amount at December 31, 2017. In the third quarter of 2018, the Company made payments totaling $45.8 million to satisfy the majority of its obligations under the settlement. The Company's remaining loss accrual for this matter totals $21.1 million at March 31, 2019, representing additional settlement obligations expected to be satisfied in the third quarter of 2019. Continental said, "The accrual for this matter is included in "Accrued liabilities and other" on the condensed consolidated balance sheets." Continental Resources, Inc. explores for, develops, and produces crude oil and natural gas properties primarily in the north, south, and east regions of the United States. The company sells its crude oil and natural gas production to energy marketing companies, crude oil refining companies, and natural gas gathering and processing companies. Continental Resources, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Paul Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Alberto Paul individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02737 (E.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com COOLSPA LLC: Olsen Sues over Website's Limited Accessibility ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Coolspa, LLC for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.coolspa.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by blind or visually-impaired people. The case is captioned THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COOLSPA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03590-VSB (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2019). Plaintiff Thomas J. Olsen alleges that Coolspa, LLC has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Accordingly, Plaintiff Olsen seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Coolspa, LLC is a domestic limited liability company organized under New York law, and is authorized to do business in the state of New York. Headquartered at 905 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Coolspa offers non-invasive face and body treatments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com CREDIT CONTROL: Friedman Files FDCPA Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC, DBA Credit Control & Collections LLC. The case is styled as Yitzchok Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Control, LLC, DBA Credit Control & Collections LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-03947 (S.D. N.Y., May 2, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Control, LLC, DBA Credit Control & Collections LLC is a financial consultant in Hazelwood, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic st Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Paul Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified Consultants Inc. The case is styled as Carrell Paul, Maria J. Beltrez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Diversified Consultants Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02741 (E.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Diversified Consultants, Inc. is a business specializing in Accounts Receivable Management functions, with extensive experience in providing multi-channel customer support solutions spanning the entire customer lifecycle.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com dbarshay@barshaysanders.com DYNACAST LLC: Colon Sues over Illegally Collected Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Dynacast, LLC. for violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The case is captioned TAMARA COLON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DYNACAST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH05204 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., April 23, 2019). Throughout Plaintiff Tamara Colon's employment, Dynacast implemented the use of a biometric scanner. She was required to have her fingerprint and/or handprint collected and/or captured so that Dynacast could store it and use it as an authentication method for timekeeping purposes. However, Dynacast failed to maintain or publicize information about its biometric practices or policies, in violation of the BIPA. The company also failed to provide Plaintiff with written notice of the fact that it was collecting biometric information prior to collection. In addition, Dynacast did not obtain prior written consent from Plaintiff before it collected, stored, or used those individuals' biometric information. Dynacast, LLC is a global manufacturer of precision, engineered metal components. The company operates 22 manufacturing facilities in 16 countries, providing robust solutions to many industries including automotive, consumer electronics, and healthcare by utilizing its proprietary die cast technologies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Madeline K. Engel, Esq. Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. 224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 763-6880 ENEL AMERICAS: Artisanal Fishermen Suit v. Unit Still Under Review ------------------------------------------------------------------ Enel Americas S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the class action suit initiated by Artisanal fishermen against Emgesa S.A. E.S.P. (Emgesa), is still reviewed by the Huila Administrative Court. A class action lawsuit filed against Emgesa, the Colombian Ministry of Environment and Development and the Colombian Ministry of Mines and Energy, Comepez S.A. and other fishing companies, is currently under review by the Huila Administrative Court. Artisanal fishermen are seeking the protection of collective rights and a healthy environment, public health, food security and safety and the prevention of technically foreseeable disasters. Furthermore, the plaintiffs are seeking the issuance of an order compelling the entities to immediately take the necessary corrective and preventive measures to put an end to the imminent danger of massive fish mortality in the Betania reservoir fish farming projects, relating to the filling of the reservoir and the operation of the El Quimbo hydroelectric project. This lawsuit does not have a judicial monetary amount because of its nature as an action regarding the protection of collective rights. Therefore, no provision has been made. The matter has been pending decision since June 18, 2018. During the evidentiary stage, the environmental authorities ANLA and CAM jointly presented a report in which they stated that the company had complied with the obligations imposed by the Administrative Court within its precautionary measures. Enel Americas said, "Although the value of this lawsuit is indeterminate, it is being reported as it generates a risk for the power plant's operation and because the precautionary measure prevented the filling of the El Quimbo reservoir at the time, a measure that was modified but has not yet been entirely lifted although the power plant is in operation today." Enel Americas S.A., through its subsidiaries, operates as an electricity utility company in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Peru. The company generates, transmits, and distributes electricity using hydroelectric and thermal energy sources. The company was formerly known as Enersis Americas S.A. and changed its name to Enel Americas S.A. in December 2016. Enel Americas S.A. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in Santiago, Chile. Enel Americas S.A. is a subsidiary of Enel S.p.A. ENEL AMERICAS: Suit over Refund of Tariff Cost Charges Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Enel Americas S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Codensa S.A. ESP, continues to defend a class action suit related to the refund of excessive tariff cost charges. In a class-action lawsuit filed by several residential complexes, including Centro Medico de la Sabana, against Codensa S.A. ESP, the plaintiffs are demanding the refund of an alleged tariff cost excess that they were charged. The lawsuit is based on the concept of a tariff benefit to which the plaintiff argue they are entitled as Voltage Level One users and as infrastructure owners -as established in Resolution No. 082 of 2002, modified by Resolution No. 097 of 2008. Codensa responded to the complaint by rejecting it in its entirety. A conciliation hearing was held between the parties, without success. An evidence order was issued on May 15, 2018 and the joinder of new plaintiffs was denied. The proceedings are in the evidentiary stage, and the estimated value of this lawsuit is approximately CP$337,000 million (ThUS$103,772). Enel Americas said, "This class action is being heard by the First Administrative Court of the Bogotá Capital District." Enel Americas S.A., through its subsidiaries, operates as an electricity utility company in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Peru. The company generates, transmits, and distributes electricity using hydroelectric and thermal energy sources. The company was formerly known as Enersis Americas S.A. and changed its name to Enel Americas S.A. in December 2016. Enel Americas S.A. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in Santiago, Chile. Enel Americas S.A. is a subsidiary of Enel S.p.A. FALCON TRANSPORT: Hlebovy Seeks 60 Days' Worth of Pay and Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Hlebovy and Tawni Grove-Caban, Plaintiffs, v. FALCON TRANSPORT CO., COUNTERPOINT CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, G. D. LEASING OF INDIANA, INC., CHRIS BROUSSARD, and NICK SCHRADER, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01018 (N.D. Ohio, May 6, 2019) is a proposed class action on behalf of Plaintiffs and for similarly situated former employees who worked for the Defendants, who were terminated without cause under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"). On April 27, 2019, Defendants ordered the termination of approximately 400 employees from Defendants' other Falcon Facilities as part of a mass layoff and/or plant closing as defined by the WARN Act. Defendants failed to give employees 60 days advance written notice required by the WARN Act, says the complaint. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant and worked at Falcon's Youngstown Facility until their termination without cause on or about April 27, 2019. Plaintiff seeks to recover 60 days of unpaid wages and benefits. Falcon Transport Co. is incorporated under the laws of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Kelley, III, Esq. Kimberly C. Young, Esq. Gary Cowan, Esq. ELK & ELK CO. LTD. 6105 Parkland Blvd, Suite 200 Mayfield Heights, OH 44124 Phone: 440-442-6677 Fax: 440-442-7944 Email: jkelley@elkandelk.com ekilbane@elkandelk.com - and - Robert J. Dubyak, Esq. Christina C. Spallina, Esq. DUBYAK NELSON, LLC 6105 Parkland Blvd, Suite 230 Mayfield Heights, OH 44124 Phone: 216-364-0500 Fax: 216-364-0505 Email: rdubyak@dubyaknelson.com cspallina@dubyaknelson.com FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Refused Payments to Insureds, McGowan Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Derrick McGowan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FIRST ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a Texas Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01101 (M.D. Fla., May 8, 2019) is a lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated insureds, who suffered damages due to Defendant's practice of refusing to pay full ACV payments to first-party total loss insureds on physical damage policies containing comprehensive and collision coverages. Specifically, as a matter of policy, Defendant fails to include state and local title transfer, vehicle registration fees, and sales taxes (FTLP) in its calculation of ACV when paying full total loss payment to its insureds. The ACV of a vehicle equates to the full cost to replace the vehicle and such cost includes any mandatory regulatory taxes, costs and fees (Full Total Loss Payments or "FTLP") required to replace the vehicle. One of the coverages Defendant offers is comprehensive and collision coverage. Upon information and belief, Defendant systematically underpaid not just Plaintiff but thousands of other putative class members ("Class Members") amounts Defendant owed its insureds for ACV losses for total loss vehicles insured with comprehensive and collision coverage, says the complaint. Plaintiff owned a 2015 Nissan Sentra, VIN #3N1AB7AP3FY366779 (the "Insured Vehicle"). Defendant is a private passenger auto insurance carrier operating in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Facsimile (786) 623-0915 Email: efilings@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Jordan D. Utanski, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd. #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com utanski@edelsberglaw.com FORD MOTOR: Hubert Files Product Liability Suit in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company. The case is styled as Ryan Hubert individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ford Motor Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02125-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., May 9, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability. Ford Motor Company, incorporated on July 9, 1919, is a global automotive and mobility company. The Company's business includes designing, manufacturing, marketing, and servicing a line of Fordcars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), as well as Lincoln luxury vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC 11th Floor 10 North Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 214-7900 Email: alevitt@dlcfirm.com - and - Joel E Brown, Esq. 416 Main St, Suite 1300 Peoria, IL 61602 Phone: (309) 673-4357 Fax: (309) 673-6119 Email: jebrownlaw@sbcglobal.net GB COLLECTS: Camarda Files Class Suit Under FDCPA ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GB Collects, LLC. The case is styled as Thomas Camarda, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GB Collects, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01924-NIQA (E.D. Penn., May 3, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. GB Collects, LLC provides business process outsourcing (BPO) solutions. The company offers BPO solutions in the functional areas of third party collections, training seminars, litigation management, customized collection letter programs, and first party collections. Its outsourcing portfolio includes accounts receivable management, customer management services, and back office services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: ROBERT P. COCCO, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC 1500 WALNUT ST., STE 900 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 Tel: (215) 351-0200 Fax: (215) 922-3874 Email: rcocco@rcn.com GEICO INDEMNITY: Wingo Files Class Suit for Breach of Contract -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEICO Indemnity Company. The case is styled as Sharon Wingo, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO Indemnity Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00144-MR-DSC (W.D. N.C., May 2, 2019). The lawsuit asserts Breach of Contract. GEICO Indemnity Company operates as a property and casualty insurer. GEICO Indemnity Company was formerly known as Criterion Insurance Company Ltd. and changed its name to GEICO Indemnity Company in June 1986. The company was incorporated in 1961 and is based in Chevy Chase, Maryland. GEICO Indemnity Company operates as a subsidiary of GEICO Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. The Van Winkle Law Firm P.O. Box 7376 Asheville, NC 28802-7376 Tel: (828) 258-2991 Fax: (828) 257-2767 Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Sims Seeks OT, Minimum Pay for Store Cashiers ------------------------------------------------------------------ An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Goodwill Industries of Arkansas, Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The case is captioned ERIELLE SIMS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF ARKANSAS, INC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00289-SWW (E.D. Ark., April 23, 2019). Erielle Sims seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Goodwill's failure to pay her and other hourly-paid store employees a minimum wage for all hours worked and proper overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Goodwill owns retail thrift stores, having its principal place of business in Little Rock, Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris W. Burks, Esq. Brandon M. Haubert, Esq. WH LAW,PLLC 1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 E-mail: chris@whlawoffices.com brandon@whlawoffices.com GOOGLE INC: Butler Snow Discusses Article III Standing Rulings -------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Baltz, Esq. -- kevin.baltz@butlersnow.com -- of Butler Snow LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion addressing Article III standing under the U.S. Constitution. See Spokeo v. Robins, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016). The "standing to sue doctrine," as it is commonly called, is derived from Article III of the Constitution's limitation of the judicial power of federal courts to "actual cases or controversies." Id. "The doctrine limits the category of litigants empowered to maintain a lawsuit in federal court to seek redress for a legal wrong." Id. "[T]he ‘irreducible constitutional minimum' of standing consists of three elements. The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Id. Ultimately, in Spokeo, the Supreme Court held that "Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation." Id. at 1549. Recently, federal courts -- including the Supreme Court -- have relied on Spokeo as they scrutinize a plaintiff's standing to sue under Article III. For instance, on March 8, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed Article III standing in the context of an alleged violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c(g). See Kamal v. J. Crew Grp., Inc., 918 F.3d 102 (3d Cir. 2019). In Kamal, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant, J. Crew, willfully violated FACTA by including on his receipts the first six digits of his credit card number. The plaintiff sought statutory and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees. The plaintiff did not allege that anyone had seen the receipts, that his identity was stolen or that his credit card number was misappropriated. Instead, he alleged that he was improperly subjected to the risk of such future harms. In the face of a motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, the plaintiff alleged two "concrete" harms: (1) that the printing of the information itself constituted a statutory violation resulting in concrete harm and (2) that the statutory violation subjected the plaintiff to an "increased risk of identity theft." Id. Significantly, the Kamal Court found that the plaintiff "pleaded an injury which no doubt involves a technical violation of FACTA's ban on printing more than the last five digits of a consumer's credit card number." Id. Nonetheless, the Kamal Court -- relying on Spokeo -- held that the plaintiff had failed to allege that the harm from the technical violation was "sufficiently concrete to create an Article III case in controversy." Id. Importantly, the Kamal Court noted that an alleged increased risk of identity theft, which is based on a "highly speculative chain of future events," is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of concreteness. Id. Accordingly, the Kamal Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal for lack of Article III standing. On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a new opinion addressing the holding of Spokeo. See Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961, 2019 WL 1264582 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2019). In Frank, the plaintiff brought putative class action against Google asserting claims under the Stored Communications Act ("SCA"), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq., and state law alleging that Google violated his privacy by disclosing his internet search terms to owners of third-party websites. Google moved to dismiss for lack of standing. Google's first motion was granted, but the plaintiff amended the complaint to bolster his standing claim. The second motion was granted in part (dismissing state law claims) and denied in part (allowing plaintiff's SCA claims to survive). In allowing the SCA claims to proceed, the trial court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent which held that a plaintiff had standing to pursue a statutory violation. Id. Thereafter, Google negotiated a class-wide settlement. The trial court granted preliminary certification of the class and preliminary approval of the settlement. Subsequently, the Solicitor General filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme Court to vacate and remand the case for the lower courts to address the Article III standing issues. Noting that a federal "court is powerless to approve a proposed class settlement if it lacks jurisdiction over the dispute, the Supreme Court agreed with the Solicitor General and remanded the matter to the lower courts to address the plaintiffs' standing in light of Spokeo. Consequently, utilizing Spokeo, federal courts are requiring plaintiffs to show more than a simple statutory violation in order to have standing to pursue a claim. Instead, plaintiffs must allege a concrete and particularized injury arising from the statutory violation. And that's not always easy to do. [GN] H&R ACCOUNTS: Kornegay Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against H & R Accounts, Inc. The case is styled as Lashunda R. Kornegay individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H & R Accounts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00222 (W.D. N.C., May 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. H & R Accounts, Inc. provides financial services. The Company offers collection of debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq. Arthur H. Piervincenti, P.A. 631-200B Brawley School Road, Box 225 Mooresville, NC 28117 Phone: (704) 997-9529 Fax: (704) 230-0413 Email: arthur@lawahp.com HARISHIVJI INC: Delivery Worker Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HARISHIVJI INC. (D/B/A ASHOKA), GAURI SHANKAR, and ANTHONY DOE , Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04172 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff Ramirez's actual duties in payroll records by designating him as a delivery worker instead of as a non-tipped employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff Ramirez at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him at the tip-credit rate (which they still failed to do). The Defendants also unlawfully appropriated Plaintiff Ramirez's and other tipped employees' tips and made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff Ramirez's and other tipped employees' wages. In addition, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Ramirez and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by Defendants as a delivery worker. Defendants own, operate, or control an Indian restaurant, located at 1718 2nd Ave, New York, NY 10128 under the name "Ashoka".[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 HEALTHIQ RE: Violates Calif. Wage and Hour Laws, Merida Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO MERIDA, as an individual, on behalf of himself, and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTHIQ RE, INC., a Delaware company authorized to do business in the state of California, HI.Q, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS HEALTH IQ, a Delaware company authorized to do business in the state of California, and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00022227-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., April 30, 2019) is a representative action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other current or former employees of Defendants asserting that during the relevant time period, Defendants consistently violated California wage and hour laws. During his employment, Plaintiff worked at HealthIQ's San Diego office and was to receive a base salary plus commissions. Plaintiff was also required to perform work on behalf of HealthIQ from his residence. However, HealthIQ failed to appropriately compensate Plaintiff and other Sales Employees for all time worked and failed to pay premium wages to Sales Employees for non-compliant meal and/or rest periods. HealthIQ also failed to timely pay all wages owed to Plaintiff and other former Sales Employees who separated from their employment with HealthIQ during the statutory period, and failed to timely pay the appropriate waiting time penalties to all such former Sales Employees, including Plaintiff, says the complaint. Plaintiff Fernando Merida was employed by Defendant as an account manager from approximately August 2017 to August 2018. HEALTHIQ RE, INC., is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business, and actually doing business, in the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Craig Clark, Esq. Monique R. Rodriguez, Esq. Paige D. Chretien, Esq. CLARK LAW GROUP 205 West Date Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 239-1321 Facsimile: (888) 273-4554 Email: cclark@clarklawyers.com mrodriguez@clarklawyers.com pchretien@clarklawyers.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Phone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-4554 HFF INC: Sabatini Files Suit Over JLL Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------- ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HFF, INC., MARK D. GIBSON, DEBORAH H. MCANENY, SUSAN P. MCGALLA, GEORGE L. MILES, JR., MORGAN K. O'BRIEN, LENORE M. SULLIVAN, JOE B. THORNTON, JR., STEVEN E. WHEELER, JONES LANG LASALLE INCORPORATED, JLL CM, INC., and JLL CMG, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00867-UNA (D. Del., May 8, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on March 19, 2019, pursuant to which HFF, Inc. will be acquired by Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated ("Parent"), JLL CM, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), and JLL CMG, LLC ("Merger LLC," and collectively with Merger Sub and Parent, "JLL"). On March 18, 2019, HFF's Board of Directors (the "Board" or "Individual Defendants") caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with JLL. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, HFF's stockholders will receive $24.63 in cash and 0.1505 shares of Parent for each share of HFF common stock they own. On April 29, 2019, defendants filed a registration statement (the "Registration Statement") with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The complaint asserts that the Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Plaintiff is the owner of HFF common stock. HFF operates out of twenty-six offices and is one of the leading and largest full-service commercial real estate financial intermediaries, providing commercial real estate and capital markets services to both the consumers and providers of capital in the commercial real estate sector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Throndson Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Throndson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Huntington National Bank, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00339 (S.D. Ohio, May 6, 2019), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Huntington Bank provides banking services to consumers and corporate clients, which includes financing and loan-related services. Throndson claims that Huntington placed two prerecorded debt collection calls to his cellular phone number despite the fact that he has never been a Huntington Bank client and has never otherwise consented to Huntington Bank calling him. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian T. Giles, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN T. GILES LLC 1470 Apple Hill Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45230 Telephone: (513) 379-2715 Email: Brian@GilesFirm.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26TH Street Miami, FL 33127 Tel: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 s. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (877) 333-9427 Fax: (888) 498.8946 Email: law@stefancoleman.com INFUSION MANAGEMENT: Viverette Hits Biometrics Data Sharing ----------------------------------------------------------- Laticia Viverette and Ronald Gorny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Infusion Management Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2019CH05660 (Ill. Cir., May 6, 2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, plus statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Infusion Management Group, Inc. does business as "The Signature Room at the 95th," where Plaintiffs were required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. They allege that Infusion improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data to a third-party company without informed consent. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312.750.1265 Email: kcarroll@litedepalma.com - and - Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC 308 Hutchinson Road Ellisville, MO 63011 Tele: (314) 541-0317 Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com JAMAlCA BEAIUNGS: Griffith Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ RHONDA GRIFFITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JAMAlCA BEAIUNGS CO. INC., Defendant, Case No. 708071/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., May 8, 2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated hourly employees ("Hourly Employees") employed by Defendant for Defendants' violations of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours during the week and was not paid for all of the overtime worked. Specifically, Plaintiff worked about 43 hours and 15 minutes that same week and was paid for 40 hours. Thus, during that same week, Plaintiff was not paid for 3 hours 15 minutes of overtime. The Defendant also failed to provide accurate wage statements to Plaintiff and the similarly situated Hourly Employees, says he complaint. Plaintiff Rhonda Griffith was employed by Defendant from January 2, 2018, to on or about April 5, 2019. Defendant employed Plaintiff at its offices located at 1700 Jericho Turnpike, New Hyde Park, New York 11040.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Ginsberg, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, NY 11576 Phone: (516) 625-0105 X. 18 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Akingboye Talc Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit entitled RACHEL R. AKINGBOYE, individually, and as successor-in-interest on behalf of the ESTATE OF SHARLINE JONES v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., was removed on April 24, 2019, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03229 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries, specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes these allegations. On May 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, which generally alleges that the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or wrongful death. The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February 20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master Complaint"). On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Michael C. Zellers, Esq. Amanda Villalobos, Esq. Nicholas Janizeh, Esq. Caroline Toole, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com - and - Michael F. Healy, Esq. Emily Weissenberger, Esq. Alexander Guney, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com eweissenberger@shb.com aguney@shb.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bakman Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 24, 2019, the matter entitled DEBBIE BAKMAN, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03252 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on November 6, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned Case No. 17CV318664. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Caroline Toole, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Barrette Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 24, 2019, the case captioned ROGER BARRETTE, individually and as next of kin to DIANE BARRETTE, deceased v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03288 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries, specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes these allegations. On October 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of Orange County, which generally alleges that the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or wrongful death. The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February 20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master Complaint"). On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Michael C. Zellers, Esq. Amanda Villalobos, Esq. Nicholas Janizeh, Esq. Caroline Toole, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com - and - Michael F. Healy, Esq. Emily Weissenberger, Esq. Alexander Guney, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com eweissenberger@shb.com aguney@shb.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bauer Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled KATHY A. BAUER and ERIC BAUER v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., was removed on April 24, 2019, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03292 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries, specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes these allegations. On February 5, 2019, the Bauers filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, which generally alleges that the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused them personal injury and/or wrongful death. The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February 20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master Complaint"). On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Michael C. Zellers, Esq. Amanda Villalobos, Esq. Nicholas Janizeh, Esq. Caroline Toole, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com - and - Michael F. Healy, Esq. Emily Weissenberger, Esq. Alexander Guney, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com eweissenberger@shb.com aguney@shb.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bautista Talc Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit styled HOMER BAUTISTA, an Individual, as Successor in Interest for ARLENE BAUTISTA, deceased, and as Administrator of the Estate of ARLENE BAUTISTA v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03296 to the proceeding. The matter was commenced on April 6, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego and was assigned Case No. 37-2018-000171600-CU-PL-CTL. According to the complaint, in October 2011, the Plaintiff's Decedent was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and received medical treatment for ovarian cancer. The Plaintiff's Decedent developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com - and - Michelle Parfitt, Esq. Patrick Lyons, Esq. ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP 4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650 Alexandria, VA 22311 Telephone: (703) 931-5500 Facsimile: (703) 820-1656 E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com plyons@ashcraftlaw.com Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Caroline Toole, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bernal Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 24, 2019, the matter titled CATHY BERNAL, an Individual, as Successor in Interest for ESTHER BERNAL, deceased v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03244 to the proceeding. The matter was filed on July 25, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned Case No. 18CV332276. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's Decedent was injured and suffered harm as a result of purchasing and using Johnson & Johnson's products, including Shower to Shower body powder and Baby Powder. The Plaintiff's Decedent developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the alleged unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 7204288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com - and - Michelle Parfitt, Esq. Patrick Lyons, Esq. ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP 4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650 Alexandria, VA 22311 Telephone: (703) 931-5500 Facsimile: (703) 820-1656 E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com plyons@ashcraftlaw.com Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Bafalon Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit titled Margaret Bafalon, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03239 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was commenced on March 12, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sonoma, was assigned Case No. SCV 262126. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Johnson & Johnson's Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Caroline Toole, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Balasow Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit styled EMMA V. BALASOW v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03266 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on April 27, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned Case No. 18CV327342. The matter is a products liability action against the Defendants because the Plaintiff has allegedly suffered from the severe effects of Ovarian Cancer caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and Shower-to-Shower consumer products, which were manufactured, mined, and/or marketed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' products each contain talc powder, which caused her to develop Ovarian Cancer after she used the products in her perineal area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis G. Hoke, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Facsimile: (540) 672-3055 E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Caroline Toole, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com JUUL LABS: Reid Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------- VALENTIN REID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JUUL LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04162 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), asserts the complaint. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Defendant is an electronic cigarette manufacturer and retailer that owns and operates the website www.juul.com, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dov Mittelman, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: Mittelmandov@yahoo.com KIA MOTORS: Jens Files Suit Over Defective GDI Engine ----------------------------------------------------- Corey Jens, and Sandra Kennedy, Plaintiffs, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV15692 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 6, 2019) is an action seeking to redress KMA's violations of California and Illinois' consumer fraud statutes, and also seeks recovery for Defendant's breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and common law fraud. KMA was engaged in the design, development, manufacture, distribution, marketing, selling, leasing, warranting, servicing, and repair of automobiles. Plaintiffs purchased a 2013 Kia Optima vehicle identification number 5XXGR4A65DG152830, (hereafter "Subject Vehicle"), which was manufactured and or distributed by Defendant on or about December 19, 2012. Plaintiffs received an express written warranty, including, a 5-year/60,000 mile express bumper to bumper warranty, a 10-year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty which, inter alia, covers the engine and transmission. The warranty provided, in relevant part, that in the event a defect developed with the Subject Vehicle during the warranty period, Plaintiffs could deliver the Vehicle for repair services to Defendant's representative and the Subject Vehicle would be repaired. During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or developed defects. Said defects substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the Subject Vehicle. When the KIA Vehicles are in operation, engine oil is used to lubricate the piston, cylinder wall, connecting rod bearings and other rotating and moving components as the piston moves up and down through the four-stroke sequence. Engine oil is necessary to reduce wear on moving parts throughout the engine, improve sealing, and cool the engine by carrying away heat from the moving parts. Upon information and belief, the connecting rod bearings in the 2.0 and 2.4L GDI Engines undergo a prolonged failure as metal debris circulates throughout the engine via the engine oil. Over time, and as a result of these contaminates in the oiling system, the connecting rod bearings begin to fracture. Plaintiffs allege that prior to acquiring the Vehicle, Defendant was well aware and knew that the 2.0L GDI engine installed on the Vehicle was defective but failed to disclose this fact to Plaintiffs at the time of sale and thereafter. The Defendant knew or should have known about the Engine Defect even before marketing vehicles equipped with 2.0 or 2.4L GDI engines. Because of their longstanding involvement in the design and manufacture of internal combustion engines, Defendant was aware of feasible means and technology to design and manufacture 2.0 or 2.4L GDI engines without the substantial propensity to suffer a lubrication failure. The Defendant was under a continuous duty to disclose to Plaintiffs the true character, quality, and nature of the Kia Vehicles suffering from the Engine Defect, and the inevitable repairs, costs, time, and monetary damage resulting from the Engine Defect, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tionna Dolin, Esq. Strategic Legal Practices A Professional Corporation 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 929-4900 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 Email: tdolin@slpattorney.com KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Stonehocker Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Sarah Stonehocker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, LLC, and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02494-DMR (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 8, 2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated Class Members or Skilled Clinicians ("SCs") who worked at Kindred's Skilled Nursing Facilities ("SNFs"), arising from Kindred's strict and impracticable minimum Patient Care Ratio ("minimum PCR") productivity standard and attendant systemic failure to pay Class Members for overtime hours worked and to pay wages when due. SCs who worked at Kindred's SNFs were typically required to see seven to twelve patients during their eight-hour shifts. With respect to each "regular" patient visit, SCs provided skilled direct patient care, and also performed a minimum of approximately 10-20 minutes per patient of unskilled ancillary work. SCs frequently spent substantially more than 25% of their shift on unskilled work when they saw patients for initial evaluations, reassessments, and discharge. SCs did not typically report all overtime hours worked to managers, because Kindred sought to limit or eliminate overtime hours worked and managers reprimanded SCs for working overtime hours. On the infrequent occasions on which Class Members did not report overtime hours worked, Kindred management would oftentimes simply change Class Member's time records so that the records showed fewer overtime hours worked than were actually worked, or no overtime hours worked at all, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for Kindred as an occupational therapist from October 31, 2006 until October 10, 2016. Kindred is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Carlson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHER D. CARLSON 50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1400, #206 Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: (716) 242-1234 Email: mdcarlson@mdcarlsonlaw.com LEHIGH VALLEY: Payne Moves to Certify Female Workers Class ---------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled KIMBERLY D. PAYNE, individually and on behalf of a collective of others similarly-situated v. LEHIGH VALLEY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-00028-JLS (E.D. Pa.), seeks to conditionally certify a class under the Fair Labor Standards Act: All female employees who are or have been employed by Defendant Lehigh Valley Restaurant Group, Inc. as salaried Front of House Managers from January 4, 2016 until the present. In addition, Ms. Payne asks that the Court cause notice to issue to all members of the collective. To effectuate notice to the collective, she asks that the Court order LVRG to provide her counsel a computer readable file (e.g., an Excel spreadsheet) with the name, mailing address, dates of employment, restaurant(s) location, Social Security Number, and employee ID number for each such worker, and to conspicuously post the notice in restaurant break rooms. Ms. Payne also asks that the Court order that the requested information be provided by LVRG to her counsel within 14 days after the Court's Order granting conditional collective action certification. She moves for a period of 90 days during which putative collective members may post-mark their consent forms, with the 90 days to commence when the notice is mailed to the putative collective members.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Weisberg, Esq. Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C. 2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-5707 Facsimile: (717) 233-8133 E-mail: lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com dcummings@weisbergcummings.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer L. Craighead, Esq. Joshua L. Schwartz, Esq. Jill S. Welch, Esq. BARLEY SNYDER 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Telephone: (717) 399-1523 E-mail: jcraighead@barley.com jschwartz@barley.com jwelch@barley.com LITHIA MOTORS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Mendoza TILA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Joseph Mendoza, et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit titled Joseph Mendoza, et al. v. Lithia Motors, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:16-cv-01264-AA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring the putative class action suit against the Defendants, asserting various claims, including common law fraud, violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"), and Oregon's financial elder abuse statute. The named Plaintiffs are residents of Oregon or California, who purchased vehicles and other goods or services from one or more of the Defendants, all of which are headquartered in Oregon. The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Mendoza, et al. v. Lithia Motors, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-35341, 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 24, 2019; -- Transcript is due on June 24, 2019; -- Appellants Dawn Caveye, Dana Dalton, Gina Dalton, Carol Jocks and Joseph Mendoza's opening brief is due on August 2, 2019; -- Appellees Lithia Financial Corporation, Lithia Klamath, Inc., Lithia Medford Hon, Inc., Lithia Motors, Inc. and Salem-V, LLC's answering brief is due on September 3, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSEPH MENDOZA, CAROL JOCKS, DAWN CAVEYE, GINA DALTON and DANA DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Bonner C. Walsh, Esq. WALSH PLLC 1561 Long Haul Road Grangeville, ID 83530 Telephone: (903) 574-1807 E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com Defendants-Appellees LITHIA MOTORS, INC., LITHIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, SALEM-V, LLC, DBA Volkswagen of Salem, LITHIA KLAMATH, INC., DBA Lithia Klamath Falls Auto Center and LITHIA MEDFORD HON, INC., are represented by: Jeremy David Sacks, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 224-3380 E-mail: Jeremy.sacks@stoel.com LIVE WELL FINANCIAL: Williams Sues Over WARN Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- MONICA WILLIAMS on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff. v. LIVE WELL FINANCIAL, INC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00868-UNA (N.D. Ala., May 8, 2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiff, and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the result of, mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by Defendant on or about May 3, 2019 and within 30 days of that date who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff was terminated without cause. Plaintiff was not provided 60 days advance written notice of her termination by Defendant, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), the California Labor Code ("Lab.Code"), ("CAL-WARN Act"), says the complaint. Plaintiff Monica Williams was employed by Defendant, as a Loan Account Manager and worked at the Defendant's facility until her termination on or about May 3, 2019. Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at the Headquarters Facility and conducted business in this district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Loizides, Esq. LOIZIDES, P.A. 1225 King Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 654-0248 Facsimile: (302) 654-0728 Email: loizides@loizides.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. René S. Roupinian, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 245-1000 Email: rsr@outtengolden.com jar@outtengolden.com M LEONARD: Inman Asserts Breach of FDCPA in California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against M Leonard & Associates. The case is styled as Merlin Inman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M Leonard & Associates and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00822 (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. M Leonard & Associates is a debt collection agency located in Van Nuys, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amir J Goldstein, Esq. Amir J Goldstein Law Offices 8032 West Third Street Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Tel: (323) 937-0400 Fax: (866) 288-9194 Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com MASTERCARD INC: GBP14BB Interchange Fees Class Action Revived ------------------------------------------------------------- Finextra reports that a GBP14 billion class action lawsuit against Mastercard over interchange fees is back on after the Court of Appeal granted permission to challenge an earlier decision to dismiss the case. The claim, brought under the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 which paved the way for class action lawsuits, is being led by former financial ombudsman Walter Merricks, who alleges that the card scheme imposed "illegal" interchange fees that were ultimately borne by UK consumers. In July 2017, the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) blocked the suit -- which is on behalf of 46 million Brits -- concluding that the claims were not suitable under the current collective actions regime. However, the Court of Appeal has now set aside the CAT ruling and decided that the claimants can have their case for certification of the class action reheard. Merricks tells the Law Society Gazette: "It's now time for Mastercard to admit the damage they did, to apologise to the British public, and to agree to pay the compensation they owe." Meanwhile, Mastercard tells the Financial Times: "Mastercard continues to disagree fundamentally with the basis of the claim and we believe UK consumers receive real value from the security, convenience and consumer protection of our payment services." [GN] MASTERCARD INC: Skadden Arps Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Bill Batchelor, Esq. -- bill.batchelor@skadden.com -- Boris Bershteyn, Esq. -- boris.bershteyn@skadden.com -- Bruce Macaulay, Esq. -- bruce.macaulay@skadden.com -- Ingrid Vandenborre, Esq. -- ingrid.vandenborre@skadden.com -- and Jonathon J. Egerton-Peters, Esq., of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, on May 8 disclosed that the English Courts have reignited the prospects of a GBP14 billion class action against Mastercard. In a much anticipated ruling, on April 16, 2019, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (the Court) granted an appeal by Walter Merricks, the representative for over 46 million U.K. consumers, against Mastercard in relation to alleged overcharging of interbank fees between 1992 and 2008. The Court favoured a broad approach to class certification, lowering the standard of scrutiny favoured by the lower court, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). The Court found that class claimants need only show a real prospect of success to secure class certification. Detail as to how the class would substantiate its proposed economic model (in this case, a relatively complex theory as to what credit card surcharges would be passed on by merchants to consumers) or scheme of award distribution, if successful, was not required. Subject to a possible appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court, the case will now return to the CAT, which will decide whether the class action should proceed through the "certification stage" to a full trial and, if so, whether Mastercard is liable to pay any damages. The Mastercard case places U.K. class actions back under the spotlight, refuelling the debate as to whether such actions may gain prominence after a slower than anticipated start and, in turn, raising questions as to how English law and practice will develop in this area. Background In December 2007, the European Commission (EC) found that by setting default interbank fees whenever consumers paid for goods or services using their Mastercard in the European Economic Area (the "Multilateral Interchange Fees", or MIFs), Mastercard restricted price competition between the banks and violated EU competition law. Mastercard's appeals against the EC Decision to the European courts were unsuccessful. EC Decisions are treated across the EU Member States as prima facie evidence of anti-competitive conduct in "follow-on" private actions for damages. As a result, Merricks relied on the 2007 EC Decision when commencing the U.K. class action in September 2016. On behalf of approximately 46.2 million U.K. consumers, Merricks sought damages for the allegedly inflated prices paid by those consumers because the unlawful MIFs were either mostly or entirely passed on to them. Damages for the overcharge and interest were estimated at over GBP14 billion -- reportedly the largest civil damages claim ever brought in the U.K. Merricks' claim was brought on an "opt-out" basis. Opt-out class actions in relation to competition/antitrust infringements -- collective actions on behalf of everyone matching a certain description unless they expressly opt out of the proceedings -- were only introduced in the U.K. in October 2015. They contrast with "opt-in" class actions -- consisting only of members matching the description who expressly elect to join the action -- which had already existed for several years. Both opt-out and opt-in claims must be (i) brought by an appropriate authorised representative and (ii) "certified" by the CAT as eligible for inclusion in collective proceedings. Certification requires, amongst other things, that the claims are brought on behalf of an identifiable class of persons, raise common issues and are "suitable" to be brought in collective proceedings. If the CAT is satisfied that the conditions are met, it may make a "collective proceedings order" (CPO), thus allowing the claim to proceed to a full trial. For two principal reasons, in July 2017 the CAT refused to grant Merricks a CPO. First, the CAT was unconvinced that expert evidence could adequately demonstrate the "pass-on" of MIFs from merchants to consumers, so as to justify the aggregate damages claimed. Merricks had attempted to rely on a "top-down" approach to calculate the total overcharge to consumers, and therefore the total damages appropriate, but the CAT was not persuaded that sufficient information to support this approach existed. Second, Merricks' proposed method of distributing damages -- calculating the aggregate amount attributable to each year from 1992 through 2008 and distributing that on a per capita basis to each individual falling within the class in the given year -- would not have correlated to each individual's loss, thus contradicting the compensatory principle of damages for torts under English law. Court of Appeal Decision Pass-On The Court said that a proposed class representative need only demonstrate that a claim has a "real prospect of success" at the certification stage. In support, the Court cited several Canadian authorities (Pro-Sys v. Microsoft, in particular), noting that the similarities with the English class action regimes were "obvious". The Court endorsed top-down calculations of aggregate damages even though they did not require proof of individual losses -- to insist on such proof would "run counter to the provisions" of the U.K. regime. Applying this standard, Merricks only needed to convince the CAT that both (i) the expert methodology concerning pass-on of MIFs to consumers was "capable" of assessing the level of pass-on and (ii) the data to operate that methodology would, or would likely, exist at trial. Merricks did not need to produce or identify all of the relevant evidence. Instead, an analysis of pass-on to consumers on an individual basis is "unnecessary when what is claimed is an aggregate award", and pass-on to consumers "generally satisfies the test of commonality of issue necessary for certification". Nor did the certification stage require a "mini trial", which was, in the Court's opinion, "more or less what occurred" before the CAT. In sum, the Court said the CAT had misdirected itself as to the applicable test for certification and "demanded too much" of Merricks for that stage of the case. Distribution of Damages The Court noted the absence in the relevant legislation of any requirement that aggregate damages should be distributed according to what an individual claimant has lost. Although such a compensatory system "will probably be the most obvious and suitable" distribution method in cases where each individual's loss is readily calculable, it is not mandatory. If such a prerequisite did exist, then the power to make an aggregate award would be "largely negated" in class actions of this kind. As the CAT "clearly did" consider that an aggregate award had to be distributed to claimants so as to restore individual loss suffered by them, the Court concluded that its approach was both "premature and wrong". Comment The Court's judgment appears to significantly lower the initial threshold for class actions to proceed in the U.K. Class representatives need only establish a "real prospect of success" -- a relatively low bar to overcome, particularly given the significant time and costs incurred in class actions. Although the Court's judgment endorsed the Canadian view that certification is a continuing process, in practice this may provide cold comfort to parties. The suggestion by the Court that terminating a class action "once the pleadings, disclosure and expert evidence are complete and the Court is dealing with reality rather than conjecture" does not fully reflect the fact that completing the pleadings, disclosure and expert evidence stages in litigation is a costly and time-consuming exercise. Class representatives and their funders should take note of the potentially significant liability to pay adverse costs if the CPO is revoked after completing such expensive steps in the process. Only time will tell whether the Court's judgment results in an increase in the number of class actions commenced in the U.K.; however, developments should be monitored closely. Thus far, no opt-out claim has proceeded beyond the certification stage. However, with a low bar to entry, and in a climate where the subject matter for anticompetitive behaviour continues to be widened by the U.K. anti-trust regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority, there may follow a noticeable uptick in U.K. class action litigation. Of further note is the Court's departure from the compensatory principle of damages for torts under English law, by allowing a distribution of damages that does not correspond to a particular individual's loss. The acceptance of this principle is a significant development in English law and creates novel ground for the English courts and practitioners alike. Finally, the case confirms the increasingly welcoming approach of the English courts and U.K. Parliament towards third-party funding. The Court specifically noted, for example, that the revised U.K. class action regime was "obviously intended to facilitate a means of redress which could attract and be facilitated by litigation funding". The U.K. litigation funding market has grown significantly in recent years, with current estimates indicating that the capital available for funding now stands at over GBP1.3 billion. Third-party funding is a particularly valuable avenue for U.K. consumers, given that opt-out class actions cannot be funded by arrangements whereby lawyers receive a portion of any damages received. In the U.S., by contrast, a material part of class settlements can be awarded as fees to counsel for the class. On a number of fronts, the Court's judgment provides, at least temporarily, some much-needed clarification. Given the infancy of the U.K. class action regime, such clarity should be welcomed whilst also expecting further twists and turns. Mastercard has already indicated that it intends to appeal the Court's decision, and separate opt-out CPO applications due to be heard by the CAT later this year are likely to supplement the issues decided by the Court. In the first opt-out case to go before the CAT, it commented about the process that "everyone is learning on the way". For the moment at least, this still seems apposite. MENDOTA INSURANCE: Harrell Files Class Suit Over Insurance Dispute ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mendota Insurance Company. The case is styled as Angelique Harrell individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mendota Insurance Company a Tennessee Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00548-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla., May 9, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract. Mendota Insurance Company provides personal insurance protection, automobile insurance, and flood insurance products for customers and agents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmund A. Normand, Esq. Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq. Normand PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, Fl 32803 Phone: (407) 603-6031 Email: ed@ednormand.com jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com - and - Jordan David Utanski, Esq. Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. Edelsberg Law, PA 2875 NE 191st Street, Suite 703 Aventura, FL 33180 Email: utanski@edelsberglaw.com scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew John Shamis, Esq. Shamis & Gentile, PA 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Gonzales Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Gonzales individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02736 (E.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through various education and payment plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Certify Club Dancers Class Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, d/b/a VANITY, Case No. 2:17-cv-00924-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), asks the Court to: (1) conditionally certify this case as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with respect to a collective class of: All of Defendant's current and former dancers who have worked at Defendant's club during the three years before this Complaint was filed up to the present; (2) order expedited discovery of the names, all known addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and dates of employment of Collective Action Members employed during the specified time period; and (3) order issuance of notice to prospective Collective Action Members via ordinary mail and e-mail.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. Courtney M. Werning, Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com mwilson@meyerwilson.com cwerning@meyerwilson.com - and - Steven C. Babin, Jr., Esq. BABIN LAW, LLC 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 E-mail: steven.babin@babinlaws.com - and - Lance Chapin, Esq. CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP, LLC 580 South High Street, Suite 330 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-9100 Facsimile: (614) 221-9272 E-mail: lance.chapin@chapinlegal.com NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid in Daniel Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Susan C. Bucklew denies the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled EDWING D. DANIEL, WILLIAM COTTRILL, BROOKE PADGETT, and ELAINE LAREINA LAI v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-02503-SCB-JSS (M.D. Fla.). Judge Bucklew opines that the Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden of proof for class certification. Among other things, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail the test for class ascertainability and fail to meet their burden in demonstrating predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs has moved to certify a nationwide class consisting of: All individuals in the United States who: (1) have federal student loans that are or were serviced by [NSL]; (2) are, or after October 1, 2007, were employed full-time in public service by a qualifying organization for purposes of the PSLF program; (3) were told by [NSL] their loans were eligible for the PSLF program; and (4) on or after October 25, 2013, learned they were ineligible for the PSLF program because their federal student loans are not Direct Loans and/or they were not on a payment plan that is eligible for the PSLF program. The Plaintiffs also sought certification of these subclasses: * Florida Subclass: All individuals who: (1) are residents of Florida; (2) have federal student loans that were serviced by [NSL]; (3) are, or after October 1, 2007, were, employed full-time in public service by a qualifying organization for purposes of the PSLF program; (4) were told by [NSL] their loans were eligible for the PSLF program; and (5) on or after October 25, 2015, learned they were ineligible for the PSLF program because their federal student loans are not Direct Loans and/or they were not on a payment plan that is eligible for the PSLF program; and * Colorado Subclass: All individuals who: (1) are residents of Colorado; (2) have federal student loans that were serviced by [NSL]; (3) are, or after October 1, 2007, were, employed full-time in public service by a qualifying organization for purposes of the PSLF program; (4) were told by [NSL] their loans were eligible for the PSLF program; and (5) on or after January 30, 2015, learned they were ineligible for the PSLF program because their federal student loans are not Direct Loans and/or they were not on a payment plan that is eligible for the PSLF program.[CC] NCAA: Proebstle Seeks Damages for Student-Athlete's Injuries ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Proebstle, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard Proebstle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01791 (S.D. Ind., May 2, 2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust enrichment. Richard Proebstle played football at Michigan State University from 1960 to 1964. He endured numerous concussions, as well as countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and gameplay. Proebstle suffered from memory loss, depression, anxiety, loss of concentration, loss of impulse control, loss of executive functioning, impaired judgment, emotional instability, irritability, speech and language difficulties, sleeping difficulties, motor impairment, dementia, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and CTE prior to his untimely death. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. 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. Proebstle alleges NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. 329 Bryant Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com - and - Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, Tx 77006 Tel: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com NEPTUNO RESTAURANTS: Denied Toribio Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Guillermo Toribio, on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Neptuno Restaurants, LLC, Michael Jannetta and David Segovia, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04032, (S.D. N.Y., May 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid "spread of hours" pay and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate as "Sala One Nine," a restaurant located at 35 West 191th Street, New York, New York 10011 where Toribio worked as a dishwasher, general helper, kitchen preparation assistant, bread baker, cleaner and cook. He generally works a total of fifty-two hours per week without the appropriate overtime premium, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel. (212) 209-3933 Fax. (212) 209-7102 Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com NEW YORK HEALTH: Doncouse Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Health & Racquet Club Foundation, Inc. The case is styled as GRACIELA DONCOUSE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New York Health & Racquet Club Foundation, Inc., New York Health Club, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04227 (S.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. New York Health & Racquet Club offers limitless group fitness classes, expert personal training, and luxurious amenities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq, The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com NORTHWEST PALLET: Grandberry Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NORTHWEST PALLET SERVICES, LLC. The case is styled as JERMAINE GRANDBERRY, NOAH CLINES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. NORTHWEST PALLET SERVICES, LLC, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-101284 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 9, 2019). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited". Northwest Pallet Supply Co. manufactures pallets and crates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by EDWIN AIWAZIAN, ESQ. POKEMON COMPANY: Website not Blind-friendly, Claims Dennis ---------------------------------------------------------- Derrick U. Dennis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Pokemon Company International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04055 (S.D. N.Y., May 6, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant operates a commercial website, www.pokemoncenter.com, which sells Pokemon related merchandise. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 971-9474 Fax: (718) 865-0943 Email: Jshalom@JonathanShalomLaw.com RADIUS GLOBAL: Faces Shapiro Suit over Unsolicited Phone Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Radius Global Solutions LLC for an alleged violation the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned RACHEL SHAPIRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61022 (S.D. Fla., April 23, 2019). Plaintiff Rachel Shapiro alleges that Radius Global Solutions LLC has initiated numerous unsolicited telephone calls to her cellular device and the cellular devices of numerous other individuals across the country. Plaintiff Shapiro also alleges that Radius Global used automated telephone dialing system and artificial or prerecorded voice in their calls. Radius Global Solutions LLC describes itself as a leading provider of account recovery and debt collection, customer relationship management and health care revenue cycle management solutions. The company is headquartered in Ambler, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com RAPID PARTS: Denied OT Pay, Wage Notices, Paystubs, Lopez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rapid Parts Plus Auto, Inc. and Ponciano Ferreras, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-03950 (S.D. N.Y., May 2, 2019), seeks compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, "spread of hours" requirements of New York Labor Law and statutory damages for violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act. Defendants owned and operated an auto parts supplier in the Bronx where Lopez was employed as a delivery person. He regularly worked seven days per week typically working roughly twelve-hour days, all without overtime pay, notes the complaint. Defendants did not provide a time clock, computer punch, timesheets, or any other method for him to track his time worked. Lopez's effective rate of pay was below the statutory federal minimum wage throughout his employment. Defendants also failed to provide him with written wage notices providing contact information, regular and overtime rates and intended allowances claimed, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Tel: (212) 563-9884 Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Pontones Seeks Certification of FLSA Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled LAURA PONTONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SAN JOSE RESTAURANT, INCORPORATED; SAN JOSE MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT AND SPORTS CANTINA; SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT #2 OF LUMBERTON, INC.; SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT OF ELIZABETHTOWN, INC.; SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT OF N.C. INC.; SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT OF PEMBROKE, NC, INC.; SANJOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT OF RALEIGH INC.; SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT OF SHALLOTTE, INC.; SAN JOSE OF ROCKY MOUNT #2 INC., d/b/a SAN JOSE TACOS AND TEQUILA; SAN JOSE OF ZEBULON, INC.; SAN JOSE OF ROANOKE RAPIDS, INC.; SAN JOSE WAKEFIELD, INC., d/b/a SAN JOSE MEX AND TEQUILA BAR; PLAZA AZTECA RALEIGH, INC., d/b/a SAN JOSE TACOS AND TEQUILA; HECTOR FLORES; ALBERTO FLORES; JOSUE FLORES; JOSE PEREZ; VICENTE PEREZ; PABLO MEZA; EDGARDO FLORES; and EDGAR FLORES, Case No. 5:18-cv-00219-D (E.D.N.C.), moves for: (1) conditional certification of this action as a representative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and certification of this action as a class action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and pursuant to the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act; (2) approval of the proposed FLSA/R.23 NCHWA notice of this action and the consent form in both English and Spanish; (3) a production of names, last known mailing addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and dates of employment of all putative class members; (4) ability to email and/or text message the proposed Notice, along with utilizing regular U.S. Mail and posting the Notice at all locations in English and Spanish; and (5) appointing named Plaintiff Laura Pontones as class representative, and the Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Dr., Suite 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Henry W. Jones, Jr., Esq. Lori Peoples Jones, Esq. JORDAN PRICE WALL GRAY JONES & CARLTON, PLLC P. O. Box 10669 1951 Clark Ave. Raleigh, NC 27604 Telephone: (919) 828-2501 Facsimile: (919) 834-8447 E-mail: hjones@jordanprice.com ljones@jordanprice.com - and - James Larry Stine, Esq. WIMBERLY, LAWSON, STECKEL, SCHNEIDER & STINE, P.C. 3400 Peachtree Rd., NE, Suite 400 Lenox Towers Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 365-0900 Facsimile: (404) 261-3707 E-mail: jls@wimlaw.com SOLIDCORE HOLDINGS: Andrews Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Solidcore Holdings, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Victor Andrews, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Solidcore Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03659 (S.D. N.Y., April 24, 2019). Solidcore Holdings, LLC owns and operates boutique fitness studios.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com SYNTER RESOURCE: Englander Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synter Resource Group, LLC. The case is styled as Shia Englander individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Synter Resource Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02732 (E.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Synter Resource Group, LLC provides accounts receivable management, first party collections, early intervention, third party collections, transaction processing, and attorney network services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com TRINET GROUP: No Appeal in Welgus Class Suit -------------------------------------------- TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that no appeal has been made on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's dismissal of the amended complaint in Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc., et al. In August 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported stockholder, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit, Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc., et al., under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint was later amended in April 2016 and again in March 2017. On December 18, 2017, the district court granted TriNet's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, without leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the district court's order on January 17, 2018. Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening appeal brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 27, 2018. TriNet filed a responsive brief on June 28, 2018. Plaintiff-Appellant filed his reply brief on August 20, 2018. Oral arguments were held before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 14, 2019. On March 26, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the amended complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff-Appellant may appeal the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but to date has not done so. TriNet said, "We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or expense, or range of losses and expenses, if any, arising from this litigation." TriNet Group, Inc. provides human resources solutions for small and midsize businesses in the United States and Canada. TriNet Group, Inc. was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Dublin, California. TWITTER INC: May 23 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION IN RE TWITTER, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05314-JST CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION To all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of Twitter, Inc. ("Twitter" or the "Company") during the period from February 6, 2015 through July 28, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). You could be affected by a class action lawsuit against Twitter and Individual Defendants Richard Costolo and Anthony Noto (collectively "Defendants"). The Court which authorized this notice is allowing the case to proceed as a class action on behalf of a "Class" and appointed attorneys as "Co-Class Counsel." The Court has not decided that Defendants did anything wrong. Defendants have not been ordered to pay any money. No settlement has been reached. There is no money available now and no guarantee that there will be. The lawsuit alleges that Defendants knowingly concealed and made false statements about Twitter's key operating metrics during the Class Period, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants deny any wrongdoing in this lawsuit and believe that the claims are without merit. You are a potential "Class Member" only if you purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of Twitter during the period from February 6, 2015 and July 28, 2015, inclusive. Excluded from the Class are Twitter and the Individual Defendants; members of the immediate families of the Individual Defendants; Twitter's subsidiaries and affiliates; any person who is or was an officer or director of Twitter during the Class Period; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such excluded person or entity. Also excluded from the Class is any person or entity that timely and validly requests exclusion from the Class. In addition, Defendants have reserved their rights to move to de-certify the Class, in whole or in part, or to seek the exclusion from the Class of certain entities or individuals at a later date. If you want to stay in the Class, you do not have to do anything now. If you do nothing, you will stay in the Class and be bound by the Court's orders and will lose any right you may have to sue Defendants regarding the factual circumstances and claims in this case. If you do not want to be a Class Member or to be bound by what the Court does and want to keep any rights you may have to sue Defendants over the factual circumstances and claims asserted in this case, you need to exclude yourself. To be excluded, you must send a letter to In re Twitter, Inc. Securities Litigation, Administrator, P.O. Box 6389, Portland, OR 97228-6389 and must include certain information, as set forth in the long-form notice available at the website listed below. If you choose to exclude yourself, you cannot get money or benefits recovered if any are awarded at a later date. The deadline to exclude yourself is May 23, 2019. This notice is only a summary. For more information visit www.TwitterSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1 (888) 510-9590. URL: www.TwitterSecuritiesLitigation.com SOURCE United States District Court, Northern District of California [GN] UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Olukayode Seeks OT Pay for Consultants ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against UnitedHealth Group, Optum, Inc. and The Advisory Board Company for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Maine, New York, and Maryland state law. The case is captioned OLURO OLUKAYODE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, OPTUM, INC. and THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01101 (D. Minn., April 23, 2019). Plaintiff Oluro Olukayode alleges that he and other similarly situated consultants were improperly classified as independent contractors, and, as a result, did not receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. UnitedHealth Group is a company providing various healthcare and well-being services. The company is headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota. A subdivision of UnitedHealth, Optum provides healthcare information services to hospitals and other healthcare facilities, helping these facilities implement new electronic recordkeeping systems. The Advisory Board Company also provides healthcare information services to healthcare and other client facilities across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 3217 Hennepin Avenue South, Suite 7 Minneapolis, MN 55408 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 Facsimile: (419) 793-1804 E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com - and - David M. Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com US PAPER MILLS: Shortchanges Workers Wages, Winter Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Cory Winter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Paper Mills Corp., and Sonoco Products Company, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00657 (E.D. Wisc., May 6, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or any such other relief pursuant to Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. US Paper Mills Corp. produces and sells lightweight paperboard for conversion into cores, composite cans and tubes. Sonoco Products produces composite cans, tubes, and cores, and it provides consumer packaging, industrial products, protective packaging, and packaging supply chain services domestically and internationally. Winter worked at Defendants' production facilities in Menasha, Wisconsin. He claims that their timekeeping system rounded off the time to the nearest quarter hour thus leaving them uncompensated for the rest of the minutes rendered. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com V. G. MIRROR: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Ordenano Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD ORDENANO and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. V. G. MIRROR AND GLASS MART DISTRIBUTORS CORP. and EMILIO GONZALEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21854-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2019) is an action seeking to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 45-47 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one-and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed as a driver and warehouse worker performing the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated warehouse workers whom Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately 1999 to January 21, 2019. Defendant operates as an organization which sells and/or markets its services and/or goods to customers from throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com VALVE CORP: G.G. Appeals W.D. Washington Ruling to Ninth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs A.L., B.S. and G.G. filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit entitled G.G., et al. v. Valve Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-01941-JCC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit (assigned Case No. 16-00002-28798-1-SEA) was removed from the King County Superior Court to the District Court. Valve Corporation is an American video game developer and digital distribution company headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The appellate case is captioned as G.G., et al. v. Valve Corporation, Case No. 19-35345, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants A.L., B.S. and G.G.'s opening brief is due on June 24, 2019; -- Appellee Valve Corporation's answering brief is due on July 24, 2019; -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants G.G., A.L. and B.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com - and - Jasper D. Ward, IV, Esq. JONES WARD PLC 1205 E Washington Street, Suite 111 Louisville, KY 40206 Telephone: (502) 882-6000 Facsimile: (502) 587-2007 E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com Defendant-Appellee VALVE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, is represented by: Charles B. Casper, Esq. MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP 123 S. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109 Telephone: (215) 772-1500 E-mail: ccasper@mmwr.com - and - Gavin W. Skok, Esq. RIDDELL WILLIAMS P.S. 1001 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98154-1192 Telephone: (206) 624-3600 E-mail: gskok@riddellwilliams.com VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Illegally Shared Geo-data, Morrison Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Morrison, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Verizon Communications Inc. and Cellco Partnership, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01298, (D. Md., May 2, 2019), seeks redress for negligent violations of customer privacy rights. Morrison is a Verizon customer who claims that Verizon, a telecommunications services provider, collected geolocation data collected from its subscribers' cell phones and disseminated them to third-parties. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. Jeffrey C. Toppe, Esq. David M. Trojanowski, Esq. Z LAW, LLC 2345 York Road, Suite B-13 Timonium, MD 21093 Tel: (443) 213-1977 Email: clz@zlawmaryland.com jct@zlawmaryland.com dmt@zlawmaryland.com VIVI BUBBLE: Bunting Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------- Vivi Bubble Tea Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Vivi Bubble Tea Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02424 (E.D. N.Y., April 25, 2019). Vivi Bubble Tea serves a variety of Taiwanese bubble tea drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com WELLCARE HEALTH: Nasisi Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- CARA NASISI & ROBIN CHERNOFF, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04132 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019) is an action on behalf Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Care Management Employees, who, due to Defendant's misclassification scheme, were not paid all earned overtime pay for time they worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and under the New York state law under New York Minimum Wage Act, the New York Wage Payment Act, and the supporting Department of Labor Regulations, (together, the "NYLL"). Plaintiffs worked as Care Management Employees for Defendant. The complaint asserts that Defendant's Care Management Employees regularly worked over 40 hours per week but Defendant classified them as exempt from state and federal overtime laws and did not pay them overtime when they worked over 40 hours in an individual workweek. Defendant is a Fortune 200 Company that provides "government sponsored managed care services to health plan participants through Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Prescription Drug Plans".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C. 116 Village Blvd., Suite 200 Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: (609) 799-1266 Facsimile: (609) 228-5649 Email: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com - and - DOUGLAS M. WERMAN, ESQ. MAUREEN A. SALAS, ESQ. Werman Salas P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - TRAVIS M. HEDGPETH, ESQ. THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC 3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (281) 572-0727 Facsimile: (281) 572-0728 Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com - and - JACK SIEGEL, ESQ. Siegel Law Group PLLC 2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 790-4454 Email: www.4overtimelawyer.com WEST MEMPHIS FENCE: Class Cert. Denied; Renewed Bid Due July 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. D.P. Marshall, Jr., denied without prejudice the motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit styled PEDRO PALMA, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. WEST MEMPHIS FENCE & CONSTRUCTION, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00208-DPM (E.D. Ark.). According to the Order, the motion for conditional certification is denied without prejudice, with equitable tolling to Pedro Palma, and with instructions. The Court directs targeted written discovery and depositions on the employee/contractor issue, and on how the Defendant operates its business. In the circumstances, the Court prefers to consider conditional certification on a more-complete picture of the Defendant's operations and whether others are similarly situated. Renewed motion is due by July 29, 2019.[CC] WETSCH ABBOTT: Johnson Appeals Order and Judgment to 8th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Joy Johnson filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated March 21, 2019, and Judgment dated March 22, 2019, entered in the lawsuit entitled Joy Johnson v. Wetsch Abbott Osborn Van Vliet, PLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00006-RP, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action, including expert fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and other and further relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On November 9, 2017, the Defendant sent a written communication to Johnson in connection with the collection of an alleged debt. Said letter contradicted and overshadowed the prescribed validation notice that demanded payment by December 14, 2018, exactly 30 days after the date of the letter, yet still within the mandatory validation window. The appellate case is captioned as Joy Johnson v. Wetsch Abbott Osborn Van Vliet, PLC, Case No. 19-1850, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appendix is due on June 4, 2019; -- Brief of Appellant Joy Johnson is due on June 4, 2019; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 21 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Joy Johnson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Jesse Stine Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway Boca Raton, FL 33487 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Eric Steven Mail, Esq. Eric David Puryear, Esq. PURYEAR LAW 3719 Bridge Avenue, Suite 6 Davenport, IA 52807 Telephone: (563) 265-6961 E-mail: mail@puryearlaw.com eric@puryearlaw.com Defendant-Appellee Wetsch Abbott Osborn Van Vliet, PLC, is represented by: Kevin J. Driscoll, Esq. Andrew M. Stanley, Esq. FINLEY LAW FIRM 699 Walnut Street, Suite 1700 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 288-0145 E-mail: kdriscoll@finleylaw.com astanley@finleylaw.com WILL COUNTY, IL: Dunn Moves to Certify Class and Four Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ANDREA DUNN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF WILL and MIKE KELLEY, Sheriff of Will County, individually and in his official capacity, Case No. 1:18-cv-06304 (N.D. Ill.), moves the Court to certify a class with four subclasses: * Class: All persons detained in the Will County Adult Detention Facility in booking cells between September 17, 2016, and the present; * Subclass 1: All those persons in the class detained overnight in the Will County Adult Detention Facility in booking cells; * Subclass 2: All those persons in the class arrested without a warrant and detained over 24 hours in the Will County Adult Detention Facility in booking cells awaiting a probable-cause hearing; * Subclass 3: All those persons in the class arrested without a warrant and detained over 36 hours in the Will County Adult Detention Facility in booking cells awaiting a probable-cause hearing; and * Subclass 4: All those persons in the class arrested without a warrant and detained over 48 hours in the Will County Adult Detention Facility in booking cells awaiting a probable-cause hearing. Ms. Dunn also asks the Court to appoint her as the class representative, and to appoint Heffner Hurst and Hale & Monico LLC as class counsel. In her complaint, Ms. Dunn alleges that the Defendants systematically violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by detaining warrantless arrestees in unreasonable conditions and for unreasonable lengths of time at the Will County Adult Detention Facility.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Heffner, Esq. Matthew T. Hurst, Esq. HEFFNER HURST 30 N. LaSalle, Suite 1210 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-3466 E-mail: mheffner@heffnerhurst.com mhurst@heffnerhurst.com - and - Jordan Marsh, Esq. HALE & MONICO LLC 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 330 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 401-5510 E-mail: jmarsh@ahalelaw.com ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN: Santos Sues Over Defective Airbags ------------------------------------------------------ ADALGISA SANTOS, CARL PAUL MAURILUS, and COURTNEY MAINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., TRW AUTOMOTIVE INC., TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC, TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS INC., HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., HONDA OF AMERICA MFG. INC., HONDA R&D CO., LTD., TOYOTA MOTOR CORP., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., HYUNDAI MOTOR GROUP, HYUNDAI MOTOR CO., and HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61174-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2019) is an action concerning defective airbag control units ("ACUs") designed and manufactured by ZF Friedrichshafen AG, ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., and its related entities (collectively, "TRW"), and equipped in vehicles manufactured, sold, or leased by Defendants Honda, Acura, Hyundai, and Toyota and their related entities (collectively, "Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants"). ACUs are designed and manufactured to detect a vehicle crash, determine whether airbag deployment is necessary, and deploy appropriate airbags and other supplemental restraints where needed. The ACU contains an electronic component—an application specific integrated circuit ("ASIC") located in the front of the vehicle—which monitors signals from other crash sensors located in the vehicle. If the ASIC fails, the ACU will not operate properly—causing tragic and often deadly results. Airbags are critical safety features of any motor vehicle. All TRW ACUs at issue in this litigation share a common, uniform design defect: the TRW ACU's defective design makes the ASIC unreasonably susceptible to damage or electrical overstress ("EOS"), which in turn prevents the ACU from properly communicating with the airbags and seatbelt pretensioners during collisions (the "ACU Defect"). Because of their uniform defective design, TRW's ACUs are unreasonably susceptible to damage or EOS conditions, which prevent the vehicles' airbags from deploying and the seatbelt pretensioners from engaging during a collision, thereby failing to protect vehicle occupants during a crash. The Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants manufactured, sold, and leased vehicles containing TRW's Defective ACUs--concealing the ACU Defect and knowingly misrepresenting their vehicles as safe to consumers and the public, asserts the conplaint. As overwhelming evidence of the defect grew, Defendants did not issue recalls, warn consumers, or otherwise protect them from the risk through, for example, systematic loaner vehicle programs. Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants' failure and/or delay in issuing recalls and providing replacement parts is consequential--it exposes purchasers, lessees, drivers, passengers, and, indeed, the general public, to an ongoing and unnecessary risk of harm. Plaintiffs and consumers are in the frightening position of having to drive dangerous vehicles for many months and possibly years while they wait for Defendants to recall and replace the defective TRW ACUs in their cars. Plaintiffs are effectively left without safe vehicles to take them to and from work, pick up their children from schools or daycares, or, in the most urgent of situations, transport themselves or others to hospitals. The Defendants knew, and certainly should have known, that the TRW ACUs installed in millions of vehicles were defective. By concealing their knowledge of the nature and extent of the ACU Defect from the public, while continuing to advertise their products as safe and reliable, Defendants demonstrated a blatant disregard for public welfare and safety. As a result of this misconduct, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes were harmed and suffered actual damages, says the complaint. Plaintiffs purchased their Class Vehicles (referring to all vehicles in the United States that were manufactured, sold, or leased by Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants and are equipped with Defective ACUs primarily) for personal, family, and household use. ZF TRW is a worldwide supplier of driveline and chassis technology for cars and commercial vehicles, including active and passive safety technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Phone: (914) 749-8200 Fax: (914) 749-8300 Email: dboies@bsfllp.com - and - STEPHEN N. ZACK, ESQ. MARK J. HEISE, ESQ. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 2800 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 539-8400 Facsimile: (305) 539-1307 Email: szack@bsfllp.com mheise@bsfllp.com ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Plotkin Files Class Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker & Associates, P.C. The case is styled as Kateryna Plotkin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 11:19-cv-02402 (E.D. N.Y., April 24, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit. Zwicker & Associates, P.C. operates as a law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: ekroub@rgrdlaw.com [*] Harvard Law Students Fight Mandatory Arbitration Agreements --------------------------------------------------------------- Sejal Singh and Andre Manuel, writing for The Nation, report that by the time Leah Turner sued her employer, she had worked hundreds, possibly even thousands, of hours at Chipotle without getting paid. Turner's manager would regularly tell her to "clock out" from work, but still require her to work extra hours unpaid. Turner's boss would even sometimes retroactively go back into the system and delete hours that people had already worked. Eventually, Turner moved to a different store, only to find that wage theft was rampant there too. In 2013, Turner decided to fight back. Along with thousands of Chipotle workers, Turner filed a class-action wage-theft lawsuit against Chipotle, demanding back pay that the chain had stolen from its own workers. Individually, low-wage workers' claims were too small to cover legal fees—but together, they could hold the company accountable. The Chipotle workers had evidence on their side. But last year, thousands of the workers in Turner v. Chipotle were tossed out of court because of a little-known legal loophole written into the fine print of their employment contracts: a forced-arbitration clause. Thousands of Chipotle workers had unknowingly signed "mandatory arbitration agreements," buried deep in the fine print of their HR paperwork, waiving their right to sue over illegal treatment at work, like sexual harassment, race discrimination, and wage theft. Instead of going to court, people who have signed forced-arbitration agreements are legally required to settle their claims with a private third-party arbitrator. These arbitrators are often handpicked by the defending company and paid by that same company to the tune of $1,000 to $2,000 a day. Arbitrators' determination is final, binding on both parties, and virtually unreviewable by courts. Forced arbitration effectively operates as a secretive, privatized justice system that is stacked in favor of big corporations. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that workers subject to mandatory arbitration win just 38 percent as often as they would in state court and 59 percent as often as they would in federal court. Even when workers do win, they only get a fraction of the damages. Consumers subject to forced arbitration fare just as poorly. Public Citizen found that consumers only won in 6 percent of arbitrations against financial institutions in California. Arbitration's opacity and lack of procedural safeguards undoubtedly benefit companies who are repeat players in the arbitration world. The threat is growing: As of 2017, more than 60 million American workers have signed forced-arbitration agreements in their employment contracts, and 81 of the largest 100 US companies have forced-arbitration clauses in contracts with their customers for financial products, cell phones, and more. The game was always rigged against working people—now, they might not get to play at all. That's why we launched the Pipeline Parity Project, a grassroots campaign of law students fighting to end forced arbitration, stop workplace discrimination, and unrig the legal system. We came to law school to hold powerful corporate actors accountable for ripping off consumers, violating their workers' rights, or discriminating on the basis of race, gender, or disability. But our future clients may never get their day in court in the first place because of forced arbitration and corporate lawyers who use legal jargon to cover up the ways that they've stacked the rules to favor big corporations. As future lawyers, we think it's our responsibility to take them on. When we started Pipeline Parity Project last spring, we were just a small group of Harvard Law School students furious about a rigged justice system. Just one year later, organized students have secured unprecedented disclosure of forced arbitration in the legal profession and forced some of the country's largest firms to drop arbitration agreements. Now, we're building a national network of law students who are trying to rewrite the rules that protect the powerful at the expense of the little guy. Last year, at the height of the #MeToo movement, many law firms began writing forced-arbitration clauses into their contracts with their employees, including summer interns. Some forced-arbitration clauses explicitly required firm employees -- not just attorneys, but also summer interns, legal secretaries, and custodial staff -- to sign away their right to sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex discrimination (including sexual harassment) at work. As #MeToo reminds us, survivors are still rarely believed unless they come forward together. If companies require survivors of sexual harassment to arbitrate grievances individually, they can more easily sweep sexual harassment under the rug. The problem is that many arbitration clauses include "class action waivers," which require people to give up their right to participate in a class-action lawsuit. Class-action lawsuits allow workers and consumers who've been ripped off in the same way to put their limited resources together to sue a larger entity. Take the Chipotle workers. The typical Chipotle crew member makes just $9 an hour and probably can't afford to hire an attorney. Besides, most workers' claims ranged from $50 to a couple thousand each. If you're one of the six in 10 Americans who couldn't cover an unexpected $500 bill, that's a lot of money -- but hiring a lawyer almost certainly costs much more. With a class action, regular people can level the playing field and deter companies that would rather hide illegal conduct under the rug by distributing its effects among many people. But forced to arbitrate cases on their own, regular people may not be able to access the justice system at all. Most workers, knowing they are unlikely to succeed individual arbitration, choose never to bring claims at all. Wells Fargo made headlines in 2016 when it became known that the company had fraudulently set up millions of fake accounts for real consumers. Regulators eventually caught on and fined the company $185 million. But absent government action, consumers would have been left in the dust; Wells Fargo's contracts contained forced-arbitration clauses. In fact, consumers who attempted to sue over the fake accounts years earlier had been thrown out of court. Courts often refer to forced-arbitration clauses as "agreements." In reality, they're anything but. Many arbitration clauses are part of "clickwrap" contracts: Those online forms where you "click to agree to the terms and conditions." In a 2015 study, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that consumers are rarely aware that their contracts contain dispute-resolution clauses. Even when people spot an arbitration clause lurking in a contract, they may have no choice but to accept it. If you won't sign a forced-arbitration clause with your bank, phone company, cable provider, then you can't get the service. A restaurant worker or nurse who refuses to accept a forced-arbitration agreement might lose their job. In other words, regular people literally have no choice but to accept the terms if they want to have access to goods or even to their jobs. Companies know that consumers and workers can't give up important services, like having a cell phone, to argue fine-print contractual terms, so there is no meaningful market competition regulating the use of forced-arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court has made it virtually impossible for workers and consumers to fight arbitration clauses in court—but we can organize to make sure companies don't force people to sign them in the first place. We led a campaign to make the nation's most prominent law firms disclose whether they force employees to sign arbitration clauses, then successfully pushed several major firms to stop using forced-arbitration clauses in their employees' contracts. We're not the only people fighting forced arbitration in our workplaces: We work alongside Google employees who led a campaign that recently forced Google to get rid of the clauses in their employment contracts. Companies rely on the people who work for them, and that gives us the power to demand equitable, decent working conditions. But as future lawyers, we know that going workplace by workplace to end forced arbitration isn't enough. We want to make sure our future clients aren't locked out of the legal system because of contractual fine print. And we want our future colleagues to realize that forced arbitration unethically prevents the disempowered from accessing justice. We need legislation to end forced arbitration altogether, for everyone. In the 1920s, Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Legislative history shows that the FAA was meant to apply to big companies arbitrating disputes with other big companies on an equal playing field. It even had an explicit exception for employment contracts. The FAA was primarily addressed at making sure federal judges enforce arbitral awards; its authors never fathomed it would be used to uphold unconscionable forced-arbitration clauses. But the Supreme Court has vastly extended the reach of the FAA, finding that it protects not only the outcomes of arbitrated disputes but forced-arbitration clauses themselves. Because the Supreme Court, especially Trump appointee Justice Gorsuch, is so arbitration-friendly, states are effectively barred from limiting forced arbitration. That means we need federal legislation. Federal agencies have tried: In 2017, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress blocked a rule from the CFPB that would have limited the use of forced-arbitration agreements in consumer finance contracts. That's why we support the recently reintroduced FAIR Act, which would amend the FAA to ban the use of forced arbitration in employment, consumer, and health-care contracts -- in other worse, it would limit forced arbitration in cases where there are severe asymmetries of power between the parties and the FAA was never supposed to apply. Forced arbitration is bad for workers, bad for consumers, and bad for the justice system. The deck is already stacked in favor of large corporations. We'll pursue legislative, advocacy, and legal means to level the playing field so our future clients can have their day in court. [GN] [*] New Class Action Procedural Rules Under Paycheck Fairness Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cashida N. Okeke, Esq. -- Cashida.Okeke@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis PC, in an article for Lexology, reports that democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives continue to call for stronger protections to combat wage inequality. By a vote of 242-187, the House recently passed the Paycheck Fairness Act to enhance the federal protections guaranteed under the EPA. Currently, to defend against an EPA claim, an employer can assert any of four defenses to justify paying men and women differently for the same work. Employers can pay workers at different rates if the wage differential is based on i) seniority, ii) merit, iii) quantity or quality of the employee's work, or iv) any factor other than sex (sometimes referred to as a "catchall defense"). The Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 7, amends the applicability of the last exception by requiring wage differentials to be based on a "bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training or experience." This "bona fide factor defense" would require employers to prove that wage differentials fully account for the "entire differential in compensation," actually relate to the job and are consistent with business necessity, and are not based on or derived from existing gender-based wage disparities. H.R. 7 also would afford enhanced anti-retaliation protections for employees who not only file pay discrimination claims, but who discuss their salaries with coworkers or initiate or participate in pay equity investigations and hearings. However, employers are not liable under H.R. 7 if an employee with access to wage information, as part of their essential job functions, discloses such information to other employees, unless the employee disclosed the information as part of a complaint or employer-directed investigation. H.R. 7 would establish the Secretary of Labor's National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace to recognize employers for excellence in pay practices. Employers can also receive assistance in instituting compliance checks and modifying their equal pay practices. Lastly, H.R. 7 creates a grant program that would provide funds to eligible entities to design negotiation skills training programs for women and girls. Support for the measure was divided largely along party lines. House Republicans criticized the bill as "designed for trial lawyers" and pushed to add language limiting attorney's fees. Under H.R. 7, violators can be subject to enhanced penalties, such as compensatory and punitive damages. In light of the political composition of the Senate, this bill is unlikely to gain the support needed to be enacted. This is not the first time this bill has surfaced. Previous efforts to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act failed in the Senate in 2009 after passing in the House of Representatives. States also continue to pass new fair pay laws. [GN] [*] Next Wave of Class Actions to Come from Massive Data Breaches ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Clark, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the next wave of class action lawsuits will be the result of massive data breaches, according to the eighth annual Carlton Fields Class Action Survey released on April 16. The survey is based on interviews with general counsel or senior legal officers at 395 Fortune 1000 companies in the U.S. In 2017, 28.9 percent of corporate counsel said the next wave of class action suits would come from data privacy and security. That number nearly doubled in 2018 with 54 percent of respondents believing that the next wave of class action suits will come from data privacy and security issues. The report also said in-house lawyers are more concerned with the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which takes effect in 2020, than they are of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. Kavon Adli, the founder of The Internet Law Group in Beverly Hills, California, said, however, companies should be as, if not more, concerned with the GDPR. "I think the risk of a class action is more limited in the case of the CCPA," Adli said. He explained the data security is a limited area of the CCPA that provides for a right of action. Whereas the GDPR provides for a private right of action for all of its provisions. "The CCPA is still sort of in flux. There have been some legislative processes and there may still be more before it goes into effect," Adli said. "At the current time it is far more limited than the GDPR." Julianna McCabe, the director of the National Class Action Survey and a shareholder at Carlton Fields, said the state laws like the CCPA and Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act make it easier to file class action suits. "When the legislators in those states pass laws that allow consumers to bring private rights of action regarding these data issues companies are rightly concerned," McCabe said. "California in particular is a place where class actions are filed more than in any other state in the nation. California is an issue; Illinois is an issue, and other states are starting to copy those laws that are probably going to get passed in the next three to five years." Edward McAndrew, a partner at DLA Piper in Washington, D.C., said the CCPA has a provision that entitles California residents to some level of damages. He also said residents do not need to prove a direct injury because of the data breach, just that the company violated the CCPA. "Early on we saw a lot of cases being dismissed on standing grounds. With these statutory causes of action it's going to be much more difficult to get cases dismissed at a preliminary stage," McAndrew said. "Those cases haven't been going into a full scale discovery period." Because of this, he explained there will be extensive and expensive discovery that companies will be subjected to. "Those are going to six and seven figure expenses for these companies," McAndrew explained. According to the report, companies spent $2.46 billion defending class actions in 2018. That spending is the highest companies have paid in defending class actions suits since 2008. Most companies, according to the report, are facing class action lawsuits only in the United States. [GN] [*] Number of Class Actions v. Foreign Companies Up 39% in 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ezequiel Minaya, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that foreign companies listed in the U.S. are facing rising costs for insurance covering directors and officers, propelled by the increasing number of lawsuits. Known as D&O insurance, these policies protect board members and company leadership against personal liability for the decisions and actions they took performing those roles. The policies are often triggered by a notable fall in stock price or a major merger or acquisition that some investors oppose. There were 217 securities class-action suits filed against both foreign and domestic companies listed in the U.S. in 2018, a slight rise from the 216 suits filed in 2017 and the highest number in 20 years, according to a report by insurance brokerage Woodruff Sawyer & Co. The number of class-action lawsuits filed against foreign companies, however, rose 39% to 47 in 2018. Roughly 20% of the companies listed on the Nasdaq and New York Stock Exchange are based outside the U.S., with 4.5% of these foreign entities sued in 2018, the report said. The financial risk associated with these lawsuits has also climbed. The dollar amount of settlements for both foreign and domestic companies in 2018 rose 71% to $2.4 billion from $1.4 billion in 2017, according to Woodruff Sawyer. The median settlement amount was the highest in the past 10 years, with the finance sector paying out the most at $941.5 million. The increase in both lawsuits and financial risk is pushing up the cost of D&O insurance for foreign companies, which for many years paid less for this protection than domestic companies, said Priya Huskins, a partner and senior vice president at Woodruff Sawyer. "The cost of D&O insurance is on the rise for foreign filers and often in a dramatic way," Ms. Huskins said, estimating that premiums have increased anywhere between 6% and 30%. Ms. Huskins said the disparity in premiums paid by domestic and foreign companies stemmed from insurance providers systematically underpricing the risk associated with foreign U.S.-listed companies for several years. That risk can be substantial. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. agreed to a $75 million settlement last year, one of several notable settlements. The Chinese internet giant faced a class-action suit filed in 2015 by law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on behalf of purchasers of Alibaba American depositary shares that faulted the company for not disclosing meetings with China's State Administration of Industry and Commerce before its $25 billion public offering in 2014. A spokesman for Alibaba Group didn't respond to requests for comment. "The best way to think of D&O insurance is it's malpractice insurance for board members and company leadership," said Scott Meyer, division president of financial lines, North America, at insurance carrier Chubb Ltd. Investor anger over the handling of sexual harassment accusations or a cybersecurity breach have also emerged as increasingly common reasons for lawsuits. The vast majority of the cases are settled, Mr. Meyer said. Company leaders could be at risk of losing personal assets without this type of protection, prompting the vast majority of businesses to seek the coverage. "I would say 99.9% of companies have the coverage," Mr. Meyer said. Chubb executives have noted the growing frequency of lawsuits and growing size of settlements, which has translated into higher premiums. "Something needs to be done, because it's not sustainable," said John Keogh, chief operating officer at Chubb. Contributing to the growing cost of these suits are the climbing costs of legal services. In the past, it was a cottage industry for a few plaintiffs firms, Mr. Meyer said. But now, with a pot of money at the end of the game, he said, many different law firms have entered the field, driving costs and expenses. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***