/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190524.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 24, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 104 Headlines ABBVIE: Sheet Metal Workers Union Sues over Adalimumab Drug Sales ADIENT US: Mellow Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages AL HENDRICKSON: Ely Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ALL MY SONS: Leonard Hits Misclassification, Unpaid Overtime Wages ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Gracius Sues Over Erroneous Collection Letter ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Lebron Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York AMERICAN BEECH: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC: Endencia Files Product Liability Class Suit AMW CONSTRUCTION: Moody Seeks Overtime Pay ANCESTRY.COM: Collett Sues over False Advertising APMEX INC: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York APPFOLIO INC: Settlement Process in Leo Class Suit Continues APPLIED INTEGRATED: Eric Cooper's Wage Suit Dismissed ASPEN DENTAL: Stone Files Fraud Class Suit in E.D. Wash. ASSET MAXIMIZATION: Israel Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York AT&T SERVICES: Gadelhak Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 7th Cir. BMB RANDALL: Frias Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages BRISTOL BAY: Abikar II Transferred to Judge Sammartino BUTCHERBOX LLC: Johnson Sues Food Delivery Co. in New York CALIFORNIA NATURAL: P. Suarez's Injunctive Relief Claims Tossed CAPELLA UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Doctoral Students' Claims CARSON SMITHFIELD: Todaro Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey CBE GROUP: Truckenbrodt Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York CHARLOTTE-MECKLEBURG: Benitez Claims for Damages Junked COWEN INC: Seeks to Drop Amended Complaint in Fletcher Class Suit CREATIVE WASTE: O'Mara Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CROWN NJ GAMING: Leong Suit Removed to New Jersey Dist. Ct. CSX TRANSPORTATION: Removes Burns Suit to N.D. Illinois DENALI WATER: $420K Settlement in Verdugo Suit Has Prelim Approval DHI GROUP: Final Approval Hearing of Douglas Settlement in Aug. DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Suit Briefing, Discovery to End in July DRK THIRD AVENUE: JC Contracting Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. EFUEGO CORP: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York EHEALTHINSURANCE: Dennis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ENVOY AIR INC: Hinkley Suit Removed to N.D. Texas ENVOY AIR: Hinckley Suit Asserts Discrimination ETHOS DATA: Newell Sues Over Unauthorized Voice Messages FCA US: Yost Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. for Breach of Contract FIFTH THIRD: Lindauer Sues over Excessive Overdraft Fees GC SERVICES: Yang Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York GENERAL REVENUE: Higgins Sues over Debt Collection Practices GEORGIA: Court Approves Settlement in SMU Prisoners' Suit GNC HOLDINGS: Appeal on Workweek Suit Judgment Still Pending GOLDEN CIRCLE: Sundermann Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls HAWAIIAN GARDENS: Benavidez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Employees HOT TOPIC: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania HOWARD L. NATIONS: Gaudet Asserts Breach of Contract, Malpractice HYATT HOTELS: Still Defends Suits over Alleged Antitrust Matters ICON ENTERTAINMENT: Court Won't Consolidate De Angelis Suits ICON ENTERTAINMENT: De Angelis Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration INDIVIOR PLC: Rosen Law Files Securities Suit Over Suboxone Scheme INSTITUTE OF HUMAN: Unsolicited Marketing Violates TCPA, Says Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carr et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carroll Suit Moved to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dorman Suit Moved to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Morris Suit Moved to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Murillo Suit Moved to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Dayton Suit to N.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Gibson Suit to S.D. Texas JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Gruder Suit to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Santana Suit Moved to C.D. California KIMBERLY HASTIE: Court Denies A. Diamond's Class Certification Bid LIBERTY MUTUAL: Glover Files Class Suit in S.D. Florida LIFE STORAGE: Faces Peterson Labor Suit in Sacramento LOEWS HOTELS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LOOT CRATE: Olsen Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LPL FINANCIAL: Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice M&E CONSTRUCTION: Maldonado Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MAKEHAUS LLC: Reyes Seeks Overtime Pay for Welders MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Files Suit in S.D. New York MCDERMOTT INT'L: Class Cert. Bid in Chicago Bridge Suit Underway MCDERMOTT INT'L: Named as Defendant in Curti and Stremcha Suits MDL 2672: Court Enjoins J. Feinman from Pursuing Lien Claims MDL 2700: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Granted to Genentech MDL 2741: Snyder v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Swain v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Wooderson v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MELBOURNE POLICE: Faces Johnson Suit in M.D. Florida MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Thornton Balks at Merger Deal with NVIDIA MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Unger Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York MIDLAND CREDIT: Cirruzzo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York MOMO INC: Marchand Files Suit Over False, Misleading Reports MONSANTO COMPANY: Ramirez Sues over Unsafe Weed Killer Products MONSANTO COMPANY: Van Hortman Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MOPHIE, INC: Power Bank Capacity Deceptive, Young Says MOSHI MOSHI: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Employees NEW YORK: Court Excludes City's Expert in ADA Suit vs. Police NORTHWESTERN LAKE: Mazya Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Court Junks Walfish Misclassification Suit NVIDIA CORP: LeBoeuf Sues Over Graphic Card's False, Deceptive Ads OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES: Stifel Sues over Lamination Fees OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Lowinger Files Suit Over NeuBase Merger Deal PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Casino Employees Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. PPL CORP: Bid to Remand Talen Suit to State Court Still Ongoing PPL CORP: Cane Run Environmental Claims Still Ongoing vs. LG&E PPL CORP: Defendants Seek to Nix PPL's Suit vs. Riverstone, et al. QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS: Kerry Files Suit Over ON Merger Deal QVC INC: Thompson Suit Removed to C.D. California RADIUS GLOBAL: Kruse Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Magistrate Narrows Claims in M. Reilly Suit REVMD PARTNERS: Espinosa Suit Asserts BIPA Breach SAKS INCORPORATED: Sacklow Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. SALLIE MAE BANK: Licznerski Suit Asserts TCPA Breach SCHLUMBERGER LIFT: Magistrate OKs Protective Order in Garcia Suit SELECTIVE SERVICE: Claims in Suit Over Male-Only Draft Narrowed SHARP ELECTRONICS: Lammey Sues Over Defective Microwaves SHEARER'S FOODS: Miller, Dingey Seek Overtime Pay SPENCER GIFTS: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania SPRINT CORP: Falsified New Customer Data, Meneses Claims SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces Arbitration Demands on Phishing Scam Suits SPROUTS FARMERS: May 31 Final Hearing for Securities Suit Accord STARKIST CO: Tuna Product not "Dolphin-Safe", Says Class Action STATE COLLECTION: Bahr Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois STATE IMPOUND: Baumert Appeals Fulton Cty. State Ct. Ruling STEEL PARTNERS: Still Faces Del. Stockholder Class Suit at Mar. 31 TARGET CORPORATION: Faces Garcia Labor Suit in Sacramento TASKUS USA: Moreno Seeks Damages for FLSA Violations THOR MOTOR: Underpaid Workers' Overtime Wages, Hayes Suit Says TOKYO ELECTRIC: Court Junks Navy Crew's Claims Under Int'l Comity TOYOTA MOTOR: Loo Sues over Transmission Defects in 2018 Camry UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Glasgo Files Suit in N.D. California UNIFIN INC: Pfeiffer Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York UNITED AMERICAN: Faces Miholich Suit for Invasion of Privacy UNITED STATES: Court Stays Thakkar Suit UNITED STATES: Hernandez Files Suit v. Homeland Security US STEEL: Oklahoma Pension Plan Sues over Falsely Inflated Prices WAL-MART INC: Krauss Suit Removed to E.D. California WORLDMARK: Timeshare Buyers Directed to Amend Class Suit WPX ENERGY: Appeal Pending on Class Status Denial in Nevada Suit WPX ENERGY: Continues to Defend Natural Gas Purchasers Suits WYETH CONSUMER: Engram Files Suit in New York for Fraud Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1MM Medical Expenses Award Reinstated ASBESTOS UPDATE: 229 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $28MM Aero-Related Costs at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $954MM for Respirator Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 2,335 Claimants at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,500 Pending Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had US$100MM Reserves at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had $366MM Reserve at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds $33MM Jury Award in Finch ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 56,000 Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Decades Old Asbestos Cases in V.I. Inch Forward ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $164MM Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX, Subsidiaries Still Defend Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $592.3MM Liabilities at March31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Hid Asbestos in Talc for Years, SC Jury Told ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,288 Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: NHS Trust Fined Over Royal Shrewsbury Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: SoCal Man Awarded $3MM for Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Burden in Calif. Suit Upped $7.6MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Records $333MM Asbestos Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers' Exposure Suit vs. TIM SpA Continues ********* ABBVIE: Sheet Metal Workers Union Sues over Adalimumab Drug Sales ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Abbvie Inc and other adalimumab biosimilar makers for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act, and state antitrust and consumer protection statutes. The case is captioned SHEET METAL WORKERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 28 WELFARE FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ABBVIE INC., ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD., AMGEN INC., FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC, MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MYLAN INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., PFIZER INC., SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD. and SANDOZ, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02674 (N.D. Ill., April 19, 2019). In an effort to maintain and extend its monopoly in the market for its biologic medication Humira (a/k/a adalimumab), AbbVie, Inc. allegedly undertook a carefully crafted, ill-conceived and illegal course of action, including working in conjunction with the adalimumab biosimilar makers also named as defendants in the case, to suppress competition and raise prices to adalimumab purchasers. Defendants' conduct served to maintain AbbVie's stranglehold on the U.S. market for adalimumab, shut out would-be competitors whose entrance into the U.S. market would naturally cause prices for adalimumab to decline, and deny U.S. consumers the benefits of fair competition. AbbVie's initial unlawful undertaking, executed over the course of almost two decades, involved crafting what is called a "patent thicket," in which the company sought hundreds of patents surrounding the biologic in order to protect against competitor encroachment. Such a thicket disincentivizes competitors from seeking FDA approval and from litigating patent lawsuits initiated by AbbVie to judgment through the courts. Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 28 Welfare Fund is an employee welfare benefit plan that represents thousands of employees and their dependents on whose behalf health and other benefits are provided on a self-funded and insured basis. The Plan is headquartered in Mineola, New York. AbbVie Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with its corporate headquarters located at 1 North Waukegan Road, North Chicago, Illinois. AbbVie Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that develops, distributes and sells pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. AbbVie Inc. holds FDA Biologic License Application No. 125057 for Humira (adalimumab). [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter J. Flowers, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Telephone: (630) 232-6333 Facsimile: (630) 845-8982 E-mail: pjf@meyers-flowers.com - and - David W. Mitchell, Esq. Brian O. O'mara, Esq. Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com bomara@rgrdlaw.com ashingler@rgrdlaw.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Jennifer Scullion, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (212) 584-0799 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com jscullion@seegerweiss.com ADIENT US: Mellow Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages -------------------------------------------------------- ERIC MELLOW, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADIENT US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00212-JMH (E.D. Ky., May 15, 2019) to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant implemented a policy of paying the hourly-paid factory workers, including Plaintiff, their regular hourly rate for hours worked in shifts ending on Saturday and Sunday, in violation of its terms of employment. The Defendant had knowledge about the hourly-paid factory workers, including Plaintiff, regularly working shifts ending on Saturday and Sunday but nonetheless failed to pay them for all hours worked in these shifts in accordance with its terms of employment. As a result of Defendant's unlawful common policies and practices, the hourly-paid factory workers, including Plaintiff, were deprived of compensation to which they were entitled according to their terms of employment with Defendant, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Adient US LLC as an hourly-paid factory worker from approximately October 1, 2016 through December 10, 2018. Adient US LLC manufactures automotive seats. Adient US LLC was formerly known as Johnson Controls Interiors LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trent Taylor, Esq. Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Jessica R. Doogan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP 250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (800) 274-5297 Fax: (614) 744-2300 Email: ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com bderose@barkanmeizlish.com jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Lotus Cannon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com AL HENDRICKSON: Ely Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- JACKSON ELY, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. AL HENDRICKSON JR. ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a Al Hendrickson Toyota and ALFRED E HENDRICKSON, JR., Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61207-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 13, 2019) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliatory discharge under the the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation, notes the complaint. In total, Plaintiff worked approximately 146 compensable weeks under the Act, or 145 compensable weeks if 3 years preceding the date of the filing of the instant action is counted. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated from the date of hire and/or from 3 years preceding the date of the filing of this Complaint. Plaintiff was employed as a Car Detailer from approximately 1997 through February of 2019. Defendant is a Car Dealership and, through its business activity, affects interstate commerce.[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 ALL MY SONS: Leonard Hits Misclassification, Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ RYAN LEONARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. All My Sons Business Development, LLC, AMS Group Holdco, LLC, and RVNB Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00374-GAF (W.D. Mo., May 10, 2019) is a lawsuit filed as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendants in the last three years as Inside Sales Manager, Inside Sales Representative or Virtual Sales Manager. Plaintiff and individuals working in these positions were paid on a salary basis and regularly required to work more than 40 hours per week without being compensated for overtime because they were misclassified as exempt under the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff worked for All My Sons as an Inside Sales Manager from August 27, 2018 to March 19, 2019. All My Sons is a national moving company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lara Krigel Pabst, Esq. Ivan L. Nugent, Esq. KRIGEL & KRIGEL, P.C. 4520 Main Street, Suite 700 Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: 816.756.5800 Facsimile: 816.756.1999 Email: lpabst@krigelandkrigel.com inugent@krigelandkrigel.com - and - Stephen J. Moore, Esq. SHANK & MOORE, LLC 1968 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Suite 100 Mission Woods, KS 66205 Phone: 816.471.0909 Facsimile: 816.471.3888 Email: sjm@shankmoore.com ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Gracius Sues Over Erroneous Collection Letter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cassandra Gracius, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alltran Financial, LP,, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02763 (E.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019) seeks to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted Plaintiff by letter ("the Letter") dated June 13, 2018, which conveyed information regarding the alleged Debt. The Letter claims that Plaintiff owes $881.92. However, Plaintiff asserts that she did not owe $881.92 at the time Defendant sent the Letter or at the time she received the Letter. As such, Defendant did not clearly convey, from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, the actual amount of the alleged Debt as required by the FDCPA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Cassandra Gracius is an individual allegedly obligated to pay a debt. Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.[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) 706-5055 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Lebron Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALLTRAN Financial LP. The case is styled as Zalmen Lebron individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLTRAN Financial LP, LVNV Funding LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-04281 (S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Alltran Financial, LP specializes in revenue cycle, accounts receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare, financial services, higher education, and government industries in the Unites States.[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 AMERICAN BEECH: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Beech, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. American Beech, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04282 (S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Beech, LLC provides decorated guestrooms within a 10-minute walk from Camera Obscura and East End Seaport Maritime Museum. Railroad Museum of Long Island and Greenport Carousel are also within half a mile (1 km).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC: Endencia Files Product Liability Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Psychiatric Association, et al. The case is styled as Frances Endencia doing business as: The Pampered Pet Veterinary Service Dr., DVM & on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Psychiatric Association, Stafford Henry Dr, as Representative, IDFPR, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03161 (N.D. Ill., May 10, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. The American Psychiatric Association is the main professional organization of psychiatrists and trainee psychiatrists in the United States, and the largest psychiatric organization in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Frances Endencia, Esq. 1212 S Naper Blvd #119 Naperville, IL 60540 Phone: (630) 656-2854 Email: fendencia@outlook.com AMW CONSTRUCTION: Moody Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against AMW Construction LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The case is captioned SCOTT MOODY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMW Construction LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00119 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2019). Plaintiff Scott Moody alleges that AMW has paid him and other non-exempt employees with straight time only for all hours they worked. Moody did not receive overtime compensation at the required rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. AMW Construction is a Texas limited liability company that provides septic installation, repair, and clean-out services throughout the Aransas Pass, Corpus Christi, and Rockport, Texas areas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com ANCESTRY.COM: Collett Sues over False Advertising ------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Ancestry.com Inc. and Ancestry.com DNA, LLC for negligence and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. The case is captioned LORI COLLETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v. ANCESTRY.COM INC., a corporation, and ANCESTRY.COM DNA, LLC. a limited liability company; Defendants, Case No. RG19016197 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., April 24, 2019). Plaintiff Lori Collett sues Ancestry.com lnc. and Ancestry.com DNA, LLC for misleading and deceiving patients in California and across the country about what Ancestry was actually doing with their DNA. Ancestry-com DNA LLC sells and conducts DNA testing where customers pay a fee to receive genetic results that are then stored in a database and controlled by AncestryDNA. Both Defendants sell genealogical services to the public and California residents through the collection and analysis of DNA and other medical information. However, pursuant to Federal and California law, Defendants are health care providers and are required to keep medical information private. Ancestry.com Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Utah. Ancestry.com DNA LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in Utah. Both companies are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Ancestry.com Holdings LLC, a multi-billion-dollar genealogy enterprise. Ancestry sells genealogy and DNA products and services throughout the country and across the globe. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Lebel, Esq. CONSUMER LAW PRACTICE OF DANIEL T. LEBEL PO Box 720286 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 513-1414 Facsimile: (877) 563-7848 E-mail: danlebel@consumerlawpractice.com - and - Bryce Bell, Esq. Mark M. Schmitz, Esq. BELLLAW, LLC 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 886-8206 Facsimile: (816) 817-8500 E-mail: Bryce@BellLawKC.com MS@BellLawKC.com - and - A. Scott Waddell, Esq. WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 914-5365 Facsimile: (816) 817-8500 E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com - and - Maureen M. Brady, Esq. Lucy McShane, Esq. MCSHANE BRADY 1656 Washington Street, Suite 120 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Paul "Pablo" H. Mose, Esq. REBEIN BROTHERS, PA 810 Frontview Dodge City, KS 67801 Telephone: (620) 227-8126 (913) 432-4464 (620) 227-8451 E-mail: pablo@rb3r.com APMEX INC: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- YASEEN TRAYNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APMEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03408-GBD (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2019) alleges violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge George B. Daniels. APMEX, Inc., an online dealer, engages in buying and selling gold, silver, and other precious metal products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. APMEX, Inc. was formerly known as American Precious Metals Exchange, Inc. The company was incorporated in 2001 and is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: mittelmandov@yahoo.com APPFOLIO INC: Settlement Process in Leo Class Suit Continues ------------------------------------------------------------ AppFolio, Inc. continues to work through the class settlement process for the case styled Leo v. AppFolio, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. In September 2017, a putative federal class action styled Leo v. AppFolio, Inc. (Civ. No. 3:17-cv-05771; W.D. Wash.) was filed naming the Company as a defendant and alleging certain violations of the FCRA in connection with the Company's tenant screening Value+ service. The parties reached an agreement to settle the Leo Litigation on a class-wide basis in the fourth quarter of 2018. The court has approved the proposed settlement on a preliminary basis, and the parties continue to work through the class settlement process. The Company said, "We have not admitted and will not admit any liability whatsoever in connection with the claims and allegations in the Leo Litigation. The final settlement will be subject to court approval." AppFolio, Inc. provides industry-specific cloud-based software solutions for small and medium-sized businesses in the property management and legal industries. AppFolio, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Santa Barbara, California. APPLIED INTEGRATED: Eric Cooper's Wage Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court the case captioned ERIC COOPER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLIED INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant, No. 3:18-cv-01561-HZ (D. Or.) after determining that the District Court has jurisdiction over the case under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Plaintiff Eric Cooper brings this putative class action for failure to timely pay final wages as required by Or. Rev. Stat. Section 652.140 against Defendant Applied Integrated Technologies, Inc. The Defendant removed this case to federal court on the ground that it is preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Section 301 of the LMRA provides: "Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce . . . may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties." The Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, agreeing with the Defendant that the Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because he failed to exhaust the grievance and arbitration provisions of the CBA before filing suit. A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx9l9v8r from Leagle.com. Eric Cooper, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Arthur Schuck, Schuck Law, LLC, Karen A. Moore, Schuck Law LLC & Stephanie J. Brown, Schuck Law, LLC. Applied Integrated Technologies, Inc., foreign corporation, Defendant, represented by April L. Upchurch Fredrickson, Jackson Lewis PC & Mark A. Crabtree, Esq. -- Mark.Crabtree@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC. ASPEN DENTAL: Stone Files Fraud Class Suit in E.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aspen Dental Management Inc. The case is styled as Janet Stone on her own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aspen Dental Management Inc. a foreign corporation, Adam Mileski DDS PLLC, a Washington corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00167-RMP (E.D. Wash., May 15, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Aspen Dental Management, Inc. is a dental support organization, a dental practice management corporation that provides business support and administrative services in the US. Its headquarters is in DeWitt, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Boyd McFadden Mayo, Esq. Mayo Law Group PLLC 220 West Main Avenue Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 381-5091 Fax: (509) 241-0834 Email: mack@bmayolaw.com - and - Elizabeth A Adams, Esq. Toby James Marshall, Esq. Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Phone: (206) 816-6603 Fax: (206) 319-5450 Email: eadams@terrellmarshall.com tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com ASSET MAXIMIZATION: Israel Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Maximization Group, Inc. The case is styled as Shari Israel individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset Maximization Group, Inc., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02767 (E.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Asset Maximization Group, Inc., located in New York City, specializes in debt collection.[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 AT&T SERVICES: Gadelhak Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 7th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ali Gadelhak, the plaintiff in the proposed class action captioned, Ali Gadelhak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01559, appeals on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, from the final judgment and order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 29 2019, granting defendant AT&T Services, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and from any other orders relating to the entry of judgment. The appeal was filed in the United States Court Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on April 19, 2019, and assigned Case No. 19-1738.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Timothy Sostrin, Esq. Michael Hilicki, Esq. Keogh Law, Ltd. 55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312.726.1092 Fax: 312.726.1093 Email: TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Hans J. Germann, Esq. Mayer Brown LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 782-0600 Email: hgermann@mayerbrown.com - and - Kyle J Steinmetz, Esq. Mayer Brown 71 S Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 701-8547 Email: ksteinmetz@mayerbrown.com BMB RANDALL: Frias Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------- The case, JOSEFINA TORRES FRIAS, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JUAN M. DE VARGAS, ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, JVANA D. VARGAS, Individually and BMB RANDALL RESTAURANT CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03953 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages and related damages for unpaid overtime hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plantiff and other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are have been subjected to Defendant's decision , policy, plan, and common policies, programs, and practices willfully failing and refusing to pay them the lawful minimum wage and one and one half times their regular rate for work in excess of 40 per workweek.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and proposed FLSA collective plaintiffs: Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq. THE KLEIN LAW GROUP 39 Broadway Suite 1530 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 344 9022 Facsimile: (212) 344 0301 BRISTOL BAY: Abikar II Transferred to Judge Sammartino ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California transferred to District Judge Janis L. Sammartino under the first-to-file rule the case captioned Abucar Nunow ABIKAR, Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed AWMAGAN, Arab Mursal DEH, Majuma MADENDE, Osman Musa MOHAMED, Osman Musa MUGANGA, Rukia MUSA, and Fatuma SOMOW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bristol Bay Native Corporation, Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC, and Workforce Resources, LLC, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-1700-GPC-AGS (S.D. Calif.). The Plaintiffs in this case (Abikar II) are asserting numerous violations of California's Labor Code, the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and claims for unfair business practices under the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and conversion for the Defendants' failure to pay earned wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to pay wages due upon termination of employment. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of East African, Iraqi, Afghani, Filipino, and Mexican former role players employed by the Defendants since July 2014. The proposed class definition in include "[a]ll persons who are employed by or have been employed as a role-player on an hourly basis or who hold or held the position role-player ("role players"), by Defendants in the State of California from four years before the filing of this suit to the present." Prior to the filing of Abikar II, the Plaintiffs were already engaged in litigation with the Defendants in Case No. 17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS filed on May 18, 2017. Abikar I involved the same eight plaintiffs, from countries in East Africa, who sought to represent a putative class of East African refugees consisting of role players employed or formerly employed by Defendants. The Plaintiffs in Abikar I asserted claims for discrimination and harassment based on race, color, national origin, religious, gender/sex discrimination and harassment under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and California Government Code sections 12940(a) & (j). In between the filing of Abikar I and Abikar II, on September 27, 2017, Plaintiffs Ahmad Jawad Abdul JAMIL, Ahmad Jamshid Abdul JAMIL and Ahmad Farhad Abdul JAMIL ("Jamil Plaintiffs") filed a complaint ("Jamil") in the San Diego Superior Court against Defendants Bristol Bay Native Corporation and Workforce Resources, LLC, which was removed to this court on January 4, 2018 and assigned to District Judge Janis L. Sammartino in Case No. 18cv27-JLS(NLS). In Jamil, three plaintiffs are seeking to represent a putative class consisting of cultural advisors/role players employed by Defendants Bristol Bay Native Corporation and Workforce Resources LLC. Plaintiffs in Jamil are asserting claims for various labor code violations as well as claims under the UCL and California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The Jamil Plaintiffs' class allegations seek to bring claims on behalf of a wage class, meal class, rest period class, waiting time class, wage statement class and include "[a]ll persons who work for Defendant in the positions of role players, cultural advisors, translators, or employees . . . within the four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint, up through the final disposition of this action." The Court held that "[t]ransfer is proper under the first-to-file rule where the complaints raise similar, but not identical, claims and include similar, but not identical, plaintiffs," citing Carrera v. First American Home Buyers Protection Co., 2009 WL 10674763, at (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2009). Here, the parties do not dispute that the causes of action in Abikar II and Jamil are not identical. Abikar II involves an additional claim for conversion and a claim under the FLSA not contained in Jamil's complaint. Because the causes of action are not identical, the Court exercises its discretion and transfers the case to the docket of District Judge Sammartino. A full-text copy of the Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2suxtnp from Leagle.com. Abucar Nunow Abikar, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed Awmagan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Arab Mursal Deh, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Majuma Madende, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Osman Musa Mohamed, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Osman Musa Muganga, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Rukia Musa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Fatuma Somow, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by A. Melissa Johnson, The Spencer Law Firm. Bristol Bay Native Corporation, Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC & Workforce Resources, LLC, Defendants, represented by Amy Todd-Gher, Esq. -- atodd-gher@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C & Matthew B. Riley, Esq. -- mriley@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. BUTCHERBOX LLC: Johnson Sues Food Delivery Co. in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Butcherbox, LLC. The case is styled as Kyle Johnson individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Butcherbox, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company, Does 1 - 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-at-00382 (E.D. Cal., May 15, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. ButcherBox, LLC is an online food sales and delivery business. The business delivers 100% Grass-fed Beef, Organic Chicken & Heritage Breed Pork to your door.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Pacific Trial Attorneys 4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com CALIFORNIA NATURAL: P. Suarez's Injunctive Relief Claims Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned PAMELA SUAREZ, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA NATURAL LIVING, INC., d/b/a CALIFORNIA BABY + KIDS, Defendant, No. 17 CV 9847 (VB)(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss the claims of the putative nationwide class pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2), and to dismiss the claims of the putative New York subclass pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Pamela Suarez brings this putative class action against defendant California Natural Living, Inc., d/b/a California Baby + Kids, claiming the defendant engaged in deceptive marketing and sales of cosmetics products that the defendant allegedly misrepresented to be natural or contain natural cleansers. The Plaintiff alleges the defendant's false representations induced her and the putative class members to purchase the products at premium prices. The Plaintiff, a New York citizen, brings three claims on behalf of a putative nationwide class and two claims on behalf of a putative New York subclass. She seeks damages, preliminary and permanent prospective injunctions, costs, and fees. The Court agrees with the defendant that the plaintiff lacks standing to seek prospective injunctive relief because she fails to adequately plead the defendant's conduct will cause her to suffer a cognizable future injury. The plaintiff alleges she "would not have purchased" the products "[h]ad [she] known the truth -- that the representations she relied upon in purchasing the products were false, misleading, and deceptive." Thus, plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of future injury sufficient to generate Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief. Accordingly, the plaintiff's class action claims for injunctive relief are dismissed. The Court disagrees with the defendant that the Court should dismiss for lack of class standing the plaintiff's claims arising from products she has not purchased. The Court holds that assuming without deciding that the Court properly assesses the question at the pleading stage, the products are sufficiently similar to support the plaintiff's class standing. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of class standing the plaintiff's claims arising from products she did not purchase. The Defendant may renew this argument at the class certification stage. A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2wzzerq from Leagle.com. Pamela Suarez, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa S. Weiner, Halunen Law, pro hac vice & Jason P. Sultzer, The Sultzer Law Group PC. California Natural Living, Inc., doing business as California Baby + Kids, Defendant, represented by Angela L. Diesch, Diesch Forrest Apc, pro hac vice & Stephen E. Paffrath, Diesch Forrest Apc. CAPELLA UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Doctoral Students' Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied in part defendants Capella University, Inc., and Capella Education Company's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Ornelas's common-law and statutory fraud claims and granted in part as to Plaintiffs' remaining claims in the case captioned Carolyn Wright et al., Plaintiffs, v. Capella University, Inc., and Capella Education Company, Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-1062 (WMW/SER). (D. Minn.). The Plaintiffs are current and former doctoral students of Capella University that hail from Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Defendants are Capella Education Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Capella University, Inc. (Capella), both of which are Minnesota corporations. The Plaintiffs contend, Capella represented its doctoral programs as shorter and less expensive than the programs actually were. Plaintiffs purportedly relied on Capella's representations of the time and cost to complete the programs when deciding to enroll. Plaintiffs allege that, after enrolling in Capella's doctoral programs, Capella created obstacles so as to prolong the programs and collect more tuition. The Plaintiffs assert claims of common-law and statutory fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Capella moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. In part, Capella argues that Plaintiff Lois Mason's claims are premature and that Plaintiff Jacqueline Carter has not suffered an injury. For this reason, the Court addresses Capella's standing arguments first and then addresses Capella's remaining arguments as to the merits of Plaintiffs' amended complaint. Mason and Carter, like the other Plaintiffs, allege that Capella induced them to enroll in doctoral programs based on false promises and representations of the programs. They lost time and money, Plaintiffs contend, by enrolling and participating in a program in which they otherwise would not have enrolled. The alleged time and money that was lost began to accrue when Mason and Carter enrolled in their programs and paid tuition for them. As alleged, the injury is particularized and actual. Accordingly, the Court rejects Capella's argument that Mason and Carter need to wait until their projected graduation dates in order to bring claims against Capella. For this reason, Mason and Carter have standing to bring this lawsuit. Failure to State a Claim Capella next contends that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Common-Law Fraud (Counts 1, 7, 11, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38 and 44) Capella contends that the Plaintiffs have neither alleged a misstatement of fact nor pleaded their fraud claims with particularity. Alternatively, Capella argues that the educational-malpractice doctrine bars Plaintiffs' claims. Each argument is addressed in turn. Misstatement of Fact Capella argues that Plaintiffs' common-law fraud claims do not sufficiently allege an actionable misstatement of fact. To state a claim for common-law fraudulent misrepresentation under Minnesota law, a plaintiff must allege that (1) a party falsely represented a past or existing material fact that is susceptible of knowledge (2) the party made the representation either knowing that it was false or without knowing if the representation was true or false (3) the party intended to induce another to act in reliance on the representation (4) the plaintiff acted in reliance on the representation and (5) the plaintiff consequently suffered pecuniary damages. Plaintiff Wright Plaintiff Carolyn Wright, who enrolled in Capella's Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) program, alleges that she relied on a statement on Capella's website that claims, it just two years you can earn your DNP. Wright fails to allege a false statement of material fact. Although Capella's website and course catalogue suggest that it is possible for a student to complete a DNP degree within 2 years, neither source represents that the average student completion rate is within that time period. Nor do these sources guarantee that Wright will complete the DNP degree within 2 years. For this reason, Wright's experience at Capella and the statistics presented in the Gainful Employment report are not incompatible with the representations on Capella's website and course catalogue. Nothing in Wright's allegations suggests that it would be impossible to complete a DNP degree in 2 years. Consequently, there is no allegation of a false representation of material fact. Count 1 is dismissed as asserted by Wright. Plaintiffs Kennedy, Brannen, and Matelski Plaintiffs Debbra Kennedy, Sherry Bailey Brannen, and Shauna Matelski enrolled in Capella's Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) program. Each of these Plaintiffs alleges that she was induced to enroll in this program based on Capella's website, which represented that the Ed.D. program is designed to be completed in less than 3 years. These three Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege a false representation. Accepting Plaintiffs' allegations as true for the purpose of this motion, Capella represents that the Ed.D. program is designed to take less than 3 years. Capella does not represent that an average student would complete the degree in 3 years, nor did Capella guarantee that Kennedy, Brannen, or Matelski would complete the Ed.D. program in fewer than 3 years. Neither the statistics contained in the Gainful Employment report nor the experiences of the Plaintiffs contradict the representation of a 3-year design time. Kennedy, Brannen, and Matelski have not stated a claim for common-law fraud. Count 1 is dismissed as asserted by these Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Mason and Norris Mason enrolled in Capella's DIT program, allegedly relying on a recruiting email, which stated that DIT is a structured three year program; 2.5 years with transfer credit for you. Mason maintains that the DIT program was longer than Capella represented, as indicated by Capella's Gainful Employment report, which discloses a program length of 39 months. Similarly, Plaintiff Candace Norris enrolled in Capella's Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) program after a recruiter informed her that it was a 3-year program and that it would be possible to finish the program in 2.5 years. Norris contends that the DBA program was longer than Capella represented, as evidenced by the Gainful Employment report, which discloses a program length of 45 months. Mason and Norris fail to sufficiently allege a false representation of a material fact, however. The recruiter's email to Mason states that the DIT program is a structured 3-year program. A program's structure is distinct from its average length, however. The email's reference to 2.5 years with transfer credit for you also misses the mark as a false representation of a material fact. Although this statement is tailored to Mason, it represents only the structured length of the program as it applies to Mason. It does not represent how long it will actually take Mason to complete the program. As asserted by Mason and Norris, Count 1 is dismissed. Plaintiff Ornelas Plaintiff Maurice Jose Ornelas enrolled in Capella's PhD in Public Safety program, with a specialty in Criminal Justice. He alleges that he enrolled in this program in reliance on an email from a Capella recruiter that stated, our typical learner will complete their PhD program in 3 years, plus or minus one quarter, by averaging 2 courses per quarter. Unlike Capella's representations of design times or program structures, here, Capella represents how long it takes a typical learner to complete the PhD in Public Safety program. The typical learner's 3-year length is contradicted by Capella's disclosure in the Gainful Employment report, which states that the program is, on average, 6 years and 3 months. This reported length is more than twice as long as the length that Capella represents in its recruiting email. Ornelas has adequately alleged that Capella made a false representation of material fact. Because Ornelas has stated a claim for common-law fraud, Capella's motion to dismiss is denied as to Count 1 as asserted by Ornelas. Plaintiff Carter Carter enrolled in Capella's DSW program purportedly in reliance on an email from a Capella recruiter. The email stated that the DSW program is designed to be completed in three years, and Capella's course catalogue included a 3-year and 1-quarter recommended course schedule. In contrast to this information, Capella reports that only 19 percent of students who graduated with a DSW degree between 2014 and 2015 were able to do so within 42 months. Like Kennedy, Brannen, and Matelski, Carter does not sufficiently allege a false representation of material fact. That a program is designed to be completed in a certain amount of time is not false merely because the average student takes longer to complete that program. And the course catalogue displays only a possible schedule; it does not represent the actual or guaranteed length of the program. Count 1 is dismissed as asserted by Carter. Plaintiff Goldstein Plaintiff Geoffrey Goldstein enrolled in the PhD in Business Management program after a recruiter allegedly informed him that he would graduate within 3 years if he enrolled in consecutive quarters. Although Goldstein enrolled in consecutive quarters and received top grades during those quarters, two years into the program Capella told Goldstein that he must either voluntarily withdraw from the program or restart the entire dissertation process from the beginning. Whether these allegations amount to misstatements of fact is a close call. But assuming without deciding that Goldstein sufficiently alleges a misstatement of fact, Goldstein's fraud claim nonetheless fails because he does not plead his claim with particularity. Only Goldstein's common-law fraud claim, Count 44, is dismissed for failure to plead the fraud claim with particularity. And Count 1 is dismissed as asserted by Goldstein. Educational-Malpractice Doctrine Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' common-law fraud claims are barred by the educational malpractice doctrine. The educational-malpractice doctrine bars courts from inquiring into the nuances of educational processes and theories. This doctrine does not bar allegations that the institution failed to perform on specific promises, but the doctrine does bar challenges to the general quality of the instructors and the education the students received. Here, Ornelas is the only Plaintiff with surviving common-law fraud claims. Ornelas alleges that Capella misrepresented the average time and cost of its PhD in Public Safety program. To assess this claim, the Court need not assess the general quality of Ornelas's instructors nor the effectiveness of Capella's programs. Instead, the relevant inquiry would be tied to objective enrollment statistics. Ornelas's common-law fraud claims are not barred by the educational-malpractice doctrine. Statutory Fraud (Counts 4, 5, 10, 21, 25, 29, 33, 37, 41 and 42) In addition to alleging common-law fraud, Plaintiffs also allege statutory fraud. Capella again argues that Plaintiffs have not pleaded these fraud claims with sufficient particularity, that Plaintiffs have failed to allege an actionable misstatement of fact, and that these claims are barred by the educational-malpractice doctrine. Plaintiffs' statutory fraud claims are based on the same allegations as their common-law fraud claims. As such, the analysis in Part I.A. applies with equal force here. As explained, only Ornelas sufficiently alleges that Capella made a false representation concerning the time and cost of its doctoral programs. And, consistent with the educational-malpractice doctrine analysis in Part I.A.3, Ornelas's statutory fraud claims do not require an inquiry into Capella's educational decisions or pedagogy. Accordingly, Ornelas states a claim for statutory fraud. Capella's motion to dismiss is denied as to Counts 4 and 5 only to the extent that these nationwide claims are asserted by Ornelas. Breach of Contract (Counts 3, 8, 12, 15, 19, 23, 27, 31, 35, 39 and 45) Plaintiffs contend that Capella breached its promises that students would have control over the length of their degree programs and that the degrees could be obtained in a set amount of time. Capella moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claims for failure to state a claim. Under Minnesota law, contract formation requires communication of a specific and definite offer, acceptance of that offer, and consideration. Plaintiffs claim that Capella promised that its students would control the length of their degree programs, and Capella promised that each degree program could be completed in a set amount of time. But the allegations in the amended complaint do not support the existence of any such promises. Capella's representations on which Plaintiffs rely include statements of how long the degree programs are designed to take, how the program is structured, what a recommended sequence of courses is, or the length of time it takes a typical learner to complete the program. None of these allegations supports the assertion that Capella made a specific and definite offer to any of the Plaintiffs that students would be in control of the length of the program or that degrees would be obtainable within a set timeframe. Plaintiffs' nationwide breach-of-contract claim, Count 3, is dismissed. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count 6) Capella moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. Every contract under Minnesota law includes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, requiring that one party not unjustifiably hinder the other party's performance of the contract. As explained above, Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged the existence of a contract under Minnesota law between Capella and Plaintiffs in which Capella promised that students had control over the length of the programs or that a degree was obtainable in a certain amount of time. Because there is no underlying contract, Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot stand. Count 6 is dismissed for this reason. Unjust Enrichment (Counts 2, 9, 13, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40 and 43) Plaintiffs allege that Capella was unjustly enriched when it retained Plaintiffs' tuition money. Plaintiffs allege that Capella did not provide students with the doctoral process that was promised and expected in connection with the payment of the tuition. Capella moves to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claims because Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law, as demonstrated by their fraud and contract claims. Alternatively, Capella moves to dismiss these claims because they fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted. To state an unjust-enrichment claim under Minnesota law, a plaintiff must allege (1) a benefit conferred (2) the defendant's appreciation and knowing acceptance of the benefit and (3) the defendant's acceptance and retention of the benefit under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for him to retain it without paying for it. Capella argues that Plaintiffs fail to allege how the retention of tuition payments is inequitable. This Court agrees. Plaintiffs received educational services in exchange for each semester for which Plaintiffs paid tuition. There is no plausible allegation that Capella guaranteed a degree, or a degree in a certain period of time, in exchange for tuition. The allegations do not support an inference that it is illegal or unlawful for Capella to retain the tuition payments. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for unjust enrichment. Count 2 is dismissed. Accordingly, Counts 2 through 25, 27, 28, and 30 through 45 of Plaintiffs' amended complaint are dismissed without prejudice. Count 1 is dismissed without prejudice only to the extent that it is asserted by Plaintiffs Wright, Kennedy, Brannen, Norris, Matelski, Goldstein, Mason, and Carter. A full-text copy of the District Court’s May 6, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy2yk6nk from Leagle.com Carolyn Wright, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brandon Michael Wise -- bwise@pwcklegal.com -- Peiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr & Kane, APLC, pro hac vice, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. -- g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Paul A. Lesko -- plesko@pwcklegal.com -- Peiffer Rosea Wolf Abdullah Carr & Kane, APLC, pro hac vice & Roberta A. Yard -- r.yard@rwblawfirm.com- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield. Debbra Kennedy, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Sherry Bailey Brannen, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Candace Norris, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Maurice Jose Ornelas, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Shauna Matelski, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Geoffrey Goldstein, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Lois Mason, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Jacqueline Carter, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Paul A. Lesko, Peiffer Rosea Wolf Abdullah Carr & Kane, APLC, pro hac vice & Roberta A. Yard, Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield. Capella University, Inc. & Capella Education Company, Defendants, represented by Courtney E. Ward-Reichard, Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, Donald M. Lewis, Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, Canadian Pacific Plaza120 South Sixth Street Suite 400Minneapolis, MN 55402, H. Christopher Bartolomucci -- cbartolomucci@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, John J. Wackman, Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, Canadian Pacific Plaza120 South Sixth StreetSuite 400Minneapolis, MN 55402, Kenneth Winn Allen -- winn.allen@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Terence McCarrick, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 655 15th St. NW. Washington, DC 20005, pro hac vice. CARSON SMITHFIELD: Todaro Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CARSON SMITHFIELD, LLC, et al. The case is styled as MICHAEL TODARO III on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARSON SMITHFIELD, LLC, CARSON SMITHFIELD, LLC, CW NEXUS CREDITCARD HOLDINGS I, LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-12407-MAS-LHG (D. N.J., May 10, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Carson Smithfield, LLC is a debt collection agency located in Woodbury New York, with a branch office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: BEN A. KAPLAN, ESQ. 280 Prospect Ave. 6G Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 803-6611 Fax: (866) 596-4973 Email: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com CBE GROUP: Truckenbrodt Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The CBE Group, Inc. The case is styled as John Truckenbrodt individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The CBE Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02870 (E.D. N.Y., May 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The CBE Group, Inc. operates as a credit information and accounts receivable management company in the United States.[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 CHARLOTTE-MECKLEBURG: Benitez Claims for Damages Junked ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned RAYMOND BENITEZ, individually And on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, d/b/a Carolinas Healthcare System, d/b/a AtriumHealth, Defendant, No. 3:18-cv-00095-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted in part Defendant Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On June 19, 2016, the United States Department of Justice and the State of North Carolina filed suit against the seeking injunctive relief. The Defendant is a North Carolina not-for-profit corporation providing healthcare services with its principal place of business in Charlotte. Its flagship facility is Carolinas Medical Center, a large general acute-care hospital located in downtown Charlotte. The Defendant also operates nine other general acute-care hospitals in the Charlotte area. The Governments brought a civil antitrust action to enjoin the Defendant "from using unlawful contract restrictions that prohibit commercial health insurers in the Charlotte area from offering patients financial benefits to use less-expensive healthcare services offered by [Atrium's] competitors." The Governments contend that "[t]hese steering restrictions reduce competition resulting in harm to Charlotte area consumers, employers, and insurers." (Id.). The Governments' suit remains pending in this Court. On February 28, 2018 -- almost two years after the Governments filed suit seeking injunctive relief against Defendant -- Raymond Benitez commenced the instant suit against the Defendant on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. In this proposed class action for restraint of trade, the Plaintiff seeks classwide damages and injunctive relief under Section One of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 15, 26, against the Defendant. The only difference between the requested relief in the Plaintiff's suit as compared to the Governments' is that the Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages for the Defendant's alleged antitrust violations. The Court ordered that the Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15, is dismissed and the Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief is stayed pending the resolution of the Governments' preexisting suit against Defendant. The Court held that, according to the plain text of Chapter 131E, the statute under which the Defendant was formed, as well as the functions Defendant performs and powers the Defendant possesses, the Defendant is a special governmental unit under the Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984 (LGAA). Therefore, the LGAA shields the Defendant from antitrust claims for monetary damages. As the parties concede, the Plaintiff's injunctive request is identical to the Governments' requested relief in the preexisting action currently pending in this Court. Thus, the resolution of the Governments' preexisting suit would fully resolve the matters at issue in this case, the Court concluded. A full-text copy of the Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4zvdbn5 from Leagle.com. Raymond Benitez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Thomas Sirolly, Esq. -- bsirolly@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken LLP, pro hac vice, Justin Michael Ellis, Esq. -- jellis@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren M. Weinstein, Esq. -- lweinstein@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Stephen Berry, Berry Law PLLC, pro hac vice, Steven F. Molo, Esq. -- smolo@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas Joseph Wiegand, Esq. -- twiegand@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken, pro hac vice & Adam Samuel Hocutt, Dozier, Miller, Pollard & Murphy LLP. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, doing business as Atrium Health, Defendant, represented by Hampton Y. Dellinger, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. Cooney, III, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Matthew Felton Tilley, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Nicholas A. Widnell, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Richard A. Feinstein, Boies Schiller Flexner, pro hac vice, Russ Ferguson, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Sean N. Johnson, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Brian Allen Hayles, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice PLLC, Debbie W. Harden, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Mark Joseph Horoschak, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Michael P. Fischer, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice & Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. COWEN INC: Seeks to Drop Amended Complaint in Fletcher Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cowen Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit initiated by Landol Fletcher, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On December 27, 2013, Landol Fletcher filed a putative class action lawsuit against Convergex Holdings, LLC, Convergex Group, LLC, Cowen Execution, Convergex Global Markets Limited and G-Trade Services LLC (collectively, "Convergex") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Landol Fletcher and all others similarly situated v. Convergex Group LLC, Cowen Execution, Convergex Global Markets Ltd., Convergex Holdings LLC, G-Trade Services LLC, & Does 1-10, No. 1:13-CV-09150-LLS). The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under ERISA and seeks to maintain a class action on behalf of all ERISA plan participants, beneficiaries and named fiduciaries whose plans were impacted by net trading by Convergex Global Markets Limited from October 2006 to December 2011. On April 11, 2014, Landol Fletcher and Frederick P. Potter Jr., filed an amended complaint raising materially similar allegations. This matter was assumed by the Company as a result of the Company's previously announced acquisition of Convergex Group, which was completed on June 1, 2017. On February 17, 2016, the District Court granted Convergex's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Second Circuit, and the AARP and Department of Labor filed amicus briefs on plaintiffs' behalf. The appeal was argued on December 12, 2016. On February 10, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (1) reversed the District Court, finding that plaintiff has constitutional standing in a "representative" capacity to sue for damages to the ERISA defined benefit plan in which he is a participant, and (2) remanded to the District Court to reconsider, in light of the Circuit Court's decision, the issue whether plaintiff has standing to pursue claims on behalf of ERISA plans in which plaintiff is not a participant. Convergex filed a petition for rehearing, and the Court of Appeals denied the petition. On June 30, 2017, the Company filed a notice of motion and memorandum of law in support of a motion to stay the proceedings in the District Court pending resolution of its petition for writ of certiorari, which the Company intended to file with the U.S. Supreme Court. On August 16, 2017, the District Court granted the Company's motion to stay the proceedings in the District Court pending resolution of the Company's petition for writ of certiorari. On September 1, 2017, the Company filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari requesting review of the decision of the Court of Appeals. On January 8, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for a writ of certiorari. The previously granted stay of the proceedings in the District Court has been lifted, and the case is proceeding in the District Court. Status conferences were held on April 6, 2018, October 12, 2018, and December 4, 2018. On March 15, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint. The Company said, "We are indemnified against losses arising from this matter pursuant to, and subject to, the provisions of the purchase agreement relating to the acquisition of Convergex Group. Because the case is in its preliminary stages, the Company cannot predict the outcome at this time, but it does not currently expect this case to have a material effect on its financial position or its results of operations." Cowen Inc. is a publicly owned asset management holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides alternative investment management, investment banking, research, and sales and trading services for its clients. Cowen Group, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New York, New York with additional offices in Boston, Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois, Cleveland, Ohio, Dallas, Texas, and San Francisco, California. CREATIVE WASTE: O'Mara Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- William O'Mara, and Damien Hunter, for themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Creative Waste Solutions, LLC d/b/a B & L Disposal Services; Lou Bizzari; and Vanessa Lake, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02021-GEKP (E.D. Pa., May 9, 2019) seeks to recover from Defendants overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours within a workweek. Despite working numerous overtime hours for Defendants, Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime premium for all of their overtime hours until after December 2017. The Defendants failed and/or refused to properly compensate Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiffs worked for B & L in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. B & L is a disposal service company, which operates throughout Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 327-5369 Fax: (954) 327-3016 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com CROWN NJ GAMING: Leong Suit Removed to New Jersey Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned CHRISTOPHER LEONG, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CROWN NJ GAMING INC d/b/a DraftKings, and CROWN GAMING INC., Defendants, Case No. ATL-L-000114-19 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 10, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-12424-JHR-JS. Plaintiff alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. Plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of other SBNC contestants, seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, statutory penalties, punitive damages, costs and attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. John M. Agnello, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 - and - Joshua I. Schiller, Esq. Damien J. Marshall, Esq. Benjamin Margulis, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 446-2300 CSX TRANSPORTATION: Removes Burns Suit to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of SIOBHAN BURNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circut Court of the State of Illinois, County of Cook (Case No. 2019-CH-02935) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 17, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02592. The case is assigned to Robert M. Dow, Jr. CSX Transportation, Inc. operates rail networks in the United States. CSX Transportation, Inc. was formerly known as Seaboard System Railroad, Inc. and changed its name to CSX Transportation, Inc. in July 1986. The company was incorporated in 1944 and is based in Jacksonville, Florida. CSX Transportation, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of CSX Corp. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Mise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60606-1901 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 Facsimile: (312) 416-6201 E-mail: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com - and - Joel Griswold, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP SunTrust Center 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, Florida 32801-3432 Telephone: (407) 649-4088 E-mail: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com DENALI WATER: $420K Settlement in Verdugo Suit Has Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for Central District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Class Action Settlement in the case captioned ENRIQUE VERDUGO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DENALI WATER SOLUTIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 5:18-cv-00170-ODW (SHKx). (C.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Enrique Verdugo brought this wage-and-hour class action suit against Defendant Denali Water Solutions, LLC, alleging that Verdugo and proposed class members work or worked for Denali as drivers in California and Denali failed to pay wages owed and other benefits. The parties define the proposed class as all individuals who are or previously were employed by Denali as drivers in the State of California at any time during the period beginning on December 21, 2013, and ending on the date of preliminary approval or forty-five (45) days from the execution of the Amended Settlement, whichever is earlier. The Settlement seeks appointment of Class Counsel, Class Representative, and ILYM Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator. Discovery established that there are at least 68 members in the proposed class. The Settlement provides for a non-reversionary Gross Maximum Settlement Amount (Settlement Fund) of $420,000.00, to resolve the claims on a class basis. This amount includes all shares of class members who do not request exclusion (Participating Class Members), as well as other costs and expenses. Denali will provide the Administrator with the names, addresses and phone numbers (if available in Denali's records), social security numbers, hire dates, and if applicable, termination dates of potential class members from its employment records. The Settlement details the Administrator's method of updating addresses, mailing the Notice, and managing mail returned as undeliverable. The Administrator's obligation to trace addresses and re-mail undeliverable notices ends after two mailings or 45 calendar days. The Court is satisfied that settlement was the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations. The parties thoroughly investigated their claims and engaged in discovery before completing a full day of mediation with Hon. Michael D. Marcus (Ret.) on May 30, 2018. Although they were unable to reach agreement at that time, parties subsequently agreed to the terms of the mediator's proposal. On June 13, 2018, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement. Verdugo asserts that the parties' settlement negotiations have been non-collusive, adversarial, and at arm's length at all times, while recognizing the uncertainty, risk, expense, and delay that continuing litigation would entail. Under these circumstances, the Court accepts that the negotiations were adequate. After carefully reviewing the terms of the settlement, the Court finds that the settlement does not unfairly give preferential treatment to any party and falls within the range of possible approval. Here, as with most class actions, there is risk to both parties in continuing towards trial. The parties reached settlement only with the help of a mediator and after thoroughly evaluating the strengths and risks to both sides. The settlement treats all members of a uniform class equally, awarding shares based on number of workweeks. Accordingly, the settlement does not unfairly favor any member, represents a compromise, and avoids uncertainty for all parties involved. Incentive Award The Settlement provides that Class Counsel will seek approval of an incentive award of $7,500 for Verdugo as Class Representative. Verdugo, as the lead plaintiff, assisted "with investigation and evaluation of the class claims, including producing documents and attending multiple telephonic conferences and meetings with counsel. Yet the Court finds little support for the upward departure from the presumed-reasonable award of $5,000. Further, an award of $7,500 is more than double the expected average class member recovery. However, at the preliminary approval stage, the question is whether the requested award falls within the range of possible approval. At this time, the Court finds that it does. The Court reiterates that final approval will depend on adequate support for the requested award. The Settlement provides that Class Counsel may seek attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed $140,000, or roughly one-third of the settlement fund. While attorneys' fees and costs may be awarded in a certified class action where so authorized by law or the parties' agreement courts have an independent obligation to ensure that the award, like the settlement itself, is reasonable, even if the parties have already agreed to an amount. Twenty-five percent recovery is the benchmark for attorneys' fees, although courts in the Ninth Circuit have found upward departures to fall within the acceptable range. Counsel is experienced in wage-and-hour class action litigation and the fee request, while high, falls within the range identified as potentially acceptable in the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, preliminary approval is appropriate, though the Court reiterates that final approval will depend on counsel providing sufficient information to support the requested award. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Class Action Settlement. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4dwoq8u from Leagle.com. Enrique Verdugo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alvin B. Lindsay -- alvin@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. & David Yeremian -- david@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian and Associates Inc. Denali Water Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liablity company, Defendant, represented by Kimberly Marie Shappley -- kshappley@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Alaya B. Meyers -- ameyers@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. DHI GROUP: Final Approval Hearing of Douglas Settlement in Aug. --------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on final approval of the settlement for the re-filed class action lawsuit by Ian Douglas has been set for August 2019, according to DHI Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2019. During the first quarter of 2018, the Company recorded a US$1.0 million liability related to a class action lawsuit regarding the applicability of provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the "FCRA") to one of the Company's products. The recorded liability reflects a tentative settlement, which upon final approval by the court, will resolve all remaining claims subject to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought by Ian Douglas, individually, as a representative of the class and on behalf of the general public, against DHI Group, Inc. and Dice Inc. asserting six claims under the FCRA that the Company's Open Web profiles are "consumer reports" and Dice is a "consumer reporting agency" under the FCRA, including claims pursuant to the private right of action in 15 U.S.C. Section 1681n for alleged willful violations of the FCRA. The action was originally filed in a federal district court on July 26, 2017, but as a part of the settlement process, the action has been re-filed and is pending in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California (Case No. 18CV331732). The court has given preliminary approval of the settlement, and has directed that notice be given to the class. A hearing on final approval of the settlement for August 2019. DHI Group, Inc. provides data, insights, and employment connections through specialized services for technology professionals in the United States and internationally. The company was formerly known as Dice Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to DHI Group, Inc. in April 2015. DHI Group, Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in New York, New York. DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Suit Briefing, Discovery to End in July --------------------------------------------------------------- Discover Financial Services disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that briefing and expert discovery related to class certification in the case, B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., will close in July 2019 with a hearing date on class certification to be scheduled. On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks, and EMVCo in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al.) alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright Act, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by defendants to shift fraud liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV security standard and chip technology. Plaintiffs assert joint and several liability among the defendants and seek unspecified damages, including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. On July 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that includes additional named plaintiffs, reasserts the original claims, and includes additional state law causes of action. On September 30, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss for certain issuing banks and EMVCo but denied the motions to dismiss filed by the networks, including the Company. In May 2017, the Court entered an order transferring the entire action to a federal court in New York that is presiding over certain related claims that are pending in the actions consolidated as MDL 1720. On March 11, 2018, the Court entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice to filing a renewed motion. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on July 16, 2018 and opening merits expert reports on October 5, 2018. Defendants filed their Opposition to Class Certification on March 15, 2019. Briefing and expert discovery related to class certification will close in July 2019 with a hearing date on class certification to be scheduled. Discover Financial said, "The Company is not in a position at this time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the plaintiffs." Discover Financial Services, through its subsidiaries, operates as a direct banking and payment services company in the United States. The company was incorporated in 1960 and is based in Riverwoods, Illinois. DRK THIRD AVENUE: JC Contracting Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against DRK THIRD AVENUE, LLC. The case is styled as JC CONTRACTING OF WOODSIDE CORP., INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL TRUST BENEFICIARIES SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. DRK THIRD AVENUE, LLC ET AL, Defendant, Case No. 154792/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., May 10, 2019). DRK THIRD AVENUE LLC (DOS ID 4143817) is a corporation registered with New York State Department of State (NYSDOS).[BN] EFUEGO CORP: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- YASEEN TRAYNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EFUEGO CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03418-RA (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2019) alleges violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Ronnie Abrams. Efuego Corp. operates a retail store services and computerized online retail store services in the field of sporting goods, equipment and apparel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: mittelmandov@yahoo.com EHEALTHINSURANCE: Dennis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EHEALTHINSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04343-LGS (S.D. N.Y., May 13, 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 complaint alleges that 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"). 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 operates a commercial website, www.ehealthinsurance.com, which markets and sells health insurance for individuals and families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Facsimile: (718) 865-0943 Email: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com ENVOY AIR INC: Hinkley Suit Removed to N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------- The class action styled as John Hinkley, Steve Rice, Plaintiff v. Envoy Air Inc., Respondent, Envoy Air Inc., Counter Claimant, John Hinkley, Steve Rice, Counter Defendant, Case No. 18-656 filed in state court was removed from 451st District Court, Kendall County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on May 10, 2019, and assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00389-A. The nature of suit is stated as Employment Civil Rights. Envoy Air Inc. is an air carrier headquartered in Irving, Texas, in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Airlines Group that, along with several carriers outside the group, feeds the American Airlines route network under the American Eagle brand.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kirk Matthew Claunch, Esq. The Claunch Law Office 2912 W Sixth Street Fort Worth, TX 76107 Phone: (817) 335-4003 Fax: (817) 335-7112 Email: claunchlaw3@earthlink.net - and - Joshua Howard Sisam, Esq. Stuart Andrew Shaffer, Esq. Sisam & Associates LLP 110 Industrial Dr Boerne, TX 78006 Phone: (830) 428-0333 Fax: (830) 331-4044 Email: josh@sisam.com sshaffer@sisam.com The Respondent is represented by: Brian M Jorgensen, Esq. Lindsay A Hedrick, Esq. Jones Day PO Box 660623 2727 N Harwood St Dallas, TX 75266-0623 Phone: (214) 220-3939 Fax: (214) 969-5100 Email: bmjorgensen@jonesday.com lahedrick@jonesday.com ENVOY AIR: Hinckley Suit Asserts Discrimination ----------------------------------------------- Steve Rice, and John Hinckley on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Envoy Air, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00389-A (451th Judicial District, Kendall Cty., Tex., May 10, 2019) alleges that Defendant Envoy, through its hiring and employment practices, violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ("ADEA"). In addition, Defendant Envoy, has violated the Texas Labor Code. The Defendant's training policies and practices with respect to Plaintiffs and similarly situated worker age 40 or older are disadvantageous as compared to those with workers under 40 years old, who Defendants treat preferentially and hire in significantly greater numbers, says the complaint. The Defendant actively encouraged their older employees to quit and a disproportionate higher percentage of older people are terminated or forced to quit after receiving conditional employment. On information and belief, says the complaint, Envoy failed to train plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals in favor of younger applicants under the age of 40. The Defendant has discriminated against job applicants and workers who are 40 years old and older, with respect to its training decisions and other terms and conditions of employment. Plaintiffs took the new hire bonuses with the understanding that they were already had been hired by the Defendant, and that their employment would only be terminated for cause. This was not the case. Plaintiffs did not know that a disproportionate percentage of older employees are forced to resign in lieu of termination. In effect, Plaintiffs were constructively terminated, the complaint relates. The Defendant's managers and executives with control and/or responsibility for training, practices, and decisions (including those for plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals) have promoted and/or implemented negative and discriminatory training procedures with regard to older workers who are 40 years and older, says the complaint. Plaintiffs applied with Envoy in 2017. Plaintiffs already had their commercial pilot's license. Envoy Air, LLC, is a company from Irving Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua 11. Sisam, Esq. Sisam & Associates LLP 110 Industrial Dr. Boerne, TX 78.006 Phone: (830) 428-0333 Fax: (830) 331-4044 ETHOS DATA: Newell Sues Over Unauthorized Voice Messages -------------------------------------------------------- JOUREY NEWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ETHOS DATA MANAGEMENT, INC., a Florida company, Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80627-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2019) is a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act against Defendant to stop Ethos Data from making unauthorized pre-recorded voice message calls promoting its search engine optimization services and to obtain redress for all persons similarly injured by its conduct. The Defendant's unsolicited pre-recorded voice message calls violated the TCPA causing Plaintiff and putative members of the Classes to suffer actual harm, including aggravation, nuisance, and invasions of privacy. says the complaint. Plaintiff Mr. Newell also alleges that the Defendant violated the Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, ("UTPCPL") due to their violation of Pennsylvania's Telemarketer Registration Act, 73 P.S. § 2241 et seq. ("PTRA"). Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease making unsolicited pre-recorded voice message calls to consumers, as well as an award of actual and/or statutory damages and costs. Plaintiff Newell is, and at all times relevant to the allegations in the complaint was, a Pennsylvania resident. Ethos Data is a company that provides search engine optimization services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com kaufman@kaufmanpa.com FCA US: Yost Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. for Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Yost, Jerry Yost and All other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Crown Dodge, a California Corporation, Lithia of Santa Rosa, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendants, Case No. SCV-264439 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sonoma Cty., May 15, 2019). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty". FCA US LLC, together with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers, manufactures, distributes, and sells vehicles primarily in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by John Hendrickson, Esq. FIFTH THIRD: Lindauer Sues over Excessive Overdraft Fees -------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Fifth Third Bancorp for its illegal and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive overdraft fees that violates the terms of its own agreement. The case is captioned DAVID LINDAUER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fifth Third Bancorp d/b/a Fifth Third Bank, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00775-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., April 24, 2019). Plaintiff David Lindauer alleges that Fifth Third has manipulated and altered customers' transaction records that it maximizes overdraft penalties imposed on customers. On behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, Lindauer seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from Defendant. Fifth Third is a national bank incorporated in the state of Ohio with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. Among other things, Fifth Third is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to millions of consumers, which include the issuance of debit cards for use by its customers in conjunction with their checking accounts. Fifth Third and its subsidiaries have an extensive branch network, with more than 1,300 branches primarily in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-985-9177 Facsimile: 215-985-4169 E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com - and - Jacob Phillips, Esq. Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175 Orlando, FL 32803 E-mail: Jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com Ed@ednormand.com GC SERVICES: Yang Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited Partnership. The case is styled as Moon J. Yang individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02869 (E.D. N.Y., May 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. GC Services Limited Partnership provides accounts receivable and customer care solutions to public and private sector organizations.[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 GENERAL REVENUE: Higgins Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ ABREYA HIGGINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01135-GJH (D. Md., April 17, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. General Revenue Corporation provides debt collection services for the education, government, utility, automotive, telecommunication, retail, and shipping industries. It collects student loan, state, federal, tax, and other consumer debts. General Revenue Corporation was formerly known as General Revenue Incorporated and changed its name to General Revenue Corporation in March 1983. The company was founded in 1981 and is based in Mason, Ohio with additional office in Horseheads, New York. As of January 2002, General Revenue Corporation operates as a subsidiary of Navient Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aryeh E. Stein, Esq. MERIDIAN LAW LLC 600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (443) 326-6011 Facsimile: (410) 653-9061 E-mail: astein@meridianlawfirm.com GEORGIA: Court Approves Settlement in SMU Prisoners' Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, issued an Order granting Final Approval of Class Certification and Settlement Agreement in the case captioned TIMOTHY GUMM, ROBERT WATKINS, Plaintiffs, v. BENJAMIN FORD et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-41 (MTT). (M.D. Ga.) Plaintiff Timothy Gumm brought this action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 challenging conditions and practices at the Special Management Unit (SMU) at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison (Georgia Diagnostic). The Court appointed attorney Sarah Geraghty of the Southern Center for Human Rights to represent Plaintiff Gumm. The Court concludes that the settlement class preliminarily certified should be finally certified for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), for the reasons set forth in the Court's preliminary approval order. This class is defined as all persons who are or in the future will be assigned to the facility currently known as the Special Management Unit at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison, or who are or in the future will be assigned to the Tier III Program. The Court finds that the prospective relief provided in the Settlement Agreement is necessary to prevent violations of prisoners' constitutional rights in this case, is narrowly tailored and extends no further than necessary to correct those violations, and constitutes the least intrusive means of ensuring compliance with minimal constitutional requirements. Therefore, the Court concludes that it need not hold an evidentiary hearing or require the parties to expend time and resources on presenting evidence. The Court will instead make findings as specific to the case as the circumstances permit, recognizing that there may not be much to say about certain matters in light of the limited record available to the Court. Per the Court's preliminary approval order, the parties were required to provide notice and a copy of the Settlement Agreement directly to every current class member that is, every person currently assigned to the Tier III Program and confined in the SMU. Such individual delivery clearly constitutes adequate notice under Rule 23(e)(1). Defendants have filed forms with the Court indicating whether each class member acknowledged or refused to acknowledge receipt of the settlement documents. The parties agree that the class notice process was carried out as set forth in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order. The Court concludes that notice to the class members satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and 23(e)(1). The Court received objections or comments from 14 individual class members. As the parties point out, the class members almost entirely address concerns with the Defendants' alleged failures so far to implement some of the Settlement Agreement's terms particularly those regarding out-of-cell time (and the staffing required to facilitate it), certain conditions of confinement, and procedures for placement and retention in the SMU. The objectors do not take issue with the terms themselves; they simply ask that they be complied with. Some objectors argue the Agreement could have done more for class members. For instance, Waseem Daker and Jeffrey Bourassa9 both argue the agreement is inadequate unless it provides for access to the law library. Class counsel responded by noting that the objection does not fall within the scope of the substance of this lawsuit, and both Class counsel and Defendants' counsel agreed there is nothing in the Settlement Agreement which would preclude a Tier III inmate from pursuing a remedy based upon insufficient or inadequate access to legal materials. The Court finds that the provisions limiting the circumstances in which a class member may be held in the SMU for longer than 24 months are a fair, adequate, and reasonable outcome for the class members. Bourassa also objects to Paragraph 40, which requires the sliding covers attached to cell-door windows to remain open at all times, unless articulable security or safety considerations dictate otherwise. Bourassa argues that closed covers further no legitimate penological interest. Again, on this point the Agreement represents a negotiated compromise after a protracted back and forth between the parties. It represents a considered balance between the Class's interests and the Defendants' interest in security, and the Settlement Agreement itself prohibits closed covers in the absence of any security interest. Other objections challenging the terms of the Settlement Agreement similarly discuss how the Agreement could theoretically have been drafted to provide even more benefits to class members; however, none of the objections in any way undermine the Court's conclusion that Class counsel, through hard-fought negotiation, procured a Settlement Agreement which provides adequate substantive relief for the class members and treats class members equitably. The parties contend that the objectors' concerns do not detract from the fairness or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement. Indeed, the fact that class members seek effectuation of the Settlement Agreement's terms shows that they understand the terms to provide significant benefits. The agreement contemplates that its terms will be incorporated into an order of this Court, will remain in effect for three years, and will be monitored and, if necessary, enforced through motions practice by class counsel. The Court understands that the parties have been in communication regarding the objections, and that some instances of alleged non-compliance have been addressed. Many class members, therefore, understand the Agreement to provide significant benefits and emphasize their hope that the Defendants comply with it, and none of the class members' objections to the terms of the Agreement undermine the Court's conclusion that the Agreement is a fair, adequate, and reasonable resolution of the class members' claims. They reached a negotiated agreement that attorneys' fees and costs should be paid by Defendants to class counsel in the amount of $425,000. Plaintiffs thereafter filed an uncontested fee petition seeking an award of such fees in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h). Because the fee award was negotiated only following the parties' entry into the Settlement Agreement, and because the parties agree that the Settlement Agreement stands regardless of whether or not the Court grants the fee petition, the Court finds that nothing in Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees undermines the fairness or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement.The fee petition will be resolved pursuant to a separate order. The Court therefore concludes that these monetary agreements do not undermine the fairness, adequacy, or reasonableness of the injunctive-relief class Settlement Agreement. Finally, with these considerations in mind, the court should itself [finally] assess whether the settlement agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Based on a review of the Settlement Agreement and of the entire record in this case, and based on the analysis of the Rule 23(e) factors set forth in the Court's preliminary approval Order and in this Order, the Court concludes that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, should be approved, and should be adopted as an Order of the Court. A settlement class is certified, consisting of "all persons who are or in the future will be assigned to the facility currently known as the Special Management Unit at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison, or who are or in the future will be assigned to the Tier III Program," under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). The objections to the proposed settlement filed by class members in response to the notice to the class are overruled. The parties' request to adopt the Settlement Agreement is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2qpwxvl from Leagle.com. TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, Plaintiff, represented by CHRIS WILLIAM HAAF, RYAN PRIMERANO, SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY, AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN, C. ALLEN GARRETT, Jr., JAMES F. BOGAN, III & TAMARA SERWER CALDAS. ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS, Plaintiff, represented by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN & RYAN PRIMERANO. RICK JACOBS, Field Operations Manager, GDCP, Warden BRUCE CHAPMAN, GDCP, RODNEY MCCLOUD, Superintendent, GDCP, WILLIAM POWELL, Deputy Warden of Security, GDCP, JUNE BISHOP, RUFUS LOGAN, MARGARET WASHINGTON, TIMOTHY WARD, RICKY MYRICK, STEVE UPTON, RANDY TILLMAN, ERIC SELLERS & MICHAEL CANNON, Defendants, represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER, LAURA LOUISE LONES, SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER, JOHN Clay DEMOULPIED, Carlock Copeland & Stair, LLP & ROBERT B. SHAPIRO. DWAIN WILLIAMS, GEORGE BALL & THOMAS SUMPTER, Defendants, represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER, SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER & ROBERT B. SHAPIRO. GNC HOLDINGS: Appeal on Workweek Suit Judgment Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ GNC Holdings, Inc. is awaiting the Court's ruling regarding its appeal from the "adverse judgment" in a Pennsylvania Fluctuating Workweek related suit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. Oral argument occurred in April 2019. On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating workweek" method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of all employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who were paid according to the fluctuating workweek method. In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use of the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA. In September 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the class in an immaterial amount, which has been recorded as a charge in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for an award of attorney's fees, costs and incentive payment. The court awarded an immaterial amount in legal fees. The Company appealed the adverse judgment and the award of attorney's fees. On December 22, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the Company correctly determined the "regular rate" by dividing weekly compensation by all hours worked (rather than 40), but held that the regular rate must be multiplied by 1.5 (rather than 0.5) to determine the amount of overtime owed. Taking accumulated interest into account, the net result of the Superior Court's decision was to reduce the Company's liability by an immaterial amount, which has been reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company filed a petition for appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on January 22, 2018. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the Company's petition for appeal and the Company filed its appellant's brief on August 27, 2018. Oral argument occurred in April 2019 and the Company awaits the Court's ruling. GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products. The company operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada, International, and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. GOLDEN CIRCLE: Sundermann Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARL SUNDERMANN on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN CIRCLE REAL ESTATE GROUP, L.L.C. D/B/A KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, GREATER DES MOINES, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00140-RP-CFB (S.D. Iowa, May 2, 2019), seeks to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. Golden Circle Real Estate Group made automated and pre-recorded telemarketing calls to cellular telephone numbers, including the Plaintiff, which is prohibited by the TCPA. Furthermore, Keller Wiiliams made telemarketing calls to numbers that has been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls, which were placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Timothy M. Hansen, Esq. HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC 301 N Broadway, Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: 414-455-7676 Facsimile: 414-273-8476 E-mail: thansen@hansenreynolds.com - and - Michael C. Lueder, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. E-mail: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com 301 N Broadway, Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: 414 273-7676 Facsimile: 414 273-8476 - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: 617 485-0018 Facsimile: 508 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com HAWAIIAN GARDENS: Benavidez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------ RUDY JOSE BENAVIDEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HAWAIIAN GARDENS CASINO, a California Corporation; THE GARDENS CASINO, a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV15406 (Cal. Super., May 2, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission. According to the complaint, the Defendants had a common policy and/or practice of failing to pay Aggrieved Employees minimum wages for all hours worked. More specifically, Defendants required Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees to perform work while remaining under Defendants' control during their statutorily required meal and rest breaks, and before being on the clock for their daily work shift. The Defendants further failed to accurately record time worked by Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees by rounding hours worked to their detriment. The Defendants thus failed to pay Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked, and provided them with inaccurate wage statements that prevented Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees from learning of these unlawful pay practices. Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees with lawful meal and rest periods, as employees were not provided with the opportunity to take timely, uninterrupted, and duty-free meal and rest periods as required by the Labor Code. The Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees were either not paid by Defendants for all hours worked or were not paid at the appropriate minimum, regular and overtime rates. In addition, Defendants failed to pay the Employees all wages due, by unlawfully rounding the hours worked to the detriment of the Employees, under-recording of hours worked, requiring them to work off the clock, failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to furnish accurate wage statements, and failing to pay all wages due at the time of termination or within 72 hours of resignation, all in violation of various provisions of the California Labor Code, thwe lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Rudy Jose Benavidez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated: David Yeremian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC 5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (310) 652-2242 E-mail: whaines@uelg.com HOT TOPIC: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HOT TOPIC, INC. The case is styled as BARTLEY M. MULLEN, JR. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOT TOPIC, INC. doing business as: HOT TOPIC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00554-JFC (W.D. Pa., May 10, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hot Topic is an American retail chain specializing in counterculture-related clothing and accessories, as well as licensed music.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Carlson Lynch, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com HOWARD L. NATIONS: Gaudet Asserts Breach of Contract, Malpractice ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH A. GAUDET AND RAY GAUDET, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of All Other Similarly Situated Persons Plaintiffs; v. HOWARD L. NATIONS, APC; THE NICKS LAW FIRM, LLC; RUEB & MOTTA, APLC; JOSEPH A. MOTTA, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APLC; and, THE RUEB LAW FIRM, APLC; Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10356-MLCF-JVM (E.D. La., May 13, 2019) seeks to recover damages for breach of contract, professional malpractice, and fraud arising from the Defendants' actions and inactions committed while representing the interests of the proposed class members in the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damage Class Action Settlement in which claims were made against BP, its affiliates, subsidiaries, and other entities, for damages caused by the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe that occurred on April 20, 2010 and the resulting oil spill. On April 10, 2010, a catastrophic oil spill occurred in the Gulf of Mexico resulting in damages and losses to individuals, businesses, and governmental entities in certain coastal states, namely, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas. After the incident, BP Exploration & Petroleum, Inc. ("BP") established a facility for resolution of certain claims under the management and direction of Ken Feinberg. Subsequently, Judge Barbier, in the Eastern District of Louisiana, approved a settlement intended to provide recovery for a broad class of claimants to compensate for the losses sustained. Deborah and Ray Gaudet ("Gaudets") were among many people who resided along the coast and sustained damages resulting from the spill. They did not file suit against BP nor did they engage attorneys until June 1, 2015, when they were advised that out of-state lawyers were hosting meetings in various locations. The meetings were designed by the Defendant law firms to solicit clients in order for the Defendant law firms to submit claims in the BP settlement program. The Gaudets attended one of the meetings at the Lil Caillou School in Chauvin, Louisiana. At that meeting, the Defendants' representatives advised the Gaudets to fill out forms to identify their losses, which were primarily subsistence claims. At the meeting at the Lil Caillou School, the Gaudets engaged the Defendant law firms to file a claim for them as a result of damages they sustained. They signed a fee agreement with the Defendant law firms and fully expected their claim would be handled pursuant to the terms of the overall BP settlement that allowed for recovery for specified losses. Subsequent to the Defendants' legal representation of the Gaudets, numerous phone calls were initiated by the Gaudets to the Defendant law firms in order to determine the status of their claim. Each of those phone calls essentially involved the same messaging from the Defendant law firms--the claim by the Gaudets was still pending and BP had not acted on their particular claim. It was not until May of 2019 when the Gaudets were advised by the Defendants that BP had denied their claim. In truth and in fact, the Defendants had never filed a claim for their losses. Yet, this disclosure, fundamental to the fiduciary relationship between attorneys and their clients, had never been made known to them, says the complaint. This class action litigation is intended to protect the rights of all clients, represented by the Defendants, who lost the opportunity to participate in the BP Settlement due to the Defendants' breach of contract, professional malpractice, and fraud, says the complaint. Deborah A. Gaudet and Ray Gaudet are natural persons of the full age of majority, domiciled in, and citizens of, the State of Louisiana, Parish of Terrebonne.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: JERALD P. BLOCK, ESQ. RICHARD C. BREAUX, ESQ. KENDALL J. KRIELOW, ESQ. BLOCK LAW FIRM, APLC 422 East First Street Post Office Box 108 Thibodaux, LA 70302 Phone: (985) 446-0418 Facsimile: (985) 446-0422 HYATT HOTELS: Still Defends Suits over Alleged Antitrust Matters ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hyatt Hotels Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that it disputes the allegations in the lawsuits filed against the Company related to alleged violations in federal antitrust laws. In March 2018, a putative class action was filed against the Company and several other hotel companies in federal district court in Illinois, Case No. 1:18-cv-01959, seeking an unspecified amount of damages and equitable relief for an alleged violation of the federal antitrust laws. In December 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against the Company by TravelPass Group, LLC, Partner Fusion, Inc., and Reservation Counter, LLC in federal district court in Texas, Case No. 5:18-cv-00153, for an alleged violation of federal antitrust laws arising from similar conduct alleged in the Illinois case and seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages. Hyatt Hotels said, "The Company disputes the allegations in these lawsuits and will defend its interests vigorously. We currently do not believe the ultimate outcome of this litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operation, or liquidity." Hyatt Hotels Corporation, a hospitality company, develops, owns, operates, manages, franchises, licenses, or provides services to hotels, resorts, residential, and other properties. It operates through four segments: Owned and Leased Hotels, Americas Management and Franchising, ASPAC Management and Franchising, and EAME/SW Asia Management and Franchising. The company was formerly known as Global Hyatt Corporation and changed its name to Hyatt Hotels Corporation in June 2009. Hyatt Hotels Corporation was founded in 1957 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. ICON ENTERTAINMENT: Court Won't Consolidate De Angelis Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, refuses to consolidate the cases captioned STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LLC., Defendant, STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS, Plaintiff, v. NOLAN ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS, Plaintiff, v. ICON ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC., et al., Defendants, DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VM3015, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 2:17-CV-924, 2:17-CV-926, 2:17-CV-927, 2:18-CV-443 (S.D. Ohio). According to Judge Marbley, any discussion of consolidation would be incomplete without considering the Hogan litigation, a related case alleging the same statewide conspiracy as the VM3015 litigation but in which no motion to consolidate is pending. The Hogan Plaintiffs and VM3015 Plaintiffs allege the same claims against the same defendants. The resolution of class and collective action certification in Hogan could be binding on the VM3015 Plaintiffs' class and collective action claims against the BACE Defendants. Dismissal here, however, would be premature because the Hogan class and collective actions have yet to be certified. This Court therefore finds that staying the conspiracy claims is more appropriate than dismissing them. Therefore, this Court hereby STAYS briefing on the conspiracy allegations in the VM3015 litigation pending resolution of class and collective action certification in the Hogan litigation. A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y67svprd from Leagle.com. Stephanie De Angelis, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Charles Babin, Jr., Babin Law, LLC, Courtney Werning, Meyer Wilson Co, LPA, Matthew R. Wilson, Meyer Wilson Co., LPA & Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Meyer Wilson, LPA. National Entertainment Group LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert G. Cohen, Esq. -- rcohen@keglerbrown.com -- Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter & John Paul Brody, Esq. -- jbrody@keglerbrown.com -- Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter. ICON ENTERTAINMENT: De Angelis Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, stayed the case captioned STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS, Plaintiff, v. ICON ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC. d/b/a KAHOOTS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-927 (S.D. Ohio) pending arbitration after finding that the Plaintiff's claims are issues for an arbitrator to decide. ICON Entertainment Group Inc. operates Kahoots Gentlemen's Club, an adult entertainment club in Columbus, Ohio. Stephanie De Angelis has brought suit against ICON, its individual owners, and 4522 Kenny Road, LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company sharing its principal place of business with Kahoots. Ms. De Angelis alleges that she performed at Kahoots as a dancer from April 2016 to February 2017. Ms. De Angelis alleges that Kahoots did not pay its dancers any wages. She avers that, instead, Kahoots misclassified all of its dancers as independent contractors, rather than employees, and that the dancers are only compensated through tips from customers. She further alleges that at the end of each night, Kahoots took a cut from all tips made by the dancers, and the dancers were required to divide their tips with other employees. A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxa52suu from Leagle.com. Stephanie De Angelis, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Charles Babin, Jr., Babin Law, LLC, Courtney Werning, Esq. -- cwerning@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson Co, LPA, Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson Co., LPA & Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. -- mboyle@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson, LPA. ICON Entertainment Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey James Patter, Esq. -- jpatter@cpmlaw.com -- Carlile Patchen & Murphy LLP & Matthew J. Hoffer, Shafer & Associates, P.C., pro hac vice. Joseph Sullo, Daniel Quinn & 4522 Kenny Road LLC, Defendants, represented by Matthew J. Hoffer, Shafer & Associates, P.C.. INDIVIOR PLC: Rosen Law Files Securities Suit Over Suboxone Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Indivior PLC (OTC: INVVY) from March 10, 2015 through April 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Indivior investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Indivior class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1546.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Indivior and its executives engaged in an illicit nationwide scheme to increase prescriptions of Suboxone Film; (2) Indivior illegally obtained billions of dollars in revenue from Suboxone Film prescriptions by deceiving health care providers and health care benefit programs; (3) as a result of the aforementioned misconduct, Indivior would face felony charges; and (4) due to the foregoing, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 24, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1546.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Contact: Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] INSTITUTE OF HUMAN: Unsolicited Marketing Violates TCPA, Says Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL KIRSCHNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE, INC a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80652-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2019) seeks to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, notes the complaint. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this action, was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant is functional training facility, gym, and headquarter for personal trainer certifications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, 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 gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd. #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carr et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ JERRY CARR, an individual, ALINE VICTOR, an individual and as Successor in Interest for WILLIE MAE VICTOR, the Plaintiff, vs. 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, the Defendants, Case No. BC641978 (Nov. 23, 2016), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03714 to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. Karen L. Karavatos, Esq. Cynthia L Garber, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carroll Suit Moved to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- ROY CARROLL, an individual and as Successor in Interest for KERRY CARROLL, the Plaintiff, vs. 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, the Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1719428 (Oct. 5, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03733 to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dorman Suit Moved to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA DORMAN, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of LINDA MCQUOWN, the Plaintiff, vs. 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, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00038363-CU-PL-CTL (Oct. 5, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03712 to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: 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 - Ted G. Meadows, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (800) 898 2034 - and - R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq. THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. 681 Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 952-1422 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Morris Suit Moved to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- FRANCES MORRIS, an individual and as Successor in Interest for KIMBERLY MORRIS, the Plaintiff, vs. 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, the Defendants, Case No. RIC1800043 (Dec. 21, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03707 the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligence, negligent failure to warn strict liability failure to warn, and design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Murillo Suit Moved to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA MURILLO, an individual and as Successor in Interest for KIMBERLY MORRIS, the Plaintiff, vs. 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, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00038085-CU-PL-CTL (July 27, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03715 the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: 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 Helen Zukin, Esq. Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq. Cherisse H. Cleofe, Esq KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: 310-854-4444 Facsimile: 310-854-0812 E-mail: zukin@kiesel.law pahner@kiesel.law eleofe@kieset law - and - Ted G. Meadows, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (800) 898 2034 - and - R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq. THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. 681 Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 952-1422 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Dayton Suit to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson removed case, PAMELA DAYTON, as Anticipated Representative of the Estate of DANA HARRISON, Deceased, and ROSLYN HARRISON, the Plaintiffs, vs. CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (sued individually, doing business as, and as successor to AMERICAN TALC COMPANY), et al., the Defendants, Case No. RG18923977, from the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 29, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02303 to the proceeding. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc., 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. Since the Chapter 11 Case was commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors in possession under 11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights, powers, and duties set out in U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Amy P. Zumsteg, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213 443 4355 Facsimile: 213 443 4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com azumsteg@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Gibson Suit to S.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson removed case, DAVID GIBSON, Individually and as Anticipated Personal Representative of the Estate of SYLVIA GIBSON, Deceased, TRACEY FIELDS, and TRISHA WHITEEAGLE, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2018-70231, from the District Court of Harris County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on April 29, 2019. The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-01561 to the proceeding. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc., 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. Since the Chapter 11 Case was commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors in possession under 11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights, powers, and duties set out in U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Heather Davis, Esq. Jeffrey B. Simon, Esq. SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, PC 1201 Elm Street, Suite 3400 Dallas, TX 75270 Telephone: 214-276-7680 Facsimile: 214-276-7699 E-mail: hdavis@sgptrial.com jsimon@sgptrial.com Counsel for Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.: Heleina L. Formoso, Esq. Cori C. Steinman, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1100 Louisiana, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002-5219 Telephone: (713) 276-7441 Facsimile: (713) 751-3290 E-mail: hformoso@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Gruder Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson removed case, ILENE GRUDER, an individual, the Plaintiffs, vs. 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, the Defendants, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 29, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03564 to the proceeding. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc., 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. Since the Chapter 11 Case was commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors in possession under 11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights, powers, and duties set out in U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.: Michael C. Zellers, Esq. Amanda Villalobos, Esq. Nicholas Janizeh, Esq. Caroline Toole, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, 42nd 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, 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: Santana Suit Moved to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- MARIA AVELAR SANTANA, Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest on behalf of the ESTATE OF MARIE ANN TAYLOR, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. P/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 17CV321212 (Dec. 29, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03705 to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: 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 KIMBERLY HASTIE: Court Denies A. Diamond's Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned ANITRA DIAMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KIMBERLY HASTIE, in her individual capacity, Defendant. Civil Action No. 1:15-00204-KD-C. (S.D. Ala.). On April 14, 2015 (amended on August 18, 2017 and September 22, 2017), Named Plaintiff Anitra Diamond -- individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated -- filed a class action complaint alleging that Defendant Kimberly Hastie, formerly license commissioner, unlawfully obtained, used and/or disclosed personal information of Mobile, Alabama citizens (email addresses) from motor vehicle records in violation of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2721, et. seq. (DPPA) (Count I) and in violation of their privacy rights under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count II). Diamond contends that certification under Rule 23(a) is proper because: 1) the class of over 30,000 plaintiffs is sufficiently numerous to render joinder impracticable 2) defendant Hastie obtained, used, and/or disclosed DPPA protected personal information of each class member in an identical manner and therefore there are numerous issues of law and facts common to each class member 3) the claims of the class representatives are typical of, if not identical to, the claims of the class as a whole and 4) the class representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Hastie opposes the motion, asserting in part that: 1) the proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical 2) questions of law and fact are not common to class members 3) the named plaintiffs are not typical of claims of the proposed class and 4) Plaintiffs assert a Section 1983 claim as to which there is no statutory liquidated damages amount and class certification is not superior. Numerosity Hastie alleges there is no reliable evidence of over 30,000 citizens constituting plaintiffs in this case. Hastie primarily takes issue with the fact that the actual thumb drive, which contained the improperly disclosed emails, has not been found. Hastie's argument fails. First, Bray has testified that the email list totaled about 30,000 emails that were compiled from the License Commissioner's database. Moreover, there does not appear to be any disputed fact that the thumb drive given to the campaign by Hastie contained a very large number of emails taken from the License Commissioner's database. This is sufficient for the purpose of establishing numerosity at this preliminary stage. The FBI currently has custody of the re-created list of emails. Assistant U.S. Attorney Darryl Atchison was present at the hearing to verify this fact and also to inform the Court that the email list would not be released by the FBI, unless the Court so ordered.8 The Court requested, and was granted, an in camera review of the email list. Based on this cursory review, and the testimony of Bray, the Court is satisfied that the proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Commonality Diamond's purported class also excludes all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the class such that any individuals suggested by Hastie as supporting a denial of class certification could self-exclude from the class. From this, Diamond contends that class members have suffered the same alleged injury: violation of their DPPA right to privacy via Hastie's actions in disclosing their DPPA protected personal information. The Court finds that, as delineated by Diamond, there are questions of law and fact common to the proposed class that are susceptible to class-wide proof. Typicality Diamond asserts that her claims are identical to those of the proposed class and that Hastie engaged in the same conduct as to all class members, i.e., there exists the same events, practices and/or course of conduct giving rise to the claims of the other class members as well as the same legal theories. In contrast, per Hastie, each and every claim of the purported class members is not typical for a variety of reasons. These include: Diamond has no proof that her email address is on the flash drive; Diamond had a public email address already disclosed via her official Mobile Community Action public letterhead. Diamond asserts that her email address was disclosed by Hastie at the same time and in the same manner as the email addresses of other class members. As evidentiary support, Diamond points to a copy of the email she received from the campaign as a result of the unauthorized disclosure of her email by Hastie. Diamond adds whether her email was public, or she was associated with the opposing mayoral campaign, is irrelevant. For purposes of the proposed class action, Diamond meets the typicality requirement because her claim arises from the same event and is based on the same legal theory. The Court agrees that Diamond's association with the opposing mayoral candidate does not affect the fact that her claim typifies the class. Adequacy Hastie does not dispute counsel's ability or resources to represent the proposed class members in the litigation. Hastie, however, disputes whether Diamond can adequately represent the class due to her political associations. Hastie cites no authority for this proposition. The Court does not find Diamond's political associations to be relevant. Hastie has cited no conflict between Diamond and the purported class. Accordingly, the Court finds that Diamond could adequately represent the proposed class. Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements Diamond seeks Rule 23(b)(3) class certification for the DPPA claims and the Section 1983 claims. Under Rule 23(b)(3), a class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Predominance The Court agrees that common issues of fact and law predominate as it relates to the DPPA claim, but only if Diamond is able to obtain the list of the emails that were disclosed. If Diamond is unable to obtain the list, although the legal questions are the same, the evidence that a plaintiff was on the list and thus able to prove a violation will be individualized and circumstantial. Thus, the court is unable to find at this point that the addition of more plaintiffs would leave the quantum of evidence introduced by the plaintiffs as a whole relatively undisturbed. Superiority Diamond contends that the class action would be the most fair and efficient procedure because: No class member other than the named plaintiff][ herein ha[s] filed a lawsuit against defendant Hastie arising out of the events that give rise to the claims in this case.Without question, all claims for defendant Hastie's violations of the DPPA pertaining to the putative class should be tried in this court. In contrast, Hastie asserts that: there is no superiority in proceeding as a class. If Plaintiffs were successfully to bring individual actions, they would be able to recover attorney's fees and costs. Thus, there is no disincentive to bring individual claims. Further, a class action claim may result in an astronomical amount of statutory damages more than $75 million. In reply, Diamond cites case law supporting certification of class actions with the ability to collect statutory damages and attorneys' fees, citing Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700 (1979) as holding that class relief is available for all claims including statutory damage claims providing for attorneys' fees assuming no clear expression of congressional intent to exempt such claims from Rule 23 which does not exist under the DPPA. There is no evidence that any other putative class members have initiated litigation concerning the same controversy. While Diamond has invested time and resources into litigating this action, there are no other related class actions either ongoing (already begun) or completed. In fact, in the five (5) years since the alleged DPPA violation only one (1) other plaintiff other than Diamond has been added as a plaintiff and he has since withdrawn, leaving only Diamond. Manageability The problem that Diamond does not address, is how the email addresses will be obtained. The thumb drive is missing. The re-created list is in the hands of the FBI and was re-created through a criminal investigation. Evidence from a criminal investigation that is not made public through trial or plea is not normally subject to being turned over for a civil trial. Therefore, at present, it appears the way that each plaintiff will be able to prove that their email was disclosed by Hastie is through individual circumstantial evidence, e.g., an email received from the campaign with an endorsement by Hastie. This creates a management problem that would be better handled through individual claims. The potential liability here, assuming 30,000 plaintiffs, is at least $75 million (assuming only minimum statutory damages). Such would be completely disproportionate to any harm suffered by Diamond (or other plaintiffs). This fact also undermines a finding that a class action is superior to individual claims. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion and Incorporated Memorandum in Support of Class Certification is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3qm2v2j from Leagle.com. Anitra Diamond, Plaintiff, represented by: D. Brian Murphy, Esq. Kasie M. Braswell, Esq. Braswell Murphy, LLC 105 N. Conception Street #100 Mobile, Alabama 36602 -- and -- Archibald I. Grubb, II, Esq. Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq. Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin 4200 Northside Pkwy NW Building One, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30327 Kimberly Hastie, Individual, Defendant, represented by J. Burruss Riis -- briis@handarendall.com -- Hand Arendall, L.L.C.,Christopher Scott Williams & Joe Carl Jordan, Ross & Jordan, P.C. Nick Matranga, Non-Party, represented by Christopher Scott Williams. LIBERTY MUTUAL: Glover Files Class Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The case is styled as Lessie Glover individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a Massachusetts Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21900-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract. Liberty Mutual Group, more commonly known by the name of its primary line of business, Liberty Mutual Insurance, is an American diversified global insurer, and the fourth-largest property and casualty insurer in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. 14 NE 1st Ave, STE 1205 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (404) 797-9696 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com LIFE STORAGE: Faces Peterson Labor Suit in Sacramento ----------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Life Storage LP. The case is captioned as CINDY PETERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFE STORAGE LP, DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00254648-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., April 17, 2019). Life Storage LP operates as a real estate investment trust. The Company acquires, owns, and manages self-storage properties. Life Storage serves clients in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE,PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 LOEWS HOTELS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loews Hotels Holding Corporation. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Loews Hotels Holding Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04296 (S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Loews Hotels Holding Corporation operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides space for meetings, weddings, events, and occasions, as well as fitness room, spa, dining, and gateway services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com LOOT CRATE: Olsen Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOOT CRATE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02751 (E.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.lootcrate.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Olsen and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant denies full and equal access to its Website, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Olsen asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL") against Defendant. 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. Plaintiff Olsen is blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. Defendant is an online subscription service that offers personalized boxes of pop culture paraphernalia. Typical products include action figures, t-shirts, stickers, accessories, home goods, and similar items.[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 Phone: 212.392.4772 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com LPL FINANCIAL: Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------- LPL Financial Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a putative class action lawsuit filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers in federal district court has been dismissed with prejudice. The dismissal order was entered on April 22, 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. LPL Financial Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides an integrated platform of brokerage and investment advisory services to independent financial advisors and financial advisors at financial institutions in the United States. LPL Financial Holdings Inc. was founded in 1968 and is based in Boston, Massachusetts. M&E CONSTRUCTION: Maldonado Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M&E CONSTRUCTION, LLC; MARLON ALCIDES CARRASCO; and ERIC CORTES, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10332 (E.D. La., May 10, 2019) is a civil action for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The complaint alleges that Defendants had, and continue to have, an avowed, express, and intentional policy of refusing to pay overtime wages. The Defendants knew they should have paid overtime, but they adamantly refused to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages, even though the Plaintiff often worked fifty or sixty hours per workweek. Further, the Defendants mis-classify the Plaintiff and others as "independent contractors," so-called, despite the Plaintiff and others actually being employees under the law. By doing so, the Defendants violated the FLSA, and the Plaintiff makes a claim under the FLSA for his unpaid overtime wages, says the complaint. Plaintiff OSCAR MALDONADO was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt construction worker during 2018 and 2019. M&E CONSTRUCTION, LLC,is a limited liability company whose members are citizens of Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Austin, Esq. STEPHEN J. AUSTIN, LLC 1 Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1900 Metairie, LA 70001 Phone: (504) 377-5200 Facsimile: (504) 324-0152 Email: stephen@stephenjaustin.com MAKEHAUS LLC: Reyes Seeks Overtime Pay for Welders -------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against MakeHaus, LLC and Matthew Conklin for violation of the overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned VINCENTE REYES, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b), Plaintiff, v. Makehaus, LLC and Matthew Conklin, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00989-N (N.D. Tex., April 24, 2019). Plaintiff Vincente Reyes, who worked as a welder/fabricator from on or about 2013 through on or about March 22, 2019, alleges that Makehaus has employed several other similarly situated employees like him who have not been paid overtime for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Founded in 2010, Makehaus, LLC is a domestic limited liability company based in Rockwall Texas. The company specializes in architectural metalworks. Owner Matthew Conklin runs the day-today operations of the Makehaus. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq. Joshua A. Petersen, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.C. 6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: 972-233-2264 Facsimile: 972-386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net josh.a.petersen@gmail.com MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manhattan Cryobank, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Andrea Frankiewicz, Ruth Perez individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. Manhattan Cryobank, Inc., CNTP MCB, Inc., LifePrint Group, Inc., LifePrint Group, Inc., CCB-MCB, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04258 (S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Manhattan CryoBank is a tissue bank with a large and diverse selection of rigorously screened tissue donors.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. Steckler, LLP 12720 Hillcrest Road Dallas, TX 75230 Phone: (972) 387-4040 Fax: (972) 387-4041 Email: ruce@stecklerlaw.com MCDERMOTT INT'L: Class Cert. Bid in Chicago Bridge Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- McDermott International, 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 motion for class certification and appointment as class representatives in the case entitled, In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Securities Litigation, remains pending. On March 2, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of CB&I common stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from alleged false and misleading statements made during the class period from October 30, 2013 to June 23, 2015. The case is captioned: In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Securities Litigation, No. 1:17-cv-01580-LGS (the "Securities Litigation"). The defendants in the case are: CB&I; a former chief executive officer of CB&I; a former chief financial officer of CB&I; and a former controller and chief accounting officer of CB&I. On June 14, 2017, the court named ALSAR Partnership Ltd. as lead plaintiff. On August 14, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was filed alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, arising out of alleged misrepresentations about CB&I's accounting for the acquisition of The Shaw Group, CB&I's accounting with respect to the two nuclear projects being constructed by The Shaw Group, and CB&I's financial reporting and public statements with respect to those two projects. On May 24, 2018, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and the parties are currently engaged in the discovery process. On February 4, 2019, lead plaintiff ALSAR Partnership Ltd. and additional plaintiffs Iron Workers Local 40, 361, & 417, Union Security Funds and Iron Workers Local 580, Joint Funds moved for class certification and appointment as class representatives. That motion remains pending. McDermott said, "We are not able at this time to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter and, accordingly, no amounts have been accrued as of March 31, 2019. We believe the claims are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously." McDermott International, Inc. provides engineering, procurement, construction and installation, and technology solutions to the energy industry worldwide. It operates through five segments: North, Central and South America; Europe, Africa, Russia and Caspian; the Middle East and North Africa; Asia Pacific; and Technology. McDermott International, Inc. was founded in 1923 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. MCDERMOTT INT'L: Named as Defendant in Curti and Stremcha Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- McDermott International, 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 is facing two class action lawsuits entitled, Curti v. McDermott International, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-15780 and Stremcha v. McDermott International, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-15473. On March 1, 2019 and March 4, 2019, two essentially identical class action lawsuits were filed in the Harris County (Texas) District Court alleging violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of CB&I shareholders who acquired McDermott common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 and the related Prospectus we issued in connection with the Combination. These actions are captioned Curti v. McDermott International, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-15780 and Stremcha v. McDermott International, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-15473. The defendants, besides McDermott International, Inc., include present officers of McDermott and current and past members of McDermott's board of directors. McDermott said, "We are not able at this time to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from these matters and, accordingly, no amounts have been accrued as of March 31, 2019. We believe the claims are without merit and we intend to defend against them vigorously." McDermott International, Inc. provides engineering, procurement, construction and installation, and technology solutions to the energy industry worldwide. It operates through five segments: North, Central and South America; Europe, Africa, Russia and Caspian; the Middle East and North Africa; Asia Pacific; and Technology. McDermott International, Inc. was founded in 1923 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. MDL 2672: Court Enjoins J. Feinman from Pursuing Lien Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Volkwagen's Motion to Enforce Settlement Approval Order in the case captioned IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MDL MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Order Relates To: Dkt. No. 5824, No. 2672 CRB (JSC)(N.D. Calif.). When a lawyer is hired to file a lawsuit, state law often provides the lawyer with a charging lien. The charging lien attaches to any money awarded to the plaintiff in the case. If the plaintiff, upon receiving an award, refuses to pay his attorney's fees and costs, the attorney can seek to enforce the lien in court. A charging lien can also protect a lawyer who is released and replaced. If the plaintiff hires a new lawyer who later obtains a monetary award, the original lawyer may be able to rely on the charging lien to get paid for work performed prior to the change in counsel. In some circumstances, a plaintiff's attorney can also use a charging lien to recover fees from the defendant. When the plaintiff's lawyer provides the defendant with notice of the lien, and the defendant later settles with the plaintiff without notifying the plaintiff's lawyer, some courts have required the defendant to pay the plaintiff's lawyer's fees. With respect to the clean diesel litigation, when the public learned that Volkswagen (or VW) had installed defeat devices in hundreds of thousands of its diesel cars, lawyers nationwide raced to file lawsuits against the company on behalf of consumers who had bought or leased the cars. Some of those lawyers gave VW notice that, pursuant to state law, they were placing charging liens on their clients' claims. A different set of lawyers, which this Court appointed, thereafter negotiated class settlements with VW on behalf of consumers who had bought or leased the affected cars. The EPA, the FTC, and the California Air Resources Board, all of which were simultaneously negotiating consent decrees with VW, participated in the negotiations and supported the settlements. A substantial number of consumers who had retained their own lawyers left those lawyers (and the cases they had filed) and accepted the class settlements. The consumers who accepted the settlements released "on behalf of themselves and their attorneys, any claims for liens or attorneys' fees or costs other than fees and costs awarded by the Court in connection with this Settlement. Despite the release of lien claims, James Feinman, a lawyer who filed lawsuits against VW on behalf of some consumers who later accepted the 2.0-liter settlement, filed an action in Virginia state court, late last year, to enforce charging liens against VW. He asserts that he gave VW notice of the liens before the settlement, and he argues that the liens entitle him to recover reasonable fees and costs from VW for work that he did for his clients before they accepted the settlement. In response to Feinman's lien action, VW filed a motion in this Court to enforce the settlement's release of lien claims. The 2.0-liter settlement's release covers Feinman's lien claims. It not only applies to class members, but also to their attorneys, and it releases any claims by class members or their attorneys for liens or attorneys' fees. Feinman has not offered any reading of the release that would leave his liens against VW intact. He urges, though, that because the liens were his own, not his clients', and because he was not a class member and was not represented by anyone whose interests were aligned with his the release cannot be construed as releasing his liens without violating his due process rights. Feinman had notice of the 2.0-liter settlement and its precise terms before the Court approved it. In a motion for attorneys' fees that he filed after settlement approval, he requested fees for, among other things, time that he spent reviewing the settlement and advising his clients on whether to accept it. Indeed, before settlement approval, Feinman even objected to the settlement on behalf of one of his clients. But he never objected to paragraph 9.3 of the settlement, which is the release. Because Feinman had notice of the 2.0-liter settlement, the Court construes his opposition to VW's motion to enforce the release as a belated attempt to object to the settlement; a settlement that this Court approved over two years ago and that the Ninth Circuit agreed was fair and reasonable. The Court also notes that the release of attorneys' lien claims against VW was essential to the settlement's success. When this MDL began there was an ongoing harm that needed to be remedied: approximately 600,000 cars were emitting dangerous pollutants in the United States at levels that greatly exceeded legal limits. To incentivize consumers to stop driving the cars, VW offered to buy the cars back at pre-scandal prices. The expectation was that consumers would then use those funds to buy or lease replacement cars. The incentive worked. Within four months of approval, VW had taken possession of 137,979 2.0-liter TDI cars, 28 percent of the total number. If class members had not released their lawyers' lien claims, it is unlikely that these results would have been achieved. Without the release, VW likely would have been unable to disburse the settlement funds directly to consumers. If it had nonetheless done so, it would have risked later court orders requiring it to pay additional money (above what it had paid class members) to satisfy the liens. Without VW disbursing the settlement funds directly to consumers, it is probable that consumers would have hesitated to return their polluting cars, which would have left the cars on the road and their emissions in the air. Even if VW had made partial payments to class members, but held back the remaining funds until it knew for certain whether it would be required to satisfy charging liens, harmful ripple effects could have resulted. In such a scenario, consumers wouldn't have known the exact amounts that they stood to gain by participating in the settlement. And with that uncertainty, they may have refused to participate in the settlement and may have kept driving their VW cars. VW's prompt payment of the settlement funds directly to affected consumers was needed to quickly remove the polluting cars from the road. The release gave VW assurances that it could distribute the funds to consumers without penalty. It was instrumental to the success of the settlement and, indeed, VW's counsel has represented that without it a settlement would not have been achieved. While the 2.0-liter settlement released Feinman's liens against VW, the Court notes that his liens against the res itself were not affected by the settlement. VW has disbursed the settlement funds to class members, and if Feinman believes he has a right to a portion of those funds, he may seek to recover against his clients. Whether such a recovery is warranted is a matter that is not before this Court. The lien claims that Feinman is currently pursuing against VW in Virginia state court are released claims. In the 2.0-liter settlement approval order, this Court enjoined releasing parties from commencing, filing, initiating, instituting, pursuing, maintaining, enforcing or prosecuting, either directly or indirectly, any Released Claims in any jurisdiction or forum, against any of the Released Parties. Pursuant to that Order, Feinman is enjoined from pursuing his lien claims against VW. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2uggm8b from Leagle.com. Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- cbaker@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- wlang@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr., -- hsmythe@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer, Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD. MDL 2700: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Granted to Genentech ----------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal for a granted summary judgment has been filed on April 19, 2019 by all Plaintiffs of Herceptin-related class actions against Genentech, Inc. have taken an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, from the district court decision granting summary judgment in the case styled as, In Re: GENENTECH HERCEPTIN (TRASTUZUMAB) MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2700 (N.D. Okla., April 19, 2019). In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs contend that Genentech could have changed its label to state the accurate concentration for reconstituted Herceptin solution. Changing the concentration stated on the label, however, would require FDA approval. Similarly, changing the concentration of the reconstituted drug product would also require FDA approval because it would have a substantial potential to have an adverse effect on the strength and potency of Herceptin and affect the safety or effectiveness of the product. Plaintiffs also argue that Genentech could comply with state law by keeping its manufacturing process the same, but selling only those vials that contain at least 440 mg of trastuzumab. On March 20, 2019, Judge Terence C. Kern granted Genentech's motion for summary judgment that was based on federal preemption. Judge Kern noted that Genentech cannot be forced to stop selling vials that comply with FDA requirements in order to avoid liability under state law claims. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David L. Bryant, Esq. Steven J. Adams, Esq. Amelia A. Fogleman, Esq. Adam C. Doverspike, Esq. James Wesley Scott Pebsworth, Esq. GABLEGOTWALS 1100 ONEOK PLAZA 100 West 5th Street, Suite 1100 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 595-4800 Facsimile: (918) 595-4990 E-mail: dbryant@gablelaw.com sadams@gablelaw.com afogleman@gablelaw.com adoverspike@gablelaw.com wpebsworth@gablelaw.com - and - James D. Sill, Esq. Matthew J. Sill, Esq. Kathryn Eidson Griffin, Esq. Tara Tabatabaie, Esq. Christopher J. Bergin, Esq. Simone Fulmer, Esq. FULMER SILL PLLC 1101 N. Broadway, Suite 102 Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Telephone: (405) 509-6300 Facsimile: (405) 509-6268 E-mail: jsill@fulmersill.com msill@fulmersill.com kgriffin@fulmersill.com ttabatabaie@fulmersill.com cbergin@fulmersill.com sfulmer@fulmersill.com - and - Janaki Hannah Nair, Esq. ELIAS MEGINNES & SEGHETTI, P.C. 416 Main Street, Suite 1400 Peoria, IL 61602 Telephone: (309) 637-6000 Facsimile: (309) 637-8514 E-mail: nair@emrslaw.com MDL 2741: Snyder v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ EDGAR W. SNYDER and BARBARA L. SNYDER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00291 (Filed Feb. 22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on May 2, 2019. The Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02373-VC to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Edgar W. Snyder's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Snyder case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Swain v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- GARY D. SWAIN and SHANNON SWAIN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00294 (Filed Feb. 22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on May 2, 2019. The Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02374-VC to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Edgar W. Snyder's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Swain case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Wooderson v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- WALLACE M. WOODERSON and LORETTA WOODERSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00377 (Filed March 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on May 2, 2019. The Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02383-VC to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Wallace M. Wooderson's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Wooderson case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MELBOURNE POLICE: Faces Johnson Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Melbourne City. The case is captioned as TRAVIS JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAYOR OF CITY; MELBOURNE CITY; MELBOURNE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHIEF OF POLICE MELBOURNE CITY POLICE; OFFICER JONES; OFFICER DUMMER; OFFICER MELVIN; OFFICER DAVIS; and OFFICER SMITH, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00729-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., April 17, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Paul G. Byron, and referred to Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly. Melbourne is the capital and most populous city of the Australian state of Victoria, and the second most populous city in Australia and Oceania. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Thornton Balks at Merger Deal with NVIDIA ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID THORNTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES LTD., IRWIN B. FEDERMAN, EYAL WALDMAN, STEVE SANGHI, AMAL M. JOHNSON, UMESH PADVAL, GLENDA MARY DORCHAK, JACK R. LAZAR, DR. DAVID PERLMUTTER, GREGORY L. WATERS and JON A. OLSEN, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02406 (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2019), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding a shareholder vote on a proposed merger transaction and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the material information is disclosed to Mellanox stockholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants’ violations of the Exchange Act. The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Mellanox by NVIDIA International Holdings Inc. On March 11, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which Mellanox stockholders will receive $125.00 in cash for each share of Mellanox common stock they hold. On April 22, 2019, to convince Mellanox shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. While Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, they have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for stockholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy false and/or misleading. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the financial projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by Defendants in recommending that Mellanox shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The financial projections were also utilized by Mellanox’s financial advisors, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, in conducting certain valuation analyses in support of their fairness opinions, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Unger Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC et al. The case is styled as Hindy Unger individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-04447 (S.D. N.Y., May 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC provides collection and accounts receivable management services to lenders, debt purchasers, and universities in the United States.[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 MIDLAND CREDIT: Cirruzzo 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 Barbara Cirruzzo individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02881 (E.D. N.Y., May 15, 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 MOMO INC: Marchand Files Suit Over False, Misleading Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ ALAIN MARCHAND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MOMO INC., YAN TANG, and JONATHAN XIAOSONG ZHANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04433 (S.D. N.Y., May 15, 2019) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Momo securities between April 21, 2015 and April 29, 2019, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Momo was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China ("PRC" or "China"). The Company was formerly known as Momo Technology Company Limited and changed its name to Momo Inc. in July 2014. On February 23, 2018, Momo announced that it had reached a definitive agreement with Tantan Limited ("Tantan"), a social and dating app in China, and all of its shareholders, under which Momo agreed to acquire a 100% fully diluted equity stake in Tantan for a combination of share consideration and cash, including approximately 5.3 million newly issued Class A ordinary shares of the Company and US$600.9 million in cash. Momo announced the successful closing of its acquisition of Tantan on May 11, 2018. However, the complaint asserts that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Momo's compliance procedures and controls were inadequate to prevent, inter alia, illicit financial reporting activity; (ii) Momo's social and dating app, Tantan, was materially noncompliant with PRC law and/or regulations; (iii) Tantan was consequently at an increased risk of being removed from Chinese app stores at the direction of Chinese governmental authorities; and (iv) as a result, Momo's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. Plaintiff acquired Momo securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. Momo operates a mobile-based social and entertainment platform in the PRC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Ramirez Sues over Unsafe Weed Killer Products --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Monsanto Company for violations of state consumer laws, false advertising law, and product liability laws, citing a link between Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and the company's Roundup weed killer products' active ingredient, glyphosate. The case is captioned ROBERT RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02224-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2019). Plaintiff Robert Ramirez seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief for the Defendant's fraudulent concealment of a product design's defect and for breaches of implied and express contracts. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, with its headquarters and principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. It discovered and sold the herbicidal properties of glyphosate and is the manufacturer of Roundup. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Audet, Esq. Ling Y. Kuang, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102-3229 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com lkuang@audetlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Van Hortman Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------------- George Van Hortman, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01166 (E.D. Mo., May 2, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MOPHIE, INC: Power Bank Capacity Deceptive, Young Says ------------------------------------------------------ The case, MICHAEL YOUNG, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. MOPHIE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00827 (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2019), contends that the defendant has misrepresented the capacity of its power bank products in violation of state law. In recent years consumers have become increasingly dependent on portable electronic devices like smart phones, tablets and laptop computers (PED). To address the needs of consumers to use PEDs during travel, or when the consumer otherwise lacks access to an electrical outlet, the portable charger industry emerged. A portable charger, often called a power bank, is a small, portable power source consumers can use to recharge their PEDs during travel. A power bank with a higher capacity, as is expressed in milliampere-hours ("mAh"), has a greater ability to recharge PEDs compared to a power bank with a lower capacity. The primary value and main differentiator is the power bank's capacity as compared to other power banks. Thus, consumers prefer and are willing to pay a premium for power banks with higher mAh ratings. Mophie manufactures, markets, and distributes for sale to consumers nationwide a number of Power Banks under the Powerstation and Juice Pack labels. It represents the Products' capacities as measured in mAh on the products' packaging. Unfortunately for consumers, testing has shown the Products' actual capacity is substantially lower than what Mophie represents. By deceiving consumers about the Products' capacity, Mophie is able to sell more of, and charge more for, the Products, than it could if they were labeled accurately. Further, Mophie was also motivated to mislead consumers to take away market share from competing products, thereby increasing its own sales and profits. The Defendant has profited enormously from its false and misleading representations about the Products. The purpose of this action is to put an end to Defendant's deceptive marketing of the Products and to provide consumers with monetary relie, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Nathan M. Smith, Esq. Nona Yegazarian, Esq BROWN, NERI, SMITH & KHAN, LLP 11601 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2080 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 593-9890 Facsimile: (310) 593-9980 E-mail: nate@bnsklaw.com nona@bnsklaw.com - and - D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Sara K. Bonaiuto, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3290 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com sbonaiuto@fbfglaw.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net jhashmall@bm.net MOSHI MOSHI: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Employees -------------------------------------------------------- MARIA A. SANCHEZ, and other similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. MOSHI MOSHI PALM GROVE LLC, d/b/a MOSHI MOSHI PALM GROVE LLC, and TOSHIO FURIHATA, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21741-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid regular overtime wages, and retaliation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after March 2016, without being properly compensated. The Plaintiff was hired as a server and during her employment with Defendants she had different payment plans, but she always worked the same schedule. As a tipped employee, the Plaintiff was supposed to receive the minimum wages established for tipped employees plus tips received from customers. While employed by Defendants, the Plaintiff worked always the same schedule, but she was paid at different wage rates, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com NEW YORK: Court Excludes City's Expert in ADA Suit vs. Police ------------------------------------------------------------- The Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York and Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, two nonprofit organizations that provide services and advocacy for people with disabilities, along with Paula Wolff, Jean Ryan, Edith Prentiss, and Dustin Jones, New York City residents with mobility disabilities filed the putative class action styled DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization, BROOKLYN CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, a nonprofit organization, PAULA WOLFF, an individual, JEAN RYAN, an individual, EDITH PRENTISS, an individual, and DUSTIN JONES, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, and JAMES O'NEILL, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, Defendants, No. 16-CV-08354 (VEC)(S.D.N.Y.), against the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and the Department's Commissioner. The Plaintiffs allege that the majority of the Defendants' 77 police stations throughout New York City contain significant architectural barriers to people using wheelchairs, walkers, and other mobility devices. They claim that these barriers exclude people with mobility disabilities from critical public-safety services, programs, and activities in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12132; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794; and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code Section 8-107(4)(a). Now before Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York are (1) the Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the Defendants' proposed expert, architect Antonio Pinto, and (2) the Defendants' renewed motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert, accessibility inspector Kelly Hang, under Fed. R. Evid. 702. The parties retained these proposed experts to survey the architectural features of a sample of the Defendants' stationhouses and opine whether those features comply with the U.S. Department of Justice's 1991 and 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design -- a prerequisite to assessing whether the condition of the stationhouses causes persons with mobility disabilities to "be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity," 42 U.S.C. Section 12132; see also 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. D (1991 Standards for Accessible Design as Originally Published on July 26, 1991); 28 C.F.R. Section 35.151 (first portion of 2010 Standards for Accessible Design for State and Local Government Entities); 36 C.F.R. pt. 1191 apps. B, D (remaining portion of 2010 Standards for Accessible Design for State and Local Government Entities). The Plaintiffs' motion is granted. The Court finds that Pinto failed to substantiate the assumptions underlying the particular compliance opinion and the Court is unable to conclude that his other opinions are "based on sufficient facts or data," as Rule 702(b) requires. The Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part. Hang may offer opinions regarding the compliance (vel non) of the Defendants' stationhouses with the 1991 and 2010 ADA accessibility standards -- the principal subject of her reports and testimony. To the extent, however, that Hang has offered (or intends to offer) any opinion on whether the conditions of the Defendants' stationhouses causes individuals with mobility disabilities to "be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by [that] entity," 42 U.S.C. Section 12132 -- the ultimate liability issue in this case -- that opinion must be excluded. A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y38hguo7 from Leagle.com. Disabled in Action, a nonprofit organization, Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, a nonprofit organization, Paula Wolff, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Jean Ryan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Edith Prentiss, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Dustin Jones, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Darin P. McAtee, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Meredith Weaver, Disability Rights Advocates, Michelle Anne Caiola, Disabilities Right Advocates, Seth Emmanuel Packrone, Disability Rights Advocates & Rebecca Juliet Rodgers, Disability Rights Advocates. City Of New York, New York City Police Department & James O'Neill, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, Defendants, represented by Stephen Edward Kitzinger, New York City Law Depart. Office of the Corporation Counsel, Carolyn Elizabeth Kruk, NYC Law Department & Mark Galen Toews, NYC Law Department. NORTHWESTERN LAKE: Mazya Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned YANA MAZYA and TIKI TAYLOR, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NORTHWESTERN LAKE FOREST HOSPITAL, NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, OMNICELL, INC., and BECTON DICKINSON, Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-07161 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 10, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03191. Plaintiffs allege that Northwestern, Omnicell, and Becton violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), through the use of finger-scan technology. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants collect, store, use, and disseminate employees' allegedly biometric information (finger-scans) when the employees gain authorized access to stored materials without first obtaining informed written consent or publishing a retention policy.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey T. Norberg, Esq. NEAL & MCDEVITT LLC 1776 Ash Street Northfield, IL 60093 Email: jnorberg@nealmcdevitt.com - and - Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. Kristine A. Forderer, Esq. COOLEY LLP 101 California Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 Email: rhodesmg@cooley.com kforderer@cooley.com - and - Gary M. Miller, Esq. Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 111 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5100 Chicago, IL 60606 Email: gmiller@shb.com mwolfe@shb.com NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Court Junks Walfish Misclassification Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned FRED WALFISH, Plaintiff, v. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants. Civ. No. 2:16-cv-4981 (WJM). (D.N.J.). Plaintiff Fred Walfish is an insurance agent who was associated with the Defendants. The Plaintiff filed a one-count putative class action complaint alleging that Northwestern's method of compensating agents violates the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL). According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified him and other insurance agents as independent contractors and deducted certain expenses from their commissions in violation of the NJWPL. Because the Court holds that the undisputed facts support a finding that the Defendants have met their burden on each of the three requirements of the ABC Test, the Court need not address the Defendants' statutory argument regarding the incorporation of the NJUCA into the NJWPL nor the Defendants' argument regarding the Plaintiff's consent to the deductions he claims were impermissible under New Jersey law. Accordingly, the Court first sets forth the ABC Test applicable to NJWPL claims in this District and then addresses each prong of that test in turn. The ABC Test To determine whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor under the NJWPL, the district court must apply the ABC Test. The ABC Test presumes an individual is an employee unless the employer can make a showing that: (A) Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such service, both under his contract of service and in fact and (B) Such service is either outside the usual course of the business for which such service is performed, or that such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed and (C) Such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. Part A: Control The Defendants have satisfied the control prong because the Plaintiff was both contractually and actually free from control. First, the Plaintiff's employment contract explicitly defines his relationship with Seery Agency and the cashiership as one of an independent contractor and notes that the agent shall be free to exercise his own judgment as to the persons from whom he will solicit Applications and the time, place, and manner of solicitation, but Northwestern from time to time may adopt regulations respecting the conduct of the business covered hereby, not interfering with such freedom of the action of Agent. As to actual control, the Plaintiff testified that Defendants exerted little control over his work. Plaintiff was not required to follow up with any particular client leads and was never directed what to sell or to whom to sell it. He could perform such services at any time of day, at any location. Plaintiff testified that, while he had an annual compliance meeting with the general agency's management, he considered any feedback at such meeting mere suggestions, and declined numerous requests to keep certain records or update certain marketing material including business cards, letterhead, and his voicemail greeting. The Plaintiff urges the Court to find the he was not free from control or direction because he was subject to rules promulgated by Defendants' in response to regulatory guidance and state and federal law. In support, the Plaintiff cites to evidence that he was required to keep current and accurate records, provide accurate marketing materials to his clients, maintain proper licensing, submit to compliance reviews, make electronic devices are available for inspection, use company email accounts, and seek approval for outside business activities. The Plaintiff argues that these requirements are sufficient to demonstrate that Northwestern directed and controlled his insurance business. The Court is unwilling to find that, by promulgating certain rules to ensure regulatory compliance, Northwestern exercised control and direction sufficient to fail the Part A of the ABC test. Were that so, any business operating in a regulated industry would necessarily no longer be able hire workers under an independent contractor relationship unless it was willing to risk regulatory non-compliance. Accordingly, as a matter of law in analyzing the undisputed facts under Part A, the Court finds that it need not consider those policies set forth by Defendants for the purpose of regulatory compliance. The Defendants have met their burden under the control prong of the ABC Test. Part B: Course-of-Business or Location-of-Work The Defendants have also met their burden under Part B under either of the alternative methods of satisfying that prong. As to the course-of-business method, the uncontroverted testimony demonstrates that Northwestern does not sell insurance. The Plaintiff argues that because Chief Operating Officer Daniel A. Riedl testified that Northwestern sells insurance, that Defendant fails on Part B. The Defendants have met their burden under the location-of-work method of fulfilling Part B. There is no evidence in the record that the Plaintiff spent time at Northwestern's place of business in Wisconsin. Nor is there any evidence that he regularly reported to any Northwestern office. Rather, the Plaintiff testified that he had no regular hours and sold insurance for Northwestern and approximately twenty other companies from the Seery Agency, from his own home, and from the homes or offices of his clients. Under the ABC Test, these facts establish that the Plaintiff's sale of insurance products was outside Defendants' normal course of business and that he performed such services outside of Northwestern's place of business. Part C: Independent Business In his moving brief, the Plaintiff does not contest the Defendants' argument that they have met the independent business requirement of Part C. Even assuming that the Plaintiff has not waived this argument, the Court finds that the Defendants have met their burden here as well. From at least 2010 to 2016, Plaintiff operated a business, Fred Walfish Insurance as a sole proprietor, claiming income from at least twenty different insurance companies and submitting a Schedule C for tax deductible expenses related to the operation of that business as an independent contractor. After termination of his Northwestern association, Fred Walfish Insurance continued to exist independently of and apart from the particular service relationship and Plaintiff continued selling insurance to his clients. That is sufficient to fulfill Part C of the ABC Test. The undisputed facts demonstrate that Plaintiff was free from control and direction in the sale of their insurance products, performed his services outside the normal place and course of Defendants' business, and continued Fred Walfish Insurance after the termination of his association with Defendants. The Court thus finds that Plaintiff was an independent contractor. Because the NJWPL does not apply independent contractors, Plaintiff's motion must be denied and Defendants' motion must be granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxuxkxym from Leagle.com. FRED WALFISH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by: LUCAS COLIN BUZZARD, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, New York 10004 NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. & NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, represented by SEAN PATRICK LYNCH -- sean.lynch@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & TERRY DAVON JOHNSON -- terry.johnson@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. NVIDIA CORP: LeBoeuf Sues Over Graphic Card's False, Deceptive Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew LeBoeuf, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and Does (1-100) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NVIDIA Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-02543 (N.D. Cal., May 10, 2019) is a nationwide class action brought on behalf of all consumers who purchased graphics cards incorporating the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti graphics processing units ("GPU") (hereinafter "RTX 2080 graphics cards"). The complaint asserts that Defendant sold the RTX 2080 graphics cards based on the misleading representations that the RTX 2080: 1) provides "6X the performance of previous-generation graphics cards"; 2) is "light years ahead" of other cards; 3) provides "ultra-cool and quiet performance"; and 4) that "powerful NVIDIA Turing GPU architecture, breakthrough technologies, and 11 GB of next-gen, ultra-fast GDDR6 memory make it the world's ultimate gaming GPU." However, the complaint asserts that the Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading. The RTX 2080 graphics cards do not deliver "up to 6X the performance of previous-generation graphics cards," and suffer from an undisclosed flaw that causes the graphics cards to fail at an alarming rate. As a result, consumers paid from $799 to $1199 for the 2080 series of graphics cards that suffer from a variety of issues ranging from lack of promised performance, visual anomalies on the user's computer screen, the user's computer crashing entirely, and, in one case, even catching fire. Having purchased graphics cards that suffer from this defect, Plaintiff and Class members suffered injury in fact, and a loss of money or property as a result of Defendant's conduct in designing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling defective graphics cards. NVIDIA has failed to remedy this harm and has earned, and continues to earn, substantial profit from selling the defective RTX 2080 graphics cards. Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate, inter alia, consumer protection statutes and its express and implied warranties. Defendant has been and continues to be unjustly enriched, says the complaint. Plaintiff purchased the card on or about September 20, 2018 at Best Buy in Garland, Texas. NVIDIA researched, designed, developed, and marketed the RTX 2080.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Miller, Esq. Alison M. Bernal, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 963-2345 Facsimile: (805) 284-9590 Email: jonathan@nshmlaw.com alison@nshmlaw.com OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES: Stifel Sues over Lamination Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against the Ohio Department of Public Safety - Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles Division (BMV) and the State Treasurer of Ohio for violations of the Ohio Revised Code and the Ohio Administrative Code. The case is captioned the MARILYN STIFEL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY - OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION and TREASURER, STATE OF OHIO, Defendants, Case No. CV 19 914418 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., April 24, 2019). Plaintiff Marilyn Stifel alleges that the Defendants have violated the laws by charging and collecting a lamination fee to all Ohioans applying for licenses, permits and/or identification cards since approximately July 2, 2018, even though the BMV discontinued the lamination of such items. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Nancy Margaret Russo. BMV is the government agency responsible for the issuance of driver's licenses and permits and identification cards pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Chap. 4507. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn D. Feagan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GLENN D. FEAGAN, PSC 101 W. Prospect Ave., Suite 1600 The Midland Building Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: 216-926-75555 E-mail: gfeagan@feaganlaw.com OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Lowinger Files Suit Over NeuBase Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Lowinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ohr Pharmaceutical Inc., Mike Ferguson, Jason Slakter, Orin Hirschman, Thomas M. Riedhammer, and June S. Almenoff, Case No. 2019-0221 (Del. Ch., March 20, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty. On January 3, 2019, Ohr and NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. issued a press release announcing that the two entities had entered into a definitive agreement, specifically, a merger agreement. On March 8 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The complaint asserts that theRegistration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose the Company's own financial projections, and the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants has concealed, omitted, and failed to disclose crucial material information concerning Ohr Pharmaceutical, its financial and operational results, and the merger, thereby preventing Plaintiff from making a fully informed decision as to whether or not to exercise their appraisal rights under Delaware law. The Plaintiff is the owner of shares of Ohr common stock. The Defendant Ohr Pharmaceutical is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company developing novel therapies for ophthalmic diseases. Its principal executive offices are at 800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10022. The Individual Defendants are Ohr's directors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC 901 N. Market St., Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 778-4000 Fax: (302) 295-2873 E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Casino Employees Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Krystal Lockett, Amber L. Caswell, Jacqueline Davis, David C. Devun Jr., Tabatha K. Dozier, Seth B. Istre, Racal Johnson, Cynthia J. Kofron, Tonisha S. Lonzo, Nathan J. McDermott, Jeremy Mitchell, Laura Perez, Wayne Sheffield and Jamaica S. Young, Plaintiff, v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., Ameristar Casino Council Bluffs, LLC, Ameristar Casino East Chicago, LLC, Catcus Pete's, LLC, Louisiana-I Gaming, PNK (Bossier City), LLC, PNK (Lake Charles), LLC, PNK (River City), LLC, PNK Vicksburg, LLC, Washington Trotting Association, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00358 (D. Nev., February 21, 2019), was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on May 3, 2019 under Case No. 17-cv-00374. Defendants operate casinos in Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Nevada and Pennsylvania where Plaintiffs are casino employees working in these various locations. They claim that they were denied the mandated federal minimum wage and that Defendants operated an illegal tip pool for tipped employees. They seek full minimum wage for each hour worked, all wrongfully withheld tips, an equal amount of liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Jenny Foley, Esq. Marta D. Kurshumova, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1785 East Sahara, Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89104 Tel: (702) 805-8340 Fax: (702) 625-3893 E-mail:jfoley@hkm.com mkurshumova@hkm.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816) 714-7100 Fax: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Tel: (816) 781-0002 Fax: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com - and - Matthew E. Osman, Esq. Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.* OSMAN & SMAY LLP 8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330 Overland Park, KS 66210 Tel: (913) 667-9243 Fax: (866) 470-9243 E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com krickley@workerwagerights.com Defendants are represented by: Denise Drake, Esq. Jason N. W. Plowman, Esq. Travis Salmon, Esq. POLSINELLI 900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816) 395-0600, 360-4192, 753-1000 Fax: (816) 222-0847, 753-1536 Email: ddrake@polsinelli.com jplowman@polsinelli.com tsalmon@polsinelli.com - and - Mark E. Ferrario, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, Esq. 10845 Griffith Peak, Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Tel: (702) 792-3773 Fax: (702) 792-9002 Email: ferrariom@gtlaw.com PPL CORP: Bid to Remand Talen Suit to State Court Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Limited discovery is ongoing regarding the motion to remand the Talen Putative Class Action back to state court, according to PPL Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The case is styled, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PPL Corporation et al." On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm as a result of the November 2014 distribution. The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its affiliates and current and former officers and directors (Talen Putative Class Action). The plaintiffs assert claims for, among other things, fraudulent transfer, both actual and constructive; recovery against subsequent transferees; civil conspiracy; aiding and abetting tortious conduct; and unjust enrichment. They are seeking avoidance of the purportedly fraudulent transfer, unspecified damages, including punitive damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and other relief. In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division. In January 2019, the plaintiffs moved to remand the Talen Putative Class Action back to state court, and dismissed without prejudice all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the case. The parties are proceeding with limited discovery in connection with the motion to remand. PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated. It was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania. PPL CORP: Cane Run Environmental Claims Still Ongoing vs. LG&E -------------------------------------------------------------- Proceedings are currently underway regarding potential class certification in a class action complaint filed in Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) in June 2017, according to PPL Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (U.S. District Court) alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and common law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence. These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, plus costs and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory violations. Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek monetary compensation and punitive damages for property damage and diminished property values for a class consisting of residents within four miles of the Cane Run plant, which retired three coal-fired units in 2015. In their individual capacities, these plaintiffs sought compensation for alleged adverse health effects. In July 2014, the court dismissed the RCRA claims and all but one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law tort claims. In November 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint removing the personal injury claims and removing certain previously named plaintiffs. In February 2017, the U.S. District Court issued an Order dismissing PPL as a defendant and dismissing the final federal claim against LG&E. In April 2017, the U.S. District Court issued an Order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims and dismissed the case in its entirety. In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging state law nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a class of residents within one to three miles of the plant. The Company said, "Proceedings are currently underway regarding potential class certification, for which a decision may be rendered in 2019. PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter and an estimate or range of possible losses cannot be determined." PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated. It was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania. PPL CORP: Defendants Seek to Nix PPL's Suit vs. Riverstone, et al. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PPL Corporation et al. vs. Riverstone Holdings LLC, Talen Energy Corporation et al., defendants have filed motions to dismiss the complaint as amended, according to PPL Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana filed a complaint against PPL and certain of its affiliates and current and former officers and directors in the First Judicial District of the State of Montana, Lewis & Clark County (Talen Direct Action). Also on October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm as a result of the November 2014 distribution. The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its affiliates and current and former officers and directors (Talen Putative Class Action). On November 30, 2018, PPL, certain PPL affiliates, and certain current and former officers and directors (PPL plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking various forms of relief against Riverstone, Talen Energy and certain of their affiliates (Delaware Action). In the complaint, the PPL plaintiffs ask the Delaware Court of Chancery for declaratory and injunctive relief. This includes a declaratory judgment that, under the separation agreement governing the spinoff of PPL Energy Supply, all related claims that arise must be heard in Delaware; that the statute of limitations in Delaware and the spinoff agreement bar these claims at this point; that PPL is not liable for the claims in either the Talen Direct Action or the Talen Putative Class Action as PPL Montana was solvent at all relevant times; and that the separation agreement requires that Talen Energy indemnify PPL for all losses arising from the debts of Talen Montana, among other things. PPL's complaint also seeks damages against Riverstone for interfering with the separation agreement and against Riverstone affiliates for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint was subsequently amended on January 11, 2019 and March 20, 2019, including to add claims related to indemnification with respect to the Talen Direct Action and the Talen Putative Class Action (together, the Montana Actions), request a declaration that the Montana Actions are time-barred under the spinoff agreements, and allege additional facts to support the tortious interference claim. On April 19, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated. It was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania. QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS: Kerry Files Suit Over ON Merger Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- MARK KERRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., DR. SAM HEIDARI, MARK A. STEVENS, GLENDA MARY DORCHAK, JACK R. LAZAR, EDWIN B. HOOPER III, HAROLD E. HUGHES JR., and JOHN SCULL, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02535 (N.D. Cal., May 10, 2019) is an action brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of Quantenna Communications, Inc. against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), in connection with the proposed merger (the "Proposed Transaction") between Quantenna and ON Semiconductor Corporation ("ON Semiconductor"). On March 27, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $24.50 in cash for each share of Quantenna stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"). On May 3, 2019, in order to convince Quantenna shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy") with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), in violation of the Exchange Act. The materially incomplete and misleading Proxy violates the Exchange Act, asserts the complaint. The complaint relates that while touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and misleading. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by Defendants in recommending that Quantenna shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Quantenna's financial advisor, Qatalyst Partners LP ("Qatalyst") in support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders on which the Board relied. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times has been, a holder of Quantenna common stock. Quantenna designs, develops and markets advanced high-speed wireless communication solutions enabling wireless local area networking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com QVC INC: Thompson Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned KIM THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QVC, INC.; QVC ONTARIO, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVDS 1909884 was removed from the Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 15, 2019, and assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00908. The Complaint asserts six causes of action against Defendants: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (3) Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; (4) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (5) Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; and (6) Violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy L. Hix, Esq. Seyfarth Shaw LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: thix@seyfarth.com - and - Daniel Whang, Esq. Monica Rodriguez, Esq. Lara A. Levine, Esq. Seyfarth Shaw LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: dwhang@seyfarth.com morodriguez@seyfarth.com llevine@seyfarth.com RADIUS GLOBAL: Kruse Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Jill M. Kruse on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC formerly known as: Central Credit Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00909 (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Radius Global Solutions LLC provides accounts receivable and customer relations management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas M Wajda, Esq. Wajda Law Group APC 11400 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 200M Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (310) 997-0471 Fax: (866) 286-8433 Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Magistrate Narrows Claims in M. Reilly Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In MARTHA REILLY, Plaintiff, v. RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-07385-LB (N.D. Calif.), Plaintiff Martha Reilly brings this putative class action for wage-and-hour violations against her former employer Recreational Equipment, Inc. Ms. Reilly brings seven claims: 1. a claim under California Labor Code Section 226(a) for not providing accurate itemized wage statements; 2. a claim under California Labor Code Sections 558, 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 for failing to pay minimum wage by requiring employees to undergo security checks after they had clocked out at the ends of their shift without compensating them for that time; 3. a claim under California Labor Code Sections 510, 558, 1194, and 1197.1 for failing to pay overtime wages for the time employees spent undergoing security checks at the ends of their shifts and for not factoring in non-discretionary incentive pay such as bonuses into employees' rates of pay for the purposes of calculating their overtime pay, 4. a claim under California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512 for failing to provide statutorily required meal breaks by requiring employees to undergo security checks after they had clocked out for their meal breaks; 5. a claim under California Labor Code Section 226.7 for failing to provide statutorily required rest periods by requiring employees to undergo security checks after they had clocked out for their rest periods; 6. a claim under the California Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17200) based on her minimum-wage, overtime, meal-break, and rest-period allegations; and 7. a claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). REI moves to dismiss claims 2 through 6 on the grounds that Ms. Reilly does not actually plead any instances when she was forced to undergo a security check off the clock. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, grants REI's motion, dismissing claims 2 through 6. The court grants Ms. Reilly leave to amend. A full-text copy of the Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2jvdqvf from Leagle.com. Martha Reilly, Plaintiff, represented by Larry W. Lee, Diversity Law Group, P.C., Kwanporn Tulyathan, Diversity Law Group & William Lucas Marder, Esq. -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law Group, LLP. Martha Reilly, Plaintiff, represented by: Dennis Sangwon Hyun, Esq. Hyun Legal, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 Email: info@hyunlegal.com Recreational Equipment, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mia Farber, Esq. -- Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Atticus Shouyu Lee, Esq. -- Atticus.Lee@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Damien Paul DeLaney, Esq. -- Damien.DeLaney@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.. REVMD PARTNERS: Espinosa Suit Asserts BIPA Breach ------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE ESPINOSA, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. REVMD PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019L000523 filed in the 18th Judicial Circuit Court of Dupage County in Illinois on May 10, 2019, is a Class Action Complaint against Defendant for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendant required employees to use a biometric time clock system to record their time worked. The Defendant required Plaintiff and other employees to scan their fingerprints in Defendant's biometric time clock each time they started and finished working a shift, and when they clocked in and out for lunch breaks. The Defendant collected, stored, used, and transferred the unique biometric fingerprint identifiers, or information derived from those identifiers, of Plaintiff and others similarly situated without following the detailed requirements of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. As a result, Defendant violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act and compromised the privacy and security of the biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees, says the complaint. Plaintiff Espinosa was employed by Defendant as a patient account specialist from approximately February 2018 to July 2018. Defendant provides healthcare accounts receivable management services in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt Werman Salas, P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Email: sarendt@flsalaw.com dwerman@flsalaw.com SAKS INCORPORATED: Sacklow Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue the case captioned JEANNE SACKLOW, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAKS INCORPORATED, Defendant. No. 3:18-cv-00360. (M.D. Tenn.), to the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). This putative class action arises out of a data breach concerning payment cards used at Saks' stores. Fourteen named plaintiffs have brought claims for negligence; negligence per se; breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment; and violation of various state unfair competition, data breach, consumer protection, and consumer fraud statutes. Saks seeks transfer of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), which provides that, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought. In short, Saks contends the Plaintiffs' choice of the Middle District of Tennessee is entitled to little deference; that this forum lacks any real connection to the events at issue; and that most, if not all, of the potential witnesses and evidence is located in the Southern District of New York. It further argues that, for the sake of efficiency and consistency, this case should be litigated where two other class actions concerning the data breach are now pending. The Plaintiffs respond that Saks elected to be incorporated in Tennessee and that they are entitled to deference of their choice of that valid forum for a national class action. Plaintiffs do not argue that this case could not have been brought in the Southern District of New York, which is a prerequisite for transfer under Section 1404(a). Here, none of the named plaintiffs reside in Tennessee, none of the alleged events relevant to the data breach took place in Tennessee, and this is a putative class action in which the named plaintiffs seek to represent a national class of persons or sub-classes of persons across states that do not include Tennessee. Furthermore, there is no store in Tennessee owned or operated directly by Saks, making it likely that extremely few putative class members would even reside in Tennessee. The choice of the Middle District of Tennessee as the forum for this litigation is therefore entitled to less weight than in usual circumstances. The convenience of witnesses, especially non-party witnesses, is perhaps the most important factor in the transfer analysis. Saks has established through declarations that its witnesses are located in the New York City area. These witnesses include all Saks executives; all Saks employees with knowledge of information security policies and procedures; all Saks employees relevant to the data breach and Saks' response; and all third-party consultants and information security experts who discovered, analyzed, and managed the data breach for Saks. The Court therefore concludes that this factor weighs in favor of transfer. A transfer at the behest of a defendant is disfavored where it merely shifts the burden of litigating in an inconvenient forum to the plaintiff. Plaintiff have not established that it is any more inconvenient for them to litigate in New York. Five of the named plaintiffs live in New York and two live in adjacent New Jersey, and eight of them originally filed suit against Saks in New York. Again, it is important that none of the named plaintiffs lives in Tennessee. Any inconvenience that plaintiffs' counsel who are spread throughout the country and have represented that they are willing to travel to New York for discovery in any event might encounter in litigating in New York as opposed to Nashville is minimal. This factor therefore favors transfer to New York. This case involves a high-level breach of corporate systems and attendant relevant corporate policies and practices. Most of the evidence will therefore likely be derived from Saks' computer systems and corporate records, some of which may be difficult or expensive to duplicate or transfer. Saks has established that all such evidence is located in New York. Thus, this factor favors transfer. This case involves basic tort law as well as analogous state consumer protection laws. These are the types of claims that federal courts routinely and skillfully consider. The courts of the Southern District of New York are no less capable of applying the laws of Tennessee or the eight other states invoked in the Amended Complaint. Accordingly, this factor is neutral. The Plaintiffs focus on their allegations that the putative class members made purchases throughout the United States and the cyberthieves made illicit purchases throughout the United States, in contending that the scope of the case is nationwide. However, while it may be true that the data breach drew from nationwide transactions and its aftereffects were felt nationwide, the core of this case is about the data breach itself, what at Saks led to it, and what at Saks happened after it. The allegations in the Amended Complaint case therefore revolve around the data breach itself (resulting from a penetration of Saks' cyber infrastructure), the degree to which Saks's corporate policies and practices enabled the theft of purportedly protected data, and how Saks responded to the breach. Accordingly, because the "center of gravity" of this case is in New York, this factor favors transfer. When a company is incorporated in a state, there can sometimes be a compelling public interest in deciding a controversy at home. Plaintiffs argue that point here by emphasizing that Saks incorporated in Tennessee in 1919. But Plaintiffs do not explain any benefits that Saks currently receives from its incorporation or any public or local interest that is implicated by this action. While Saks is indeed a Tennessee corporation, it does not pretend to do any measurable business here that would trigger a persuasive local interest in deciding this controversy. This factor is therefore not outcome determinative. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y572oycm from Leagle.com. Jeanne Sacklow, Erika Targum, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Margo Kyler Knight, Latusha Vains, Jane Lefkowitz, Greta Moss, Hope Tafet, Debbie Carthan, Leslie Levitt-Raschella, John Cona, Cassondra Joseph, Kelly McGurn, Wendy Haggerty & Mark Wade, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony Parkhill, Barnow and Associates, P.C., Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., 1 North Lasalle Street Suite 4600, Chicago, IL 60602- 4009, Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, Daniel Tepper -- tepper@whafh.com -- Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, David A. Straite -- dstraite@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox, LLP, Erich P. Schork, Barnow and Associates, P.C., 1 North Lasalle Street Suite 4600, Chicago, IL 60602- 4009, Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Howard T. Longman, Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Saks Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth O. Gonser -- egonser@rwjplc.com -- Riley Warnock & Jacobson, PLC, Ezra Church -- ezra.church@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Gregory T. Parks -- gregory.parks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,Keane A. Barger -- kbarger@rwjplc.com -- Riley Warnock & Jacobson, Plc & Kristin Hadgis -- kristin.hadgis@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. SALLIE MAE BANK: Licznerski Suit Asserts TCPA Breach ---------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER D. LICZNERSKI, Plaintiff, v. SALLIE MAE BANK, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01179 (M.D. Fla., May 15, 2019) is a class action for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"). The Defendant, in the conduct of its business, uses one or more instrumentalities of interstate commerce or the mails, including without limitation to, electronic communication with Plaintiff. Plaintiff explicitly told Defendant to stop calling and that its communications were in violation of the TCPA and FCCPA. Despite Plaintiff's notice, Defendant continued calling Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant knowingly violated the TCPA and FCCPA. Plaintiff, therefore, seeks damages, costs and attorney's fees from Defendant for these violations. Plaintiff, Alexander D. Licznerski, is a natural person residing in Hillsborough County, Florida. Sallie Mae Bank is headquartered in Utah, and does business in the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: BRIAN L. SHRADER, ESQ. GUS M. CENTRONE, ESQ. CENTRONE & SHRADER, PLLC 612 W. Bay Street Tampa, FL 33606 Phone: (813) 360-1529 Fax: (813) 336-0832 Email: bshrader@centroneshrader.com gcentrone@centroneshrader.com SCHLUMBERGER LIFT: Magistrate OKs Protective Order in Garcia Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted a stipulated protective order and confidentiality agreement in the case captioned CRISTOBAL GARCIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. SCHLUMBERGER LIFT SOLUTIONS, LLC, SCHLUMBERGER ROD LIFT, INC., and SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORP., Case No. 1:18-cv-01261-DAD-JLT (E.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of the Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6haxcaz from Leagle.com. Cristobal Garcia, an individual, o behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff Holmes, Jeff Holmes, Esq., Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, The Blanchard Law Group, APC & Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C. Schlumberger Lift Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company & Schlumberger Rod Lift, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Heather Dawn Hearne, Esq. -- hdh@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm & William H. Payne, The Kullman Firm, pro hac vice. SELECTIVE SERVICE: Claims in Suit Over Male-Only Draft Narrowed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ELIZABETH KYLE-LABELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-5193 (ES) (JAD)(D.N.J.), Judge Esther Salas of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part Defendants Selective Service System and Donald M. Benton's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Elizabeth Kyle-LaBell is a 21-year-old female who wants to register for the military draft. She believes it is her right and duty as a United States citizen to do so, but because she is a woman, she is prohibited from registering. She brings this putative class action to challenge the constitutionality of the draft's male-only requirement. A motion to dismiss for lack of ripeness is properly brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because ripeness is a jurisdictional matter. To withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" The Court finds that (A) the Plaintiff's claims are prudentially ripe; (B) the substantive due process claim is subsumed by the equal protection claim; and (C) Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 75 (1981) does not bar the Plaintiff's equal protection claim. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the Plaintiff's substantive due process claim is dismissed with prejudice. The Defendants' motion is denied in all other respects. A full-text copy of the Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2lo9l8k from Leagle.com. ELIZABETH KYLE-LABELL, as plaintiff suing on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated & MONICA PATRICIA PINTO, also suing as a plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by MICHAEL JOHN DAHER. SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM & LAWRENCE G. ROMO, DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE, in his official capacity, Defendants, represented by ANDREW EVAN CARMICHAEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTSICE CIVIL DIVISION & MEGAN ANNE CROWLEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION. SHARP ELECTRONICS: Lammey Sues Over Defective Microwaves -------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN LAMMEY, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00048-CAR (M.D. Ga., May 13, 2019) is a class action complaint against Defendant for failing to disclose a known defect of their product, or provide the customer with a non-defective replacement product. Sharp's kitchen appliance portfolio includes multiple different types of microwaves, including microwave drawers (the "Microwaves" or the "Products"), which are the subject of this action. On its website, Sharp boasts that it has been innovating microwave cooking for decades and holds 11 patents on the Microwave Drawer platform alone. Engineered for consistency and built with the finest quality materials, great cooks trust the Microwave Drawer to deliver great results every time. Over the course of several decades, Sharp has gained the trust of consumers, who reasonably believe that Sharp products are made with quality materials, and that the Sharp products can be used safely, as intended. Sharp has offered six models for its microwave drawers, and currently offers five of those six: SMD2470AH, SMD2470AS, SMD3070AS, SMD2480CS, KB6524PS, and KB6525PS (collectively, the "Microwaves"). The complaint asserts that the Microwaves all contain a defect that makes them unreasonably dangerous, as they are susceptible to catching fire, and unsuitable for their intended use. More specifically, the Microwaves are defectively designed and/or manufactured such that, under normal and intended use, the electromagnetic waves generated by the magnetron tube are unable to properly move through the waveguide into the cooking cavity, resulting in buzzing, smoking, overheating, and eventual destruction of the magnetron, leading to scorching of the waveguide. Accordingly, the Microwaves are unreasonably dangerous and not fit for household use. However, Sharp has undertaken a deliberate and willful pattern of conduct (including taking active measures) aimed at concealing the Microwave defect from its consumers, including the Plaintiff, asserts the complaint. Sharp knew or should have known about the defect but nevertheless marketed, advertised, and sold the Microwaves without warning consumers that the Microwaves are likely to overheat and could result in buzzing, overheating of the magnetron, scorching of the waveguide, smoking, and ultimate failure. Indeed, rather than providing consumers with new, non-defective Microwaves after their Microwaves overheated, Sharp either replaced each defective Microwave with another defective Microwave, improperly denied the warranty claim, and/or forced the consumer to sign a waiver or buy an extended warranty as a remedy. As a result, Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers purchased and used Sharp's defective Microwaves when they otherwise would not have made such purchases or would not have paid as much for the defective Microwaves, says the complaint. Plaintiff Lammey is a resident and citizen of Monroe, Walton County, Georgia. Sharp is one of the largest technology companies in the world. It designs, manufactures and sells a variety of technological products, including kitchen appliances such as microwaves.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harper T. Segui, Esq. Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: 919-600-5000 Email: dan@wbmllp.com harper@wbmllp.com - and - Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Andrea Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L. Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: jtycko@tzlegal.com hzavareei@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. Adam A. Edwards, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: 865-247-0080 Fax: 865-522-0049 Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com adam@gregcolemanlaw.com SHEARER'S FOODS: Miller, Dingey Seek Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Shearer's Foods LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA), and the Ohio Constitution Art. II, Sect. 34a. The case is captioned CHRISTOPHER MILLER and DEANA DINGEY, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, vs. SHEARER'S FOODS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00924-JRA (N.D. Ohio, April 24, 2019). Plaintiff Christopher Miller and Deana Dingey allege that Shearer's Foods is engaged in the underpayment of overtime to non-exempt, hourly employees. The company has allegedly failed to account for all hours worked for the purposes of calculating overtime hours in a workweek. Shearer's Foods LLC is an Ohio limited liability company that is registered to conduct business in Ohio. The company holds itself out as a leading contract manufacturer and private label supplier for the snack industries in North America, Australia, Asia, Central and South America. It has eleven Global Food Safety Initiative-certified, state-of-the-art, geographically diverse production facilities operating in Ohio, Texas, Arkansas, Oregon, Virginia, Iowa, Minnesota, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Ontario, Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 824-5770 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com SPENCER GIFTS: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SPENCER GIFTS LLC. The case is styled as BARTLEY M. MULLEN, JR. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPENCER GIFTS LLC doing business as: SPENCER'S, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00555-MJH (W.D. Pa., May 10, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Spencer Gifts LLC, doing business as Spencer's, is a North American mall retailer with over 600 stores in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Carlson Lynch, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com SPRINT CORP: Falsified New Customer Data, Meneses Claims -------------------------------------------------------- A federal securities class action complaint has been filed against Sprint Corporation, CEO Michel Combes, and CFO Andrew Davies. The case is captioned ERICK MENESES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPRINT CORPORATION, MICHEL COMBES, ANDREW DAVIES, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03549 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2019). Plaintiff Erick Meneses brings this class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Sprint's common stock between Jan. 31, 2019 and April 16, 2019. Plaintiff Meneses accuses Sprint of misleading investors by highlighting that it had 309,000 total postpaid net additions, a widely-watched metric by Wall Street analysts, while failing to disclose that these additions were not new customers, but instead driven by free lines offered to Sprint customers and the inclusion of less valuable tablet and other non-phone devices, as well as pre- to post-paid migrations that do not represent new Sprint customers. Sprint Corporation was incorporated pursuant to the laws of Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices in Overland, Park, Kansas. It is a communications company offering a comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications products and services that are designed to meet the needs of individual consumers, businesses, government subscribers and resellers. The company's stock trades on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "S". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP 445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: 914-298-3281 Facsimile: 914-824-1561 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Jacob A. Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com jake@blockesq.com SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces Arbitration Demands on Phishing Scam Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. is facing arbitration demands from "a number of individual plaintiffs" related to the "Phishing" Scam Class Action Suits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company said, "In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two in the federal courts of California, one in the Superior Court of California and one in the federal court in the District of Colorado, each on behalf of a purported class of our current and former team members whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was inadvertently disclosed to an unauthorized third party that perpetrated an email "phishing" scam against one of our team members. "The complaints allege we failed to properly safeguard the PII in accordance with applicable law. The complaints seek damages on behalf of the purported class in unspecified amounts, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. "In June 2016, a motion was filed before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to transfer and consolidate all four of the cases to the federal court in the District of Arizona. The JPML granted the motion on October 6, 2016. On May 24, 2017, the JPML granted our motion to stay proceedings in the case pending a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the question of whether arbitration agreements like those signed by each of the named plaintiffs are enforceable. "On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis and upheld enforceability of arbitration agreements containing class action waivers, like the ones the named plaintiffs signed in this matter. "On March 1, 2019, a number of individual plaintiffs filed arbitration demands, and we expect to file our response to these arbitration demands in the second quarter of 2019. "We intend to defend these cases vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or any potential liability from, the cases." Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods, packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona. SPROUTS FARMERS: May 31 Final Hearing for Securities Suit Accord ---------------------------------------------------------------- The final approval hearing for the settlement of the Arizona securities action is scheduled for May 31, 2019, according to Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company said, "On March 4, 2016, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona against our company and certain of our directors and officers on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of our common stock in our underwritten secondary public offering which closed on March 10, 2015 (the "March 2015 Offering"). "The complaint purports to state claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on an alleged failure by our company to disclose adequate information about produce price deflation in the March 2015 Offering documents. "The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, rescission, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. "After removal to federal court, the plaintiff sought remand, which the court granted in March 2017. On May 25, 2017, our company filed a Motion to Dismiss in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona, which the court granted in part and denied in part by order entered August 30, 2017. "On August 4, 2018, we reached an agreement in principle to settle these claims. The parties' settlement agreement was granted preliminary approval by the court on January 30, 2019, with a hearing for final approval scheduled for May 31, 2019. "If approved by the court, the settlement will be funded from our directors and officer's liability insurance policy and will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements." Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods, packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona. STARKIST CO: Tuna Product not "Dolphin-Safe", Says Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Gardner, Lori Myers, Angela Cosgrove, Autumn Hessong, Robert McQuade, Colleen McQuade, James Borruso, Fidel Jamelo, Jocelyn Jamelo, Anthony Luciano, Lori Luciano, Robert Nugent, Avraham Isac Zelig, Ken Petrovcik, Megan Kiihne, and Kathleen Miller, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. STARKIST CO., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02561-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2019) alleges unjust enrichment and violations of: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), (2) California's Unfair Competition Law, (3) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, (4) the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, (5) the New York General Business Law, (6) the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (7) the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat., (8) the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat., and (9) the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. StarKist tuna has been marketed, sold, and distributed throughout the United States, including in California, since 1942. Today, StarKist is the No. 1 selling prepackaged tuna brand in the United States. Since 1990, StarKist has promised consumers that its tuna is "Dolphin- Safe." Since the introduction of the dolphin-safe policy in 1990, including the last 4 years (the "Class Period"), however, StarKist's tuna has not been "Dolphin-Safe", asserts the complaint. Unknown to consumers, substantial numbers of dolphins and other marine life are killed and harmed by the fishermen and fishing methods used to catch Defendant's tuna. Thus, Defendant's dolphin-safe label representations are false, misleading, and/or deceptive, says the complaint. Plaintiffs purchased the canned tuna products many times throughout the relevant period. StarKist Co. is corporation organized, existing, and doing business under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: PATRICIA N. SYVERSON, ESQ. MANFRED P. MUECKE, ESQ. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 798-4593 Email: psyverson@bffb.com mmuecke@bffb.com - and - ELAINE A. RYAN, ESQ. CARRIE A. LALIBERTE, ESQ. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 274-1100 Email: eryan@bffb.com claliberte@bffb.com - and - Brian D. Penny, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY P.C. 8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (484) 342-0700 Email: penny@lawgsp.com - and - Brian M. Brown, Esq. ZAREMBA BROWN PLLC 40 Wall Street, 52nd Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 380-6700 Email: bbrown@zarembabrown.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Christopher C. Gold, Esq. Bradley M. Beall, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 750-3000 Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com cgold@rgrdlaw.com bbeall@rgrdlaw.com STATE COLLECTION: Bahr Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed against State Collection Service, Inc. was transferred from Indiana Southern on May 10, 2019. The case is styled as Matthew Bahr on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. State Collection Service, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03162 (N.D. Ill., May 10, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. State Collection Service, Inc. provides collection services, such as third-party payer follow up, self-pay follow up, financial assistance, and bad debt collection to healthcare industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq. Robert W. Harrer, Esq. Chicago Consumer Law Center, P.C. 111 W. Washington St., Suite 1360 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 858-3239 Email: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com rob.harrer@cclc-law.com - and - Stacy M. Bardo, Esq. BARDO LAW, P.C. 22 West Waashington Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60602 The Defendant is represented by: Patrick D. Newman, Esq. BASSFORD REMELE, P.A. 100 South 5th Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-3000 Email: pnewman@bassford.com STATE IMPOUND: Baumert Appeals Fulton Cty. State Ct. Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- State Impound Authority appealed an April 9, 2019 order entered by Fulton County State Court Judge Hon. Eric A. Richardson, in the case captioned ANDREW BAUMERT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, v. STATE IMPOUND AUTHORITY, LLC D/B/A VISE PARKING ENFORCEMENT, LLC, Case No. 17EV004470. The case in the Court of Appeals, State of Georgia is captioned STATE IMPOUND AUTHORITY, LLC D/B/A VISE PARKING ENFORCEMENT, LLC, Appellant v. ANDREW BAUMERT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Appellee, Case No. A19I0233.[BN] The Appellant is represented by: Ms LeRyan Paige Lambert, Esq. Mr. Willie C. Ellis Jr., Esq. Ms Kimberly D. Stevens, Esq. The Appellee is represented by: Mr. ROBERT NEIL FRIEDMAN, Esq. STEEL PARTNERS: Still Faces Del. Stockholder Class Suit at Mar. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Steel Partners Holdings L.P. still defends itself against a stockholder class action in Delaware, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On December 8, 2017, a stockholder class action, captioned Sciabacucchi v. DeMarco, et al., was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by a purported former stockholder of HNH challenging the Company's acquisition, through a subsidiary, of all of the outstanding shares of common stock of HNH not already owned by the Company or any of its affiliates. The action names as defendants the former members of the HNH board of directors, the Company and SPH GP, and alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the former public stockholders of HNH in connection with the aforementioned acquisition. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Steel Partners said, "The Company is vigorously defending itself against these claims; however, the outcome of this matter is uncertain." Steel Partners Holdings L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages in industrial products, energy, defense, supply chain management, logistics, banking, and sports businesses worldwide. It operates through Diversified Industrial, Energy, and Financial Services segments. Steel Partners Holdings GP Inc. serves as the general partner of the company. The company was founded in 1990 and is based in New York, New York. TARGET CORPORATION: Faces Garcia Labor Suit in Sacramento --------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation. The case is captioned as SERGIO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00254638-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., April 17, 2019). Target Corporation operates as a general merchandise retailer in the United States. As of February 2, 2019, the company operated 1,844 stores. Target was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Isandra Fernandez, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 TASKUS USA: Moreno Seeks Damages for FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------- SERGIO MORENO AND RYAN MOSEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TASKUS USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00504 (W.D. Tex., May 10, 2019) seeks damages against TaskUs for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiffs allege that TaskUs violated the FLSA by failing to pay Team Leads minimum wage for all hours worked, and by failing to pay Team Leads time-and-one-half of their regular rate for all hours worked over forty in a workweek. Plaintiffs are former Team Leads for TaskUs. TaskUs USA, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: LAWRENCE MORALES II, ESQ. ALLISON S. HARTRY, ESQ. THE MORALES FIRM, P.C. 6243 IH-10 West, Suite 132 San Antonio, TX 78201 Phone: (210) 225-0811 Facsimile: (210) 225-0821 Email: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com ahartry@themoralesfirm.com THOR MOTOR: Underpaid Workers' Overtime Wages, Hayes Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER HAYES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THOR MOTOR COACH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00375 (N.D. Ind., May 10, 2019) is brought individually and on behalf of a putative class and collective action members and seeks all damages available under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute, including unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs and expenses, and post-judgment interest. In connection with its operations, Defendant employs non-exempt manufacturing employees. Hayes was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt manufacturing employee in this District and Division. Plaintiff and the putative class and collective action members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as employees of Defendant but were not paid all overtime premium compensation owed to them under the FLSA by Defendant, asserts the complaint. The complaint relates that Defendant improperly calculated Plaintiff's and the putative class and collective action members' regular rate for purposes of computing overtime compensation by including both productive and unpaid non-productive hours in the regular rate calculation in violation of the FLSA. This improper calculation resulted in the dilution of Plaintiff's and the putative class and collective action members' overtime rate, which ultimately resulted in the underpayment of overtime compensation, adds the complaint. Hayes is a former employee of Defendant with dates of employment being approximately March 2015 through December 2017. Defendant is in the business of manufacturing motorhomes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry St. Terre Haute, IN 47807 Phone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 Email: kodras@hkmlawfirm.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Nilges Draher LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com TOKYO ELECTRIC: Court Junks Navy Crew's Claims Under Int'l Comity ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned LINDSAY R. COOPER; et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOKYO ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC.; et al., Defendants, Case No. 12cv3032-JLS (JLB)(S.D.Calif.), Judge Janis Samartino of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order granting the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants General Electric and Tokyo Electric Power Company. Under California's choice-of-law governmental interest test, the Court finds that Japanese law applies to this case. Further, the Court interprets the Japanese Compensation Act to channel all liability from third parties to the Nuclear Operator. Because GE is not an Operator and no exception applies, the Compensation Act precludes all liability against GE. Thus, the Court grants GE's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses all of the Plaintiffs' claims against GE pursuant to the Compensation Act. As the Ninth Circuit previously made clear, this is a "close case" with competing interests pointing in both directions. After further developments, and with the benefit of the Ninth Circuit's guidance, the Court has now reweighed its prior ruling on international comity. The location of the conduct in question, as well as the nationality of the parties, continues to weigh against dismissal; the nature of the conduct and public policy interests remains neutral. Now, however, after considering the Japanese and United States governments' views, the Court finds that the foreign and public policy interests weigh toward dismissal. And having conducted a choice-of-law analysis and having determined that Japanese law applies, this factor also weighs in favor of dismissal. On balance, the Court concludes that the factors now weigh in favor of dismissal. Accordingly, the Court grants TEPCO's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiffs' case against TEPCO under international comity. A full-text copy of the Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y44gf34r from Leagle.com. Lindsay R. Cooper, James R. Sutton, Kim Gieseking, Charles A. Yarris, Robert M. Miller, Christopher G. Bittner, Eric Membrila, Judy Goodwin, Jennifer L. Micke, John W. Seelbach, Maurice D. Enis, Jaime L. Plym, Nathan J. Piekutowski, Carolyn A. White, Louie Viernes, Michael L. Sebourn, K.S., an infant by his father and natural guardian Michael L. Sebourn, Christian M. Ebueng, Paul J. Encinias, Daniel E. Hair, Adam W. Krutzler, David K. Malone, Robert Seligman, Eloi A. Whiteman, Jason D. Henry, Nellie Allen-Logan, Jami Beschorner, Nathan Canche, Nathan Criswell, Jason Troy Friel, Oscar Gonzalez, David Hahn, James Jackson, Jarrett Brady Johnston, Jonathan Medina, Adam Mintz, Mallory K. Morrow, William Netherton, Michelle Oden, Donald Rairigh, Christopher Rickard, Andrew Rivera, Steven Ray Simmons, Akeem Smith, Justin Spencer, Alan Spurling, Angel Torres, Anthony Garcia & Chad Yarbrough, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Cabral Bonner, Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner, Catharine Elizabeth Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, Charles A. Bonner, Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner, John Reid Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, pro hac vice & Paul C. Garner, c/o Brooks & Associates. John & Jane Does 1-70,000, Plaintiff, represented by Catharine Elizabeth Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, Charles A. Bonner, Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner, John Reid Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, pro hac vice & Adam Cabral Bonner, Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner. Jasmine Allen, Rhonda Anbert, Susan Ash, Jinky M.A., individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Charliemagne T.A., J.C.A., a minor by his mother as guardian ad litem Jinky M.A., J.A., a minor by his mother as guardian ad litem Jinky M.A., Dana Austin, Renar Awa, Josh Bane, Aramis Barrios, Trevor Beck, Markus Begay, Jordan Benoit, Jordan Bettencourt, Brett A. Bingham, Gunnar Borthick, Kenneth Cleo Boswell, James P. Bowen, Matthew Bradley, Nicolas Brewton, Nicolaus Brooks, Casey Brucklacher, Rebecca Brunet, Gerardo Bruing, Robin Calcaterra, Carlisi, Courtney Carmichael, Matthew Cartwright, Wayne Cassar, Fabian Cervantes, Melvin A. Chamberlain, Terance Chapman, William Chapman, Jr., Annmarie Chessari, David Chitwood, George Cobb, Lori Lynn Cody, Keondice W Cook, Angela Crabtree, Chad Croft, Brian Cross, Nicolas Crouch, Thomas Culberson, Vicent Curci, Honda Dagan, James Darnell, Janelle Darnell, Jason Dasilva, John Davis, Mark Decasa, Nichole M. Decatur, Martin Delgardillo, Tina Dibernardo, Brandon Dockery, J. D., a minor by his father as guardian ad litem Jeremy D., Jeremy D., Christian Doerr, Ian W. Dove, Jesse Dunn, Christina Duvall, Christian Joy Nagui Ebueng, Angel Escribano, Seth Eslin, Nicholas J. Feller, Kyle E. Felt, Teri Forza, Joel Fudge, Paul Gabby, Shane Gallagher, Zach Garner, John Oliver Gooch, IV, Kate Grace, Jennifer Guana, M. H., a minor by Allison D. Eyring her mother as guardian ad litem, Andrew Hajny, Robert Harewood, Daniel Patrick Harren, Chad Harris, Robert C. Hartage, Tiffany Hartman, Nicholas Helmstadt, Ashton Hemphill, Erin Herring, Cora E. Hill, Chad Holt, Neil Hopkins, Dylan Imgram, Nick Inca, Jedidiah Irons, Gerardo Irving, Blake Isaacs, Theodore H., The Estate of, by Manuel Leslie as the administrator of the estate of Theodore H., Joanna Iloilo, Darius Jackson, Jessica Jackson, Christian A. Jessup, William Jones, Winston Jones, Leon Julian, Charles D. Kaiser, Daniel Kregstein, Zackary Kube, Shane M. Langnes, Daniel Lawvier, Julian Leon, Mary Lokka, Alyssa Lopez, Zackery Louvers, Christopher Lowe, Alejandro Lusk, Cora Mae, Billy Markham, Alex Matin, Alfred Mcallister, Dianna Mccants, Thomas Mccants, Cheneil Mccarter, Tyler Mcdonald, Petina Mcintosh, Ryan Menendez, Michael Mesigh, Samy Mohanie, Joel Monsalud, Leticia Morales, Kevin Morris, Colin Morrison, Timothy Muis, Mark Newman, Officer Daniel Olsen, Anthony J. Yovanovic, Jonathan Zavitz, William Zeller, Michael Zitella, Mike Tisoy Orman, Christopher Peterson, Matthew Peterson, Alyssa Petterway, Keith Pottratz, Daniel Pretto, Ashley Ramirez, Tyler Ray Randrup, Susan Rodriquez, Branden Rucker, W. Rushby, Erica Ryan, David Sanchez, Dane Santo, Daisy M. Sarslow, Robert Seeligman, Benito G. Serentas, Jr., Kelli Serio, Christopher Shamrell, Michael B. Shannon, Ryan Sivels, Joshua C. Smiley, Brandon Smith, Frances Fister Stoga, Byron Sy, Kelly Tannehill, Nigel Thompson, Chad Thorton, Michael Timko, Patricia Totemeier, James Trice, Darrel Usry, Mark Valdez, Osvaldo Vera, Kailee Victrum, Andrew Vodopija, Andrew Vrooman, Skyler Steven Warnock, Tawny Watson, Timothy J. Wendal, Ian Lee Wheaton, Tim White, Edward Joseph Wickle, Patrick Wight, Kristian William, Tim Woelky, Justin Wommack, Ronald Wright & Kiochi Yamazaki, Plaintiffs, represented by Catharine Elizabeth Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, Charles A. Bonner, Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner & John Reid Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, pro hac vice. Adam Armenta, Plaintiff, represented by Catharine Elizabeth Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, John Reid Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, pro hac vice & Paul C. Garner, c/o Brooks & Associates. Ryan S. Brown, Robby Canlas, Joshua Harrigan, Robert Lehrman, Nicole Look Fang & Jon Neumann, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles A. Bonner, Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner. A.G., an infant by her mother and natural guardian Kim Gieseking, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Cabral Bonner, Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner, Charles A. Bonner, Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner & Paul C. Garner, c/o Brooks & Associates. Toshiba, Defendant, represented by Catharine Elizabeth Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP & John Reid Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, pro hac vice. TOYOTA MOTOR: Loo Sues over Transmission Defects in 2018 Camry -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. for violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. The case is captioned JAIME LOO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00750 (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2019). On behalf of all similarly situated persons in the United States who purchased or leased a 2018 Toyota Camry that was designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased by Toyota, Loo also brings this action against Toyota for breaches of express warranty, written warranty and implied warranties pursuant to California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The 2018 Toyota Camry contains one or more transmission defects that cause, among other things, rough or delayed shifting, significantly delayed acceleration, hesitation, loss of power, and/or jerking. The defects have been documented to occur without warning during vehicle operation and pose an extreme and unreasonable safety hazard to drivers, passengers, and pedestrians. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business located at 6565 Headquarters Dr. Plano, Texas and doing business in California and throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. Danielle L. Manning, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - Mark S. Greenstone, Esq. GREENSTONE LAW APC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9156 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Glasgo Files Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as MICHAEL GLASGO individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Uber Technologies, Inc. a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02486-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 10, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Uber Technologies Inc. is an American multinational transportation network company offering services that include peer-to-peer ridesharing, ride service hailing, food delivery, and a bicycle-sharing system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq. Desmond Law Firm 5070 Highway A1A Ste D Vero Beach, FL 32963-1229 Phone: (772) 234-5150 Fax: (772) 231-0300 Email: ld@desmondlawfirm.com - and - Sean Martin Holas, Esq. Scott David Owens, Esq. Scott D. Owens, P.A. 3800 S Ocean Dr Ste 235 Hollywood, FL 33019-2930 Phone: (954) 589-0588 Fax: (954) 337-0666 Email: sean@scottdowens.com scott@scottdowens.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam J. Hunt, Esq. Morrison & Foerster, LLP-New York 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019-9601 Phone: (212) 336-4341 Fax: (212) 468-7900 Email: adamhunt@mofo.com - and - Brandon T. White, Esq. Edward M. Mullins, Esq. Reed Smith, LLP 1001 Brickell Bay Dr Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (786) 747-0200 Fax: (786) 747-0299 Email: bwhite@reedsmith.com emullins@reedsmith.com - and - Tiffany Cheung, Esq. Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 268-7000 Fax: (415) 268-7522 Email: tcheung@mofo.com UNIFIN INC: Pfeiffer Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Yaakov Pfeiffer individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Unifin, Inc., Cach LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02775 (E.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Unifin Inc is a debt collection agency and is a full service BPO and Accounts Receivable Management firm licensed and bonded nationally.[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 UNITED AMERICAN: Faces Miholich Suit for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------ KYLE MIHOLICH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00915-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal., May 15, 2019) seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently and/or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. At all times relevant, Plaintiff did not have a business relationship with UAIC and Plaintiff's telephone number was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. On April 26, 2019, at approximately 1:55 p.m., UAIC called Plaintiff on his cellular telephone. The prerecorded voice call was impersonal in nature, seeking insurance agents to sell insurance products, says the complaint. Plaintiff Mr. Miholich is a citizen and resident of the State of California, County of San Diego. UAIC is a health insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com nicholas@kazlg.com - and - Alex S. Madar, Esq. MADAR LAW CORPORATION 14410 Via Venezia Apt 1404, San Diego, CA 92129-1666 Phone: (925) 548--5322 Email: alex@madarlaw.net UNITED STATES: Court Stays Thakkar Suit --------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order staying the case captioned DR. VICKY INDRAVADAN THAKKAR, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, L. FRANCIS CISSNA, DISTRICT DIRECTOR DENIS RIORDAN, FIELD OFFICER DIR. MIKE McCLEARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, SECRETARY JAMES M. MATTIS, UNDERSECRETARY ROBERT WILKIE, Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-cv-11323-MPK. (D. Mass.). In this case, a non-citizen without permanent residency, who enlisted in the United States Army and applied for United States citizenship, alleges that the Department of Defense (the DOD), the Department of Homeland Security (the DHS), and certain of their sub-agencies and agency heads breached his enlistment contract and violated various statutes and constitutional provisions by stalling the processing of his citizenship application. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or, In the Alternative, Stay the Case (#14), asserting that Plaintiff's suit is barred because he is already a member of a previously-filed class action, Nio v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 17-cv-0998 (ESH) (D.D.C. filed May 24, 2017. The Defendants argue that, in addition to being barred by Nio, the Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, estoppel, and violation of the statutory right to naturalize should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6). Although the Plaintiff's claims are not precisely the same as the claims in Nio, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's complaint should be either dismissed or stayed, pending the District of Columbia's resolution of Nio, pursuant to the first-to-file rule. It is undisputed that Nio was the first-filed action. Turning to the other two factors, the similarity of the parties and the similarity of the issues, other federal district courts have noted that the first-to-file rule does not require strict identity of the parties, but rather substantial similarity. Therefore, when a suit is related to a class action like Nio, the classes, and not the class representatives, are compared. Thus, courts will compare the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint with the class definition to determine whether the plaintiff meets the class definition's requirements. Applying these principles, the Northern District of California concluded in Wang that the Nio class definition applied to the plaintiff, Qi Wang, a Chinese citizen who was part of the MAVNI program and made claims similar to those of Plaintiff here. Like members of the Nio class, and Plaintiff in the present case, Wang alleged that although he had enlisted in the Selected Reserve through MAVNI before October 13, 2017, served honorably by participating in at least one Selected Reserve drill period, received an N-426 certifying his honorable service, and submitted a Form N-400 naturalization application to USCIS, the processing of his naturalization application had stalled. The parties in the present case are sufficiently similar to the parties in Nio such that the first-to-file rule applies. The Plaintiff, like many of the other class members in Nio, along with the plaintiffs in both Wang (Wang, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157405) and Gampala, (Gampala v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 18-cv-02303-JSC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168328, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018)) enlisted in the Selected Reserve through MAVNI before October 13, 2017; served honorably in the U.S. military by participating in at least one Selected Reserve drill period; received an executed Form N-426 certifying his honorable service; submitted an N-400 Application for Naturalization to USCIS; and finally, is having the processing or final adjudication of his naturalization application delayed or denied due to the DOD's enhanced security screenings. The DHS, USCIS, the DOD, and their officials are named Defendants in both cases. While various other field officers are also named as the Defendants here but not in Nio, their presence as the Defendants does not affect the character of the present suit. As the Northern District of California explained in Gampala, USCIS would be compelled to adjudicate Plaintiff's naturalization application, regardless of whether he prevailed as a single plaintiff in the present case or as a class member in Nio. Like the Nio class action members, Wang brought claims under the APA and sought to obtain mandamus, an order equitably estopping the defendants from withholding his naturalization application, and declaratory, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to compel and enjoin defendants to comply with their statutory obligations. Holding that the issues raised in Wang's complaint were sufficiently similar to the issues raised in Nio, the Northern District of California reasoned that both Wang and the Nio class members had the ultimate end goal, namely, the timely processing of their naturalization applications, and both cases turned on whether the DHS, the DOD, and various agency heads and field officers violated their statutory obligations by imposing additional requirements and holds on their naturalization applications. The Plaintiff and the class members in Nio seek the same relief, and both cases turn on similar determinations of fact and attempt to resolve similar legal issues. The Plaintiff does not allege the same exact claims as the Nio class members. He alleges various additional claims, including violation of the statutory right to naturalize, breach of contract, and equitable estoppel. At base, however, the Plaintiff, like the Nio class members and the plaintiffs in Wang, Gampala, and Hu (Hu v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 4:17-cv-02363-AGF, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39856, at *12 (E.D)), challenges whether the DOD can implement stricter military security screenings and whether USCIS can hold naturalization applications pending the outcome of those enhanced security screenings. While Plaintiff maintains he is not sufficiently similar to the MAVNI enlistees in Nio because he is a medical MAVNI, and the Nio lawsuit appears to involve language MAVNIs, who are subject to different background checks than he is, Defendants accurately point out that the parties in Nio explicitly agreed that the Nio class included `DTP medical and language Selected Reserve MAVNI soldiers. Accordingly, the issues both cases raise are "substantially similar" such that the first-to-file rule applies. The Court concludes that staying the Plaintiff's claims for mandamus (Count I); violations of the APA (Count II); constitutional injury pursuant to the Fifth Amendment (Count III); deprivation of the statutory right to naturalize (Count IV); equitable estoppel (Count VI); declaratory relief (Count VII); and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief (Count VIII) is the appropriate remedy. Staying these claims is consistent with Northern District of California's decisions in Wang, Gampala and Hu. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5z3487s from Leagle.com. Dr. Vicky Indravadan Thakkar, Plaintiff, represented by: Margaret D. Stock, Esq. Cascadia Cross Border Law Group, LLC 4141 B Street Suite 205 Anchorage, AK 99503 -- and -- Laura Murray-Tjan, Esq. Federal Immigration Appeals Project UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, L. Francis Cissna, District Director Denis Riordan, Field Office Dir. Mike McCleary, U.S. Department of Defense, Secretary James M Mattis & Under Secretary Robert Wilkie, Defendants, represented by Jessica P. Driscoll, United States Attorney's Office MA. UNITED STATES: Hernandez Files Suit v. Homeland Security -------------------------------------------------------- Jose Alberto Hernandez On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), Unit Chief ICE/ERO Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), ICE/ERO Director California Field Office, Respondents, Case No. 3:19-cv-00894-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 10, 2019) The nature of suit is stated as Mandamus & Other for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. United States Secretary of Homeland Security is the head of the United States Department of Homeland Security, the body concerned with protecting the U.S. and the safety of U.S. citizens.[BN] The Petitioner appears pro se: Jose Alberto Hernandez, Esq. 827 Forrest Avenue Gadsden, AL 35901 Phone: 094-447-896 Etowah County Detention Center The Respondents are represented by: US Attorney CV, Esq. US Attorneys Office Southern District of California 880 Front Street, Suite 6253 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 557-5662 Fax: (619) 557-7122 Email: Efile.dkt.civ@usdoj.gov US STEEL: Oklahoma Pension Plan Sues over Falsely Inflated Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against United States Steel Corporation and its senior officers and/or directors for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act. The case is captioned OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, MARIO LONGHI, DAVID B. BURRITT, AND DAN LESNAK, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00470-CB (W.D. Pa., April 24, 2019). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading; and engaged in acts, practices and a course of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon Plaintiff and the Class, in violation of Sec. 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Allegedly, the market price of U.S. Steel securities had been artificially and falsely inflated by the misleading statements that were released by the company and its executives. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System is a defined benefit pension plan based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. It manages approximately $2.7 billion in assets on behalf of its retirees. It has purchased U.S. Steel securities with artificially inflated prices. U.S. Steel is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The company's common stock trades on the NYSE under the symbol X. U.S. Steel, an integrated steel producer of flat-rolled and tubular products with major production operations in North America and Europe, supplies customers throughout the world primarily in the automotive, consumer, industrial, and oil country tubular goods markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Nancy A Kulesa, Esq. Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq. Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com nkulesa@zlk.com sbartone@zlk.com gpotrepka@zlk.com - and - Vincent Coppola, Esq. PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC, LLC 513 Court Place Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8844 Facsimile: (412) 281-4740 WAL-MART INC: Krauss Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned HOPE KRAUSS, aka, DEONTE KRAUSS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00245485 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 10, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00369. Plaintiff alleges that Walmart violated a host of California employment-related laws, including California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law (California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron T. Winn, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2900 San Diego, CA 92101-4681 Phone: 619.744.2200 Email: atwinn@duanemorris.com WORLDMARK: Timeshare Buyers Directed to Amend Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied, with leave to amend, the motion to remand to state court the case captioned TERINA CLARK & BRYAN CLARK, individually and as Private Attorney Generals on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. WORLDMARK, THE CLUB, et al., Defendants, No. 1:18-cv-01661-LJO-JLT (E.D. Calif.). This case involves a putative class action initially filed by Plaintiffs Terina and Bryan Clark on May 10, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Kern. The Class in this matter consists of all individuals "who have 1) been sold a timeshare in California by Defendants through individuals or entities not licensed to sell real estate or arrange financing for real estate purchases in California and 2) have been told by Defendants that they have earned 'equity' on the purchase of timeshare points." The Plaintiffs may file any amended complaint clarifying the allegations regarding in-state Defendants' conduct. The Court held that while the local controversy exception is non-jurisdictional, where it applies remand is non-discretionary, citing Visendi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 733 F.3d 863, 869 (9th Cir. 2013). Therefore, in the interests of justice and judicial efficiency, the Court will defer ruling on the motion to dismiss until it determines whether the exercise of jurisdiction is proper. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is stayed. If the Plaintiffs elect not to amend the complaint, the Court will proceed to rule on the motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Memorandum Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yynlfy75 from Leagle.com. Terina Clark, individually and as Private Attorney Generals on behalf of the general public & Bryan Clark, individually and as Private Attorney Generals on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert D. Bedinger, US Consumer Attorneys, P.A. WorldMark, The Club, a California Corporation, Wyndham Resort Development Corporation, an Oregon Corporation & Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, represented by Elizabeth Marie Treckler, Esq. -- etreckler@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Michael R. Matthias, Esq. -- mmatthias@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP. WPX ENERGY: Appeal Pending on Class Status Denial in Nevada Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the denial of motions for class certification in a class action in the Nevada District Court remains pending, according to WPX Energy, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court granted the Company's joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 10, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the In re: Western States Wholesale Antitrust Litigation, holding that the Natural Gas Act does not preempt the plaintiffs' state antitrust claims and reversing the summary judgment previously entered in favor of the defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Defendants' writ of certiorari. On April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the state antitrust claims are not preempted by the federal Natural Gas Act. On March 7, 2016, the putative class plaintiffs in several of the cases filed their motions for class certification. On March 30, 2017, the court denied the motions for class certification, which decision was appealed on June 20, 2017. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. On May 24, 2016, in Reorganized FLI Inc. v. Williams Companies, Inc., the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety, and an agreed amended judgment was entered by the court on January 4, 2017. Reorganized FLI, Inc. appealed this decision and on March 27, 2018, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the MDL Court. The parties have filed numerous motions for summary judgment, reconsideration and remand. The Company said, "Because of the uncertainty around pending unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the purported classes and other related matters, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure at this time." WPX Energy, Inc., an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company, engages in the exploitation and development of unconventional properties in the United States. The company was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. WPX ENERGY: Continues to Defend Natural Gas Purchasers Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ WPX Energy, Inc. continues to defend itself against civil suits based on allegations of manipulating published gas price indices, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company is currently a defendant in class action litigation and other litigation originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin and brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in those states. These cases were transferred to the federal court in Nevada. In 2008, the court granted summary judgment in the Colorado case in favor of the Company and most of the other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack of standing. On January 8, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of the Colorado dismissal and entered judgment in the Company's favor. On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the orders denying class certification and remanded to the MDL Court. On September 7, 2018, those plaintiffs filed a motion seeking remand to the originally filed district courts of Missouri, Kansas and Wisconsin. On October 23, 2018, a settlement in principle with the Kansas and Missouri class claimants was reached. The written settlement agreement has been finalized, and a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement filed with the Court. In the Wisconsin class action, defendants' motion for entry of their proposed order denying class certification remains pending, along with the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the originally filed district court. WPX Energy, Inc., an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company, engages in the exploitation and development of unconventional properties in the United States. The company was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. WYETH CONSUMER: Engram Files Suit in New York for Fraud -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wyeth Consumer Healthcare LLC. The case is styled as Clinton Engram individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wyeth Consumer Healthcare LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02886 (E.D. N.Y., May 15, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Wyeth Consumer Healthcare Inc. engages in the research and development, manufacture, and sale of non-prescription pharmaceutical products in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq. Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Fax: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1MM Medical Expenses Award Reinstated ------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reported that a a Louisiana appeals court has reinstated a $1 million jury award for medical expenses as part of a nearly $3 million verdict in a suit accusing two shipping companies of causing mesothelioma. Jerry Craft appealed the jury's award of $1,600,000 in general damages and the judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") granted by the trial court in favor of Crowley Marine Services, Inc.'s (formerly known as Delta Steamship Lines, Inc.) and James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation's (formerly known as New Orleans Stevedore), which struck the jury's award of $1,000,000 in future medical expenses. The Appellees also appeal the trial court's judgment denying its JNOV motion as to the jury's finding of negligence. The appeals court said that while it acknowledges that Mr. Craft has substantially suffered since his diagnosis, it did not find the jury abused its discretion. The jury awarded Mr. Craft $1,600,000 in general damages, which included $1,000,000 in past and future physical pain and suffering; $250,000 in past and future mental pain and suffering; $250,000 in past and future physical disability; $100,000 in past and future loss of enjoyment of life; and $360,000 in past medical expenses. The record indicates that Mr. Craft's medical bills at the time of trial totaled about $360,000. The record also supports that Mr. Craft has undergone several procedures and has continually received chemotherapy treatments since his diagnosis. In Louisiana, it is a well-established rule that, "[b]efore a Court of Appeal can disturb an award made by a [fact finder], the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making its award. The jury, as the fact finder in this matter, allocated amounts it deemed appropriate for damages. Thus, the appeals court did not find that the jury abused its discretion when it awarded Mr. Craft $1,6000,000 in general damages and decline to disturb the jury's award. The appeals case is JERRY CRAFT, v. PORTS AMERICA GULFPORT, INC., ET AL., No. 2018-CA-0814 (La. App.). A full-text copy of the May 8, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4lff4gu from Leagle.com. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Christopher C. Colley, Esq. David Cannella, Esq. Jeremiah S. Boling, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 2600 CitiPlace Drive, Suite 400 Baton Rouge, LA 70810 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Kevin J. LaVie, Esq. Robert John Barbier, Esq. Meredith W. Blanque, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR LLP 365 Canal Street, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70130-6534 Email: kevin.lavie@phelps.com robert.barbier@phelps.com -- and -- Gus David Oppermann, V, Esq. Charles Douglas Wheat, Esq. WHEAT OPPERMANN PLLC 848 Heights Blvd. Houston, TX 77007 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 229 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Colgate-Palmolive Company has 229 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "The Company has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder products that were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos. Most of these actions involve a number of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including suppliers of asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain asbestos. "As of March 31, 2019, there were 229 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 239 cases as of December 31, 2018. During the three months ended March 31, 2019, 37 new cases were filed and 47 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal or settlement. The value of settlements was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the Company's results of operations for the quarter ended March 31, 2019." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/Q49R2L ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $28MM Aero-Related Costs at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, had accruals of US$28 million as of March 31, 2019, for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies ("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products. "As of March 31, 2019, Aearo and/or other companies that previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, coal mine dust, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. "As of March 31, 2019, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, had accruals of US$28 million for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims. This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of Aearo's probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims that may be filed against Aearo approaching the year 2050. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the "Payor Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of US$100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/2dF1PR ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $954MM for Respirator Suits at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company had an accrual of US$954 million as of March 31, 2019, for liabilities associated with respirator mask and asbestos cases (excluding those related to Aearo Technologies), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "The Company regularly conducts a comprehensive legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities. The Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims, and (iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve claims, (collectively, the "Claims Data"). As part of its comprehensive legal review, the Company regularly provides the Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs. The third party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend and resolve pending and future claims. The Company uses these estimates to develop its best estimate of probable liability. "Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions underlying the Company's accrual, including, the number of future claims, the nature and mix of those claims, the average cost of defending and resolving claims, and in maintaining trial readiness (ii) trial and appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure applicable to these claims, and (iv) the financial viability of other co-defendants and insurers. "As a result of the settlements-in-principle of the coal mine dust lawsuits, the Company's assessment of other current and expected coal mine dust lawsuits (including the costs to resolve all current and expected coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia), its review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, and the cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, the Company increased its accruals in the first quarter of 2019 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by US$313 million pre-tax, or US$238 million after tax (US$0.40 per diluted share). In the first quarter of 2019, the Company made payments for legal fees and settlements of US$32 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation. "As of March 31, 2019, the Company had an accrual for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of US$954 million, up US$281 million from the accrual at December 31, 2018. This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims that may be filed against the Company approaching the year 2050. The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of liabilities. "As of March 31, 2019, the Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was US$4 million. The Company continues to seek coverage under the policies of certain insolvent and other insurers. Once those claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/2dF1PR ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 2,335 Claimants at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company remains a defendant in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,335 individual claimants as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. "The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. Over the past twenty years, the Company has prevailed in fourteen of the fifteen cases tried to a jury (including the lawsuits in 2018). In 2018, 3M received a jury verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in California state court in February and the other in Massachusetts state court in December – both involving allegations that 3M respirators were defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs against asbestos fibers. In April 2018, a jury in state court in Kentucky found 3M's 8710 respirators failed to protect two coal miners from coal mine dust and awarded compensatory damages of approximately US$2 million and punitive damages totaling US$63 million. In August 2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company has appealed. During March and April 2019, the Company agreed in principle to settle a substantial majority of the coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for US$340 million, including the US$65 million jury verdict in April 2018 in the Kentucky case currently on appeal. "The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products. Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by medically unimpaired claimants." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/2dF1PR ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,500 Pending Claims at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to defend approximately 1,500 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a predecessor of Meritor, along with many other companies, has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. There were approximately 1,500 and 1,400 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many other companies, as defendants at March 31, 2019 and September 30, 2018, respectively. "A significant portion of the claims do not identify any Rockwell products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell products, and past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never identify any of Rockwell products. Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants. For those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/DxSM4X ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had US$100MM Reserves at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., had reserves of US$100 million for asbestos-related liabilities at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a predecessor of Meritor, along with many other companies, has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. There were approximately 1,500 and 1,400 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many other companies, as defendants at March 31, 2019 and September 30, 2018, respectively. "The company engaged a third-party advisor with extensive experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to conduct a study to estimate its potential undiscounted liability for pending and future asbestos-related claims as of September 30, 2018. Management continuously monitors the underlying claims data and experience, for the purpose of assessing the appropriateness of the assumptions used to estimate the liability. "As of September 30, 2018, the estimated probable range of equally likely possibilities of the company's obligation for asbestos-related claims over the next 41 years is US$103 million to US$186 million. Based on the information contained in the actuarial study, and all other available information considered, management concluded that no amount within the range of potential liability was more likely than any other and, therefore, recorded a liability at the low end of the range. The company recognized a liability for pending and future claims over the next 41 years of US$100 million as of March 31, 2019 and US$103 million as of September 30, 2018. "AM has insurance coverage that management believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance retentions, for a significant portion of these claims. The insurance receivables for Rockwell asbestos-related liabilities totaled US$66 million and US$68 million as of March 31, 2019 and September 30, 2018, respectively. "The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and estimates derived from currently known facts. All such estimates of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to predict. The future litigation environment for Rockwell could change significantly from its past experience, due, for example, to changes in the mix of claims filed against Rockwell in terms of plaintiffs' law firm, jurisdiction and disease; legislative or regulatory developments; the company's approach to defending claims; or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants. Estimated recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies. If the assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on the company, could differ materially from current estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial condition and results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/DxSM4X ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had $366MM Reserve at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Global Holdings Inc. has asbestos reserve of US$366 million at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation (Riley). The amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate from period to period. "From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance of Nathan. "During the most recent annual update of this estimate completed during the June 2018 quarter, it was determined that the liability for Ashland asbestos-related claims should be decreased by US$8 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$366 million at March 31, 2019 compared to US$380 million at September 30, 2018." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/XaY6v5 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds $33MM Jury Award in Finch -------------------------------------------------------- Angela Childers, writing for Business Insurance, reported that a district court upheld a nearly $33 million jury award granted to the widow of a man who died from mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. In Finch v. Covil Corp., the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied the defendant's motion for a new trial on damages on Wednesday, holding that there was no reason to set aside the verdict on liability. After Franklin Finch, a longtime employee of a tire factory in Wilson, North Carolina, died from mesothelioma, his widow, Amy Finch, sued Covil Corp., a pipe insulation company that went out of business in 1991 and had sold virtually all of the insulation, including the pipe insulation, used during the construction of the tire plant. Mr. Fitch, who worked at the plant from 1975 until 1995 as a mold changer where insulated steam pipe led to and from the presses. More than 7,000 feet of asbestos-containing pipe insulation remained in the plant 15 years after its construction. His widow filed a lawsuit against Covil alleging state law negligence and failure to warn. The case was tried in October 2018, and a jury awarded Ms. Fitch $32.7 million in damages. Covil argued that she failed to present sufficient evidence to support the verdict on liability and argued that the jury's verdict was excessive. The district court, however, denied Covil's motion, holding that Ms. Fitch offered extensive direct and circumstantial evidence that Covil sold asbestos-containing products to the tire factory at a time when it knew or should have known the products were dangerous to human health, and that the exposure was the proximate cause of Mr. Fitch's death. The court held Ms. Fitch presented evidence that Mr. Fitch worked in close proximity to the pipes, routinely bumped into them, which caused a release of dust, and that air concentrations of asbestos in the factory were high. She also presented evidence that Mr. Fitch went through months of hospitalizations, surgeries, complications and a colostomy before he died and found that Covil had a full and fair opportunity to challenge Ms. Fitch's arguments on the merits. The court also found that she presented sufficient evidence that the company had information by the mid-1960s that asbestos was hazardous and caused mesothelioma, but started selling asbestos-containing pipe insulation to the tire factory in 1973 without providing warnings. "The fact that Covil lost and the jury returned a large verdict is explained by the evidence, not by passion or prejudice," the court said, and denied Covil's motions. Attorneys in the case did not immediately respond to requests for comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 56,000 Claims at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had 56,000 outstanding claims related to asbestos matters as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown Cork") is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963. Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork. "Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs. "In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive application. The Company cautions that the limitations of the statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be upheld. "In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor's assets. "In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June 2003. The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003. "In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The legislation, which applies to future and, with the exception of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming, pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its claims defense strategy. "The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have a material impact on the Company." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/7FzvSl ASBESTOS UPDATE: Decades Old Asbestos Cases in V.I. Inch Forward ---------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Ellis, writing for The St. John Source, reported that more than a dozen attorneys crowded into Superior Court Judge Robert Molloy's courtroom to share the status of some of the more than 600 remaining asbestos cases against Hess Oil. Litigation of the cases has been moving slowly since 1997 and 1998, when the first 400 cases were filed by people claiming illness due to asbestos and/or silica dust exposure from the refinery and St. Croix Alumina. In 2013 and 2014 alone, approximately 120 people sued Hess with claims of asbestos exposure during their employment, according to court documents. Over the years, the plaintiffs have been mostly employees of the Hess Refinery, family members or people who lived in the vicinity -- between 40 and 50 women have filed lawsuits. The first toxic dust case in the territory was settled in 2003 against Owens Corning in favor of plaintiff, William Dunn. At first he was awarded $2 million and after appeal the amount was reduced to $500,000. He died of cancer before he had a chance to spend it. According to Russell Pate, attorney for the plaintiffs, Hess has settled all cases that haven't been dismissed by the court. The company has not tried any in court. "It looks like Hess didn't care about the (1972 federal) law," Pate said, and the company didn't begin to notify employees about the asbestos in the insulation until after they started seeing lawsuits. (Limetree Bay, the new operators of the refinery sent a memo to employees and contractors in March 2015 that there is still asbestos in the refinery.) In the meantime, some of the plaintiffs have died before giving depositions and others have not been located because of the passage of time, slowing down the process. The number of cases grew eventually to 1,400, Pate estimated, and Hess sued all of the contractors at the refinery feeling they should pay their fare share. Several of the attorneys in Molloy's court represented companies such as Union Carbide, 3M and Dryers and Ricktors. When the cases were first filed, St. Croix had one fewer judge than did the St. Thomas/St. John district. When the court was filled, it was decided that one judge should handle all of the complex toxic cases -- and Molloy was selected. It was reported in the courtroom that 500 cases were resolved in Molloy's court last year. He had set a trial date for May 2018 for four cases but by the trial date, all 500 complaints were settled. Thirty of the plaintiffs had died before going to court so Molloy held a status conference to learn about contact and resolution with the estates of the deceased. During the session, it was apparent the judge and attorneys were very familiar with the cases as they discussed the status of plaintiffs. Several commended the judge and his staff on creating charts and comprehensive data for the cases for the attorneys' use. Pate said he hopes a trial date can be set by next May, although there is still a good amount of communication that needs to take place between the court and the victims. "You can't dismiss (a case) if there has been no contact with the plaintiff," Molloy reminded the courtroom. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $164MM Liability at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company gas recorded US$164 million gross liabilities at March 31, 2019 for both asserted and unasserted asbestos-related claims, inclusive of defense costs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$164 million and US$166 million at March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. In determining the estimate of our asbestos liability, we evaluated claims over the next ten-year period. Due to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change in circumstances arising in the future may result in an increase in the recorded obligation, and that increase could be significant. "We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We record a receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a particular recovery. "We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of US$107 million and US$108 million at March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. We expect that approximately 65% of asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance during the ten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, US$13 million was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at both March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018. The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary and excess insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from certain of our other excess insurance carriers." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/4kpvyt ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX, Subsidiaries Still Defend Suits at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries remain defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. IDEX Corp. states, "These components were acquired from third party suppliers and were not manufactured by the Company or any of the defendant subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether and to what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to claims that are tendered to them. "Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States and the United Kingdom. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The balance of the claims have been settled for various immaterial amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No provision has been made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does not currently believe the asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/ofkUBT ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $592.3MM Liabilities at March31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company has total asbestos-related liabilities of US$592.3 million as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company also disclosed that it has total asset for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries of US$261.2 million as of March 31, 2019. Ingersoll-Rand states, "The Company's asbestos insurance receivables related to Ingersoll-Rand Company and Trane were US$139.6 million and US$121.6 million at March 31, 2019, and US$141.7 million and US$126.5 million at December 31, 2018. The receivable attributable to Trane for probable insurance recoveries as of March 31, 2019 is entirely supported by settlement agreements between Trane and the respective insurance carriers. Most of these settlement agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. "The costs associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos-related claims, insurance settlements on asbestos-related matters and the revaluation of the Company's liability for potential future claims are included in the income statement within continuing operations or discontinued operations depending on the business to which they relate. Income and expenses associated with Ingersoll-Rand Company's asbestos-related matters are recorded within discontinued operations as they relate to previously divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold by the Company in 2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos-related matters are recorded within Other income/(expense), net as part of continuing operations. "In 2012 and 2013, Ingersoll-Rand Company filed actions in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants were several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies that had been paying a portion of Ingersoll-Rand Company's asbestos claim defense and indemnity costs. The responding defendants generally challenged the Company's right to recovery, and raised various coverage defenses. Since filing the actions, Ingersoll Rand Company has settled with approximately two-thirds of the insurer defendants, and has dismissed one of the actions in its entirety. "The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded that its Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance receivable is probable of recovery because of the following factors: * Ingersoll-Rand Company has reached favorable settlements regarding asbestos coverage claims for the majority of its recorded asbestos-related insurance receivable; * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to Ingersoll-Rand Company, including Trane, and the success of other companies in recovering under their insurance policies, including Trane's favorable settlement; * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and * the Company's history of receiving payments under the Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance program, including under policies that had been the subject of prior litigation. "The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently available information. The Company's actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key variables in these assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. "The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired, over many years and from many different carriers, is substantial. However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the considerations, are expected to result in the projected total liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable insurance recovery." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/jQPcXx ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Hid Asbestos in Talc for Years, SC Jury Told ----------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reported that one of thousands of talcum powder cases Johnson & Johnson failed to transfer to Delaware federal court headed to trial in South Carolina. According to Law360, the jury in the South Carolina case was told that Johnson & Johnson hid asbestos in its talc products for years. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,288 Claims at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is still a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately 3,288 plaintiffs as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 55,032 of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 893 were decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment motions." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/JzxCDC ASBESTOS UPDATE: NHS Trust Fined Over Royal Shrewsbury Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News reported that an NHS trust has been fined GBP16,000 over failures surrounding the discovery of asbestos at one of its hospitals. The case focused on builders' renovations for Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Hospitals Trust (SaTH) in 2012. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said workers' exposure to asbestos was a "potentially lethal risk" SaTH failed to control. The Trust pleaded guilty to health and safety breaches on Wednesday and said "nobody came to harm". At Telford Magistrates Court, SaTH was also ordered to pay costs of more than GBP18,000. The HSE says asbestos-related diseases are linked to 5,000 deaths a year in the UK. Exposure is commonly linked to lung disease and mesothelioma, according to Cancer Research. Fears of asbestos exposure at SaTH were first raised by Les Small, a project manager in the estates department. His concerns regarded renovation work in nursing accommodation at The Royal Shrewsbury Hospital. He lost his job after raising his fears, but later won GBP50,000 damages after a tribunal found he was unlawfully fired. Following the ruling, the HSE said SaTH had "failed to take adequate measures to deal with the initial release of asbestos, exposing other contractors who later worked in the flat". The watchdog also found materials containing asbestos were not properly recorded by SaTH, and once it was discovered, the trust's actions were "inadequate". A SaTH spokesperson said that although asbestos-related policies were in place, "they were not always being followed". She said there was now a "much more robust approach to asbestos management across the trust". ASBESTOS UPDATE: SoCal Man Awarded $3MM for Exposure ---------------------------------------------------- Andrew Beale, writing for The Press Democrat, reported that a jury awarded $3 million Thursday to a Southern California man who was exposed to asbestos while working in Ukiah. Ervan Groves, 80, of El Centro and his wife sued D.W. Nicholson Corp., alleging that his terminal cancer was caused by asbestos exposure while the company was performing contracting jobs at a facility in which Groves worked. Groves worked for Masonite Corp. in Ukiah from 1964 to 1999, and D.W. Nicholson installed mechanical, electrical and piping equipment at Masonite more than 100 times while Groves worked there, according to lawyers who worked on his case. Venus Burns, a lawyer for Weitz & Luxenberg who worked on the case on behalf of Groves, said D.W. Nicholson failed to tell Masonite employees they were potentially exposed to asbestos, and failed to clean up asbestos that they left behind. "We hope this is a valuable lesson for other companies, and we hope companies will act a lot more safely," Burns said. D.W. Nicholson did not respond to a request for comment. A jury found D.W. Nicholson was responsible for 20 percent of the damages to Groves, while Masonite was responsible for 70 percent and a third company, J.T. Thorpe and Son was responsible for 10 percent. J.T. Thorpe and Son settled prior to the verdict and Masonite was not named in the suit, meaning only D.W. Nicholson will have to pay after the verdict, Burns said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Burden in Calif. Suit Upped $7.6MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ A court has increased Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s responsibility in an asbestos liability case in California from US$7.4 million to US$7.6 million in February 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have considered various factors including, among other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and results of such claims. As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability. In addition, based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other available information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required. The methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average settlement values. "In accordance with our policy of performing an annual actuarial evaluation in the third quarter of each year, and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be necessary, an actuarial study was performed as of August 31, 2018. The results of the August 31, 2018 study included an estimate of our undiscounted liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from US$37.1 million to US$56.9 million for the period through 2061. Based upon the results of the August 31, 2018 actuarial study, in September 2018 we increased our asbestos liability to US$37.1 million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of US$3.5 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations. "In November 2018, we were involved in an asbestos liability case in California, in which a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the gross amount of US$8.6 million in compensatory damages. Of this amount, we were held responsible for approximately US$7.4 million. In February 2019, the court amended the verdict on the judgment, thereby increasing our responsibility to approximately US$7.6 million. We plan to pursue all rights of appeal. While the verdict is being appealed, interest will accrue at a rate of ten percent (10%) per annum. "As a result of the California asbestos liability case, in the fourth quarter of 2018, our actuarial firm revised the results of the August 31, 2018 study. The results of the revised actuarial study increased the low end of the estimated range of our undiscounted liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, from US$37.1 million to US$46.7 million, and increased the high end of the range from US$56.9 million to US$83.9 million for the period through 2061. Based upon the results of the revised actuarial study, in December 2018, and in accordance with our practice, we increased our asbestos liability to US$46.7 million, the low end of the range, and recorded an additional incremental pre-tax provision of US$10.1 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations. Future legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations, are estimated, according to the revised study, to range from US$45 million to US$83.1 million. "We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be necessary. Given the uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the future and other factors outside our control, we can give no assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will continue to monitor events and changes in circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities in determining whether to perform additional actuarial evaluations and whether additional provisions may be necessary. At the present time, however, we do not believe that any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial position." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/tqjPvY ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Records $333MM Asbestos Liability at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ United Technologies Corporation (UTC) recorded approximately US$333 million as of March 31, 2019 for its estimated total liability to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "...[L]ike many other industrial companies, we and our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into certain of our products or business premises. While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporate it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of our historical products, like those of many other manufacturers, have contained components incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos related claims were not material individually or in the aggregate in any year. "Our estimated total liability to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is approximately US$333 million and is principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2019. This amount is on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed by the Company as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$147 million, which is included primarily in Other assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2019. "The amounts recorded by UTC for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently available information and assumptions that we believe are reasonable. Our actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the assumptions. Key variables in these assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the outcomes or resolution of such claims, the average cost of resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available, the allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom we have reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom we have not yet achieved settlements, and the solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect our future liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal legislation. At the end of each year, the Company will evaluate all of these factors and, with input from an outside actuarial expert, make any necessary adjustments to both our estimated asbestos liabilities and insurance recoveries." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/3VpYC0 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers' Exposure Suit vs. TIM SpA Continues ------------------------------------------------------------- The Public Prosecutor's Office at the Turin Appeal Court has brought the asbestos-related case against TIM S.p.A., among other defendants, to the Court of Cassation, according to TIM's Form 6-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the month of April 2019. The Company states, "In September 2014 the Ivrea Public Prosecutor's Office closed the investigation on the presumed exposure to asbestos of 15 former workers from the companies "Ing. C. Olivetti S.p.A." (now TIM S.p.A.), "Olivetti Controllo Numerico S.p.A.", "Olivetti Peripheral Equipment S.p.A.", "Sixtel S.p.A." and "Olteco S.p.A." and served notice that the investigations had been concluded on the 39 people investigated (who include former Directors of the aforementioned companies). "On December 2014 the Ivrea Public Prosecutor's Office formulated a request for 33 of the 39 people originally investigated to be committed for trial, and at the same time asked that 6 investigations be archived. "During the preliminary hearing, which started in April 2015, TIM assumed the role of civilly liable party, after being formally summonsed by all 26 civil parties (institutions and natural persons) joined in the proceedings. At the end of the preliminary hearing, 18 of the original 33 persons accused were committed for trial. The trial started in November 2015, and, as the party liable for damages, the Company has reached a settlement agreement with 12 of the 18 individuals (heirs/injured persons/family members) who are civil parties to the dispute and they have, therefore, withdrawn the claim against TIM. "In the judgment of first instance, in July 2016, 13 of the 18 defendants were found guilty, with sentences ranging from 1 year to 5 years of imprisonment: four of the defendants were found not guilty, and one case was dismissed for health reasons. The defendants were also sentenced to pay compensation jointly and severally with the party liable for damages TIM, of an overall sum of approximately 1.9 million euros as a provisional payment to INAIL and 6 heirs who were not part of the settlement. A generic judgment to pay compensation for damages to the remaining damaged parties (entities/unions/associations) was issued, although they must in any case ask the civil court to quantify the damages. The Company challenged the rationale for the judgment in the first instance, and signed settlements, including with the final 6 heirs who constituted the civil party, before the judgment in the second instance was issued. So the only civil parties to the appeal were organizations and associations. "In April 2018, the Turin Appeal Court, overturning the judgment of the court of the first instance, found all the accused not guilty: "because there was no case to answer for all the charges". "In its considerations, filed in October 2018, the Court recognized that there was no causal link between the individual behavior of the accused persons and the death of the former workers. "The Public Prosecutor's Office at the Turin Appeal Court appealed to the Court of Cassation against said judgment based on a number of grounds for appeal, and also requested the Joint Chambers to provide clarifications regarding the principles to apply in assessing the causal link." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/GC0EMK ********* 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 ***