/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190529.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 29, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 107 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Hughes Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Jacobs Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Niemczyk Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Norman Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Robinson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ABSOLUTE CONSULTING: Joyce Suit Alleges FLSA Violation AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES: Plumley Sues over Merger Transaction B&A TOWING: Estrada Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations BANK OF AMERICA: Simmons Sues over Autodialled Calls BEKY BAKERY: Vasco Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages BUTCHERBOX LLC: Johnson Sues Over Automatic Service Renewal CAMPANIA FELIX: Oropeza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CENTER FOR AUTISM: Andreola Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHINA FINANCE: Final Judgement in Wang Class Suit Entered CLUTCH LANDSCAPING: Fails to pay Overtime Wages, Gonzalez Suit Says COMCAST CABLE: Wainblat Sues over Privacy Rights Issue CR ENGLAND: Porche Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif. CRYOGENIC TRANSPORTATION: Forrest Suit Removed to C.D. California CUBESMART: Settlement Wins Preliminarily Approval CVS HEALTH: Bewley and Prescott Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed CVS HEALTH: Faces Anarkat and Labourers' Pension Fund Suits in NY CVS HEALTH: Klein Suit Consolidated with In re EpiPen ERISA Suit CVS HEALTH: Still Defends Corcoran and Podgorny Complaints DEEP WELL ENERGY: Sosa et al. Seek OT Pay for Welders and Helpers EAGLE CARPET: Sanchez Seeks Overtime Premium Pay ENTERPRISE RESTORATION: Castellano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages EPIC GAMES: Paulino Suit Transferred to Central Dist. of California ESHAI CORP: Shanklin Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Carrington Sues Over Illegal Fund Transfers FIDELITY NATIONAL: Patterson Class Action Still Ongoing HHB HOLDINGS: Esposito Files Suit Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls IKEA US RETAIL: Burrell Files Consumer Credit Suit in S.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: C. Johnson Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gwynne Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hafner Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hall Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hansen Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Happersett Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Harris Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hasting Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Holmes Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hutchinson Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jerricks Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Johnson Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Mislabels Benecol Spreads, Chamlin Claims JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Hardiman Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Harrison Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Haworth Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Houston Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Howard Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Huntley Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Husman Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Johnson Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Cook Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Croft Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Echols Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Guynes Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Haase Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hair Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Haney Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hardesty Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hargrove Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hatanaka Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hauck Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hough Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Howard Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Joffroy Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Johnson Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. K&N ENGINEERING: Minn. Court Allows J. Penrod to Amend Class Suit KOHN LAW FIRM: Poindexter Sues over Debt Collection Policy KOPPERS INC: Arkansas High Court Flips Class Certification Order KRAFT HEINZ: Timber Hill Sues over Inflated Stock Price LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Beyers Suit in S.D. Indiana LOANME INC: Tbiaa Sues over Credit Background Checks LOCAL ADVANTAGE: Reasonover Sues over Automated Calls LYFT INC: Malig Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop MAYO CLINIC: Kuhr Sues over Debt Collection Practices MEDSPA DEL MAR: Mazzariol Suit Moved From S.D. to M.D. Florida MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Romonoyske Suit Removed to E.D. New York MIDLAND CREDIT: Galino FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. New York MONSANTO CO: Accused by Bahl Suit of Selling Defective Herbicide MONSANTO CO: Bailey Seeks Damages Over Roundup(R) Exposure MONSANTO CO: Choate Sues Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Exposure MONSANTO CO: Dedrick Sues for Injuries From Use of Roundup(R) MONSANTO CO: Faces Carpenter Suit for Damages Over Roundup(R) MONSANTO COMPANY: Hampton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Rotramel Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Sanders Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Schafer Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Serna Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Shultz Suit Moved to N.D. California MOTT'S LLP: Dalton Files Fraud Class Suit in E.D. New York NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Settlement in Jordan Suit Has Final Okay NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Kohanski Sues over Debt Collection Practices NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Hunter Sues Over Erroneous Collection Calls NEW YORK: Subway Renovations Violate ADA, Forsee Suit Asserts NIGHTSTAR THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Sues over Biogen Merger O'RYAN OIL: Johnson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages QUIK PICK: Truck Driver Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties RED ROBIN: Frisby Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation RESTAURANT DEPOT: Goodman Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA SIX STAR: Silva Seeks OT Pay, Reimbursement of Expenses SOFIA RISTORANTE: Sinchi Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SOUTH CITY GAS: Faces Saravia et al. Labor Suit in Calif. SPECTRUM BRANDS: SEC Disclosures Misleading, Pension Fund Claims SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Woek Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Cox Seeks Minimum Pay for Waitstaff TJX COMPANIES: Schuchard Sues over Background Checks TOTAL SYSTEM: Telexfree Securities Suit Underway TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Broom Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Does not Pay Drivers Promised Rates, Says Suit UNION CITY HOTEL: Vinalay Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay UTGR INC: Ramer, Morales Seek OT Premium Pay VISA INC: Bid to Dismiss Injunctive Relief Class Suit Pending WABCO HOLDINGS: Class Suits over ZF Friedrichshafen Merger Filed WELLCARE HEALTH: Kent Seeks to Halt Centene Merger Deal WELLCARE OF FLORIDA: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Harrison Says ********* 3M COMPANY: Hughes Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, TODD HUGHES, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01045-SCB-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 30, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage the Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S. military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries, such as hearing loss.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476.7400 Facsimile: (305) 476.7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com - and - William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq. KIRK PINKERTON , P.A. 240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: (941) 364-2400 Facsimile: (941) 364-249 E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com 3M COMPANY: Jacobs Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, BRYAN JACOBS, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01042 (M.D. Fla., April 30, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage the plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S. military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries, such as hearing loss.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476.7400 Facsimile: (305) 476.7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com - and - William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq. KIRK PINKERTON , P.A. 240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: (941) 364-2400 Facsimile: (941) 364-249 E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com 3M COMPANY: Niemczyk Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, THOMAS NIEMCZYK, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01266-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla., April 30, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage the plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S. military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries, such as hearing loss.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Michael W. Gaines, Esq. Tim L. Bowden, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN 306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200 Goodlettsville, TN 37072 Telephone: (615) 859-1996 Facsimile: (615) 859-1921 E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com bowden_law@bellsouth.net 3M COMPANY: Norman Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, KENDALL NORMAN, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00820 (M.D. Fla., April 30, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage the plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S. military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries, such as hearing loss.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476.7400 Facsimile: (305) 476.7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com 3M COMPANY: Robinson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JEREMIAH ROBINSON, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01041 (M.D. Fla., April 30, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage the plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection to service members. Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S. military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries, such as hearing loss.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476.7400 Facsimile: (305) 476.7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com - and - William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq. KIRK PINKERTON , P.A. 240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: (941) 364-2400 Facsimile: (941) 364-249 E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com ABSOLUTE CONSULTING: Joyce Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Joyce, individually and for others similarly situated v. Absolute Consulting, Inc., and GSE Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00868 (D. Md., March 22, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff was an hourly employee of the Defendants from November 2016 to end of May 2018. The Defendant GSE bills itself as a total solutions provider for the energy industry including nuclear power plants, refinery plants, and fossil power plants. Among other things, it provides engineering, consulting, and staffing services to its clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor A. Jones, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: tjones@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES: Plumley Sues over Merger Transaction ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against AmpliPhi Biosciences Corporation and its Board of Directors for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned PATRICK PLUMLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION, JEREMY CURNOCK COOK, LOUIS DRAPEAU, PAUL GRINT, WENDY JOHNSON, MICHAEL PERRY, and VIJAY SAMANT, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00617 (W.D. Wash., April 25, 2019). This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on Jan. 4, 2019, pursuant to which AmpliPhi Biosciences will be acquired by C3J Therapeutics, Inc. and Ceres Merger Sub, Inc. Plaintiff Patrick Plumley alleges that the proxy statement filed by the Defendants on April 4, 2019 omits material information with respect to the proposed merger transaction. The proxy statement allegedly failed to disclose AmpliPhi's financial projections and the analyses performed by the AmpliPhi's financial advisor in connection with the proposed merger transaction, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. AmpliPhi is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on precisely targeted bacteriophage therapeutics for antibiotic-resistant infections using its proprietary bacteriophage-based technology. AmpliPhi is a Washington corporation and maintains its principal executive offices at 3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, California. AmpliPhi's common stock is traded on the NYSE American under the ticker symbol APHB. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 652-8660 Facsimile: (206) 652-8290 E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com B&A TOWING: Estrada Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Carmelo Estrada, Jr., on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. B&A Towing, Inc. and Does 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. 19STCV09675 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 22, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code. The lawsuit stem from the Defendant's failure to provide duty-free/uninterrupted meal and rest periods; indemnify Plaintiff and other similarly situated for the reasonable expenses incurred during the course of performing their duties, pay all wages earned for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay, provide accurate written wage statements, and timely pay final wages upon termination of employment. The Plaintiff is a California resident who worked as a tow truck driver in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties for the Defendants, from October 17, 2016 to June 26, 2018. The Defendant B&A Towing is a California towing company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Stephanie Greenberg, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 203 Encino, CA 91436 Tel: (818) 582-3086 Fax: (818) 582-2561 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com stephanie@spivaklaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Simmons Sues over Autodialled Calls ---------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Bank of America Corporation for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is captioned CHARLES SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00478 (M.D. Fla., April 26, 2019). Plaintiff Charles Simmons brings this complaint to stop Defendant's practice of placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent; stop Defendant's practice of placing calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to the cellular and landline telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent; enjoin Defendant from continuing to place calls using an ATDS to consumers who did not provide their prior express written consent to receive them; and obtain redress for all persons injured by BofA's conduct. Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company. Its primary financial services are commercial banking, wealth management, and investment banking. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Dr. Ste. 220 Miami, FL 33133-5402 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com BEKY BAKERY: Vasco Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- NANCY VASCO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BEKY BAKERY & COFFEE SHOP CORP., TRINIDAD GONZALEZ NIEVES, and JUANA ROBERTA SANCHEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02534 (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff to work at the Restaurant as a non-exempt cashier, server/waitress, baker, porter, and car valet from in or about 2003 until on or about April 29, 2019. The work performed by the Plaintiff was directly essential to the business operated by Defendants. The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff her lawfully earned minimum wages in direct contravention of the FLSA and New York Labor Law, the lawsuit says. The Defendant owns and operates a bakery and restaurant doing business as "Beky Bakery & Coffee Shop".[BN] Attorneys for the the Plaintiff: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central 155 East 44 111 Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com BUTCHERBOX LLC: Johnson Sues Over Automatic Service Renewal ----------------------------------------------------------- KYLE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BUTCHERBOX, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company; and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00876-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal., May 15, 2019) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and a class of others similarly situated consisting of all persons in California who, within the applicable statute of limitations period up to and including the date of judgment in this action, purchased subscriptions for products (such as beef and related food products) from Defendant claiming for damages, restitution, injunctive and/or other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs arising under California Business and Professions Code. The complaint asserts that the Defendant made automatic renewal or continuous service offers to consumers in California and failed to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. Plaintiff purchased a subscription plan from Defendant in California during the Class Period. Defendant operates a website which markets beef and related food products and has made, and continues to make, automatic renewal or continuous service offers to consumers in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, APC A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com CAMPANIA FELIX: Oropeza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO GUZMAN OROPEZA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAMPANIA FELIX LLC (D/B/A SAN MATTEO PIZZERIA E CUCINA), FABIO CASELLA, and RAFAEL DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04430 (S.D. N.Y., May 15, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Guzman and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located at 1559 Second Avenue, New York, New York 10028 under the name "San Matteo Pizzeria e Cucina". Plaintiff Guzman was employed as a delivery worker at the restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 CENTER FOR AUTISM: Andreola Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CENTER FOR AUTISM AND RELATED DISORDERS. The case is styled as BRANDI ANDREOLA, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. CENTER FOR AUTISM AND RELATED DISORDERS, LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-101364 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 17, 2019). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited". The Center for Autism and Related Disorders (CARD) is among the world's largest and most experienced autism treatment providers and the third largest non-governmental organization in the United States contributing to autism research.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by JAMES R HAWKINS, ESQ. CHINA FINANCE: Final Judgement in Wang Class Suit Entered --------------------------------------------------------- China Finance Online Co. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Company has received the final judgment as anticipated in the putative securities class action, Wang, et al., v. China Finance Online Co. Limited, 1:15-cv-07894-RMB. The original complaint was filed on June 5, 2015 in the Central District of California. The case was subsequently consolidated with several other similar actions and transferred to the Southern District of New York, where an amended consolidated complaint was filed in December 2015. The amended consolidated complaint alleged that the Company violated Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose certain of its transactions involving Langfang Shengshi Real Estate Development Co. Limited as related party transactions. The amended consolidated complaint also made claims under Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against certain of the Company's current officers and its current and former auditors and under Exchange Act Section 20(a) against certain of its current officers and former directors. Lead plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed (without prejudice) all defendants other than the Company from the action. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 8, 2016, to which plaintiffs filed an opposition on May 6, 2016 and the Company filed a reply on May 13, 2016. During a mediation session in May 2016, the parties agreed to settle the action for $3.0 million. The settlement was preliminarily approved on November 18, 2016 and notice of the settlement was provided to putative class members. No class members objected to the settlement and none requested exclusion. The settlement includes a release of all claims asserted in the Complaint (or any of the previous versions of the complaint) or all claims that could have been asserted based on the same operative facts at issue in the Complaint. This release applies not only as to the Company, but also as to individuals and entities included within the definition of "Releasees", which definition includes, among others, current and former officers and directors of the Company. Following a fairness hearing on March 21, 2017, an order was entered on March 24, 2017 approving the settlement. The order reflects that a judgment in the action will be entered after lead plaintiffs file their motion for final distribution of the settlement amount. On June 23, 2017, the court granted the lead plaintiffs' motion for a first distribution of the settlement amount, less attorneys' fees and expenses. On June 28, 2017, lead plaintiffs informed the court checks representing the net settlement amount were mailed to class members. On April 18, 2018, lead plaintiffs informed the court that checks representing all but $2,759.76 of the net settlement amount had been cashed, requested that the court authorize a second and final distribution for the remaining amount, and requested that the court enter the judgment. The court has not yet responded to this request. On August 10, 2018, the Company received the final judgment as anticipated by the settlement approval order and there are no appeals within 30 days after the judgment is entered. China Finance Online Co. Limited provides Web-based financial services in the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong. The company operates through three segments: Commodities Brokerage Services; Online Financial Information and Advisory Service, and Other Related Services; and Hong Kong Brokerage Services. The company was incorporated in 1998 and is based in Beijing, the People's Republic of China. CLUTCH LANDSCAPING: Fails to pay Overtime Wages, Gonzalez Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLUTCH LANDSCAPING & MAINTENANCE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01094-DAP (N.D. Ohio, May 15, 2019) is a "collective action" instituted by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt laborers, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation at the rate of one and one half times their regular rates of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as a "class action" to remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"). Plaintiff and other similarly-situated laborers worked more than 40 hours per week, but Defendant failed to pay them overtime compensation for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. Rather than paying overtime compensation, Plaintiff and other similarly-situated laborers were only paid straight time for some of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in cash, rather than through a payroll check. Plaintiff Daniel Gonzalez was employed by Defendant as a laborer between approximately 2016 and April 2019. Defendant is a landscaping and snowplowing business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.co COMCAST CABLE: Wainblat Sues over Privacy Rights Issue ------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC for violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and the Massachusetts General Laws. The case is captioned Robert Wainblat, for himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10976-FDS (D. Mass., April 25, 2019). Plaintiff Robert Wainblat alleges that Comcast systematically violates cable television subscribers' federal statutory privacy rights, and Massachusetts' consumer protection laws, by gathering, maintaining, and using consumers' private video viewing data without consent. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Comcast offers and sells its services and products to Massachusetts residents. Subscribers pay Comcast a monthly fee based on the services and products obtained. Comcast owns or leases property in Massachusetts and has numerous employees located in the State. Comcast operates 315 storefronts throughout Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles F. Ahern III, Esq. Kenneth A. Newberg, Esq. CORWIN & CORWIN, LLP 600 Unicorn Park Drive Woburn, MA 01801 Telephone: (617) 742-3420 Facsimile: (617) 742-2331 E-mail: cahern@corwinlaw.com knewberg@corwinlaw.com CR ENGLAND: Porche Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------- The case, DANIEL PORCHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1904856 (Filed on Feb. 13, 2019, was transferred from Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The removal are deemed proper because the diversity of citizenship requirement is satisfied and because the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The United States District Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00785 to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiff Daniel Porche alleges that C.R. England, Inc. has violated the California Labor Code Section 925 by requiring him and other drivers to execute an agreement to arbitrate which provides that Utah law shall apply. Founded in 1920, C.R. England, Inc. is an American family-owned trucking company that offers temperature-controlled transportation services throughout North America. [BN] Attorneys for the Defendant: Drew R. Hansen, Esq. Seth M. Goldstein, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 833-7800 Facsimile: (949) 833-7878 E-mail: dhansen@nossaman.com sgoldstein@nossaman.com CRYOGENIC TRANSPORTATION: Forrest Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned JOSEPH E. FORREST, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CRYOGENIC TRANSPORTATION LLC; THE KENAN ADVANTAGE GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RIC1826520 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 15, 2019, and assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00911. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to comply with Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") by failing to provide itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and the Proposed Wage Statement Class accurately showing all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. Plaintiff seeks for himself, and for an alleged putative class of current and former truck drivers, compensatory damages in the form of alleged meal and rest period penalties, unreimbursed expenses, penalties for accurate itemized wage statements, other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and interest thereon.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: KATHERINE HUIBONHOA, ESQ. STEPHEN YANG, ESQ. CURLEY, HURTGEN & JOHNSRUD LLP 4400 Bohannon Drive, Suite 230 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: 650.600.5300 Facsimile: 650.323.1002 Email: khuibonhoa@chjllp.com syang@chjllp.com CUBESMART: Settlement Wins Preliminarily Approval ------------------------------------------------- CubeSmart said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the settlement agreement in a class action suit has been preliminarily approved. On January 11, 2019, a settlement agreement was entered into for a class action alleging violation of a state specific deceptive and unfair trade practices act. During the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company recorded a $1.8 million charge related to this legal action, which is included in Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Company's consolidated balance sheets and in General and administrative on the Company's consolidated statements of operations. The settlement agreement was preliminarily approved on April 3, 2019. CubeSmart is a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust. The Company's self-storage properties are designed to offer affordable, easily accessible and secure storage space for residential and commercial customers. According to the 2019 Self-Storage Almanac, CubeSmart is one of the top three owners and operators of self-storage properties in the United States. CVS HEALTH: Bewley and Prescott Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the named plaintiffs in both the Bewley and Prescott cases have voluntarily dismissed all of their claims without prejudice, ending both cases. Bewley, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. and Prescott, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. (both pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington), were filed against the Company and other PBMs and manufacturers of glucagon kits (Bewley) and diabetes test strips (Prescott) in May 2017. Both cases allege that, by contracting for rebates with the manufacturers of these diabetes products, the Company and other PBMs caused list prices for these products to increase, thereby harming certain consumers. The plaintiffs’ primary claims are made under federal antitrust laws, RICO, state unfair competition and consumer protection laws and the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Both of these cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on defendants' motions. In April 2019, the named plaintiffs in both the Bewley and Prescott cases voluntarily dismissed all of their claims without prejudice, ending both cases. CVS Health Corporation provides health services and plans in the United States. The company was formerly known as CVS Caremark Corporation and changed its name to CVS Health Corporation in September 2014. CVS Health Corporation was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS HEALTH: Faces Anarkat and Labourers' Pension Fund Suits in NY ----------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend two putative class action suits entitled, Anarkat v. CVS Health Corp., et al. and Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada v. CVS Health Corp., et al. In February and March 2019, two putative class action complaints were filed by putative plaintiffs against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. Anarkat v. CVS Health Corp., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada v. CVS Health Corp., et al., was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action under federal securities laws that are premised on allegations that the defendants made certain omissions and misrepresentations relating to the performance of the Company's LTC business unit, which allegedly injured investors who acquired CVS Health securities between May 21, 2015 and February 20, 2019. The Company is defending itself against these claims. CVS Health Corporation provides health services and plans in the United States. The company was formerly known as CVS Caremark Corporation and changed its name to CVS Health Corporation in September 2014. CVS Health Corporation was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS HEALTH: Klein Suit Consolidated with In re EpiPen ERISA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Klein, et al. v. Prime Therapeutics, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota), has been consolidated and is now proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation. This putative class action was filed against the Company and other PBMs in June 2017 on behalf of ERISA plan members who purchased and paid for EpiPen or EpiPen Jr. Plaintiffs allege that the PBMs are ERISA fiduciaries to plan members and have violated ERISA by allegedly causing higher inflated prices for EpiPens through the process of negotiating increased rebates from EpiPen manufacturer Mylan. This case has been consolidated with a similar matter and is now proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation. The Company is defending itself against these claims. CVS Health Corporation provides health services and plans in the United States. The company was formerly known as CVS Caremark Corporation and changed its name to CVS Health Corporation in September 2014. CVS Health Corporation was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS HEALTH: Still Defends Corcoran and Podgorny Complaints ---------------------------------------------------------- CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that that the company continues to defend against the cases, Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) and Podgorny et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois), which have consolidated. These putative class actions were filed against the Company in July and September 2015. The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the consumer protection statutes and common laws of certain states on behalf of a class of consumers who purchased certain prescription drugs. Several third-party payors filed similar putative class actions on behalf of payors captioned Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp. and Plumbers Welfare Fund, Local 130 v. CVS Health Corporation (both pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island) in February and August 2016. In all of these cases the plaintiffs allege the Company overcharged for certain prescription drugs by not submitting the price available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the pharmacy’s usual and customary price. In the Corcoran case, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to CVS on plaintiffs' claims in their entirety and certified certain subclasses in September 2017. The Corcoran plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's decision to the Ninth Circuit. The Sheet Metal Workers plaintiffs have amended their complaint to assert a claim under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") premised on an alleged conspiracy between the Company and other PBMs. The Company is defending itself against these claims. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CVS Health Corporation provides health services and plans in the United States. The company was formerly known as CVS Caremark Corporation and changed its name to CVS Health Corporation in September 2014. CVS Health Corporation was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. DEEP WELL ENERGY: Sosa et al. Seek OT Pay for Welders and Helpers ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Deep Well Energy Services, LLC, Camino Agave Inc., and/or Embark Holdings, LTD for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned JACOB SOSA and AUSTIN BUTLER, et al., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, DEEP WELL ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CAMINO AGAVE, INC., and EMBARK HOLDINGS, LTD, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00428 (W.D. Tex., April 25, 2019). Plaintiffs Jacob Sosa and Austin Butler allege that the Defendants misclassified them and other workers, including welders and welder's helpers, as independent contractors to avoid paying employment taxes, workers' compensation insurance, benefits and overtime. Defendants allegedly failed to pay overtime compensation at a rate of one-and-a-half times the appropriate regular rate. In further violation of the FLSA, Defendants failed to maintain accurate employee pay records, including the number of hours worked per workweek by Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees. Deep Well Energy Services, LLC is a foreign limited liability company with its principal place of business Waynesboro, Mississippi. As an oilfield services company, Deep Well Energy Services specializes in rig moving, oilfield production and construction services, pipeline or long hauling services. Deep Well has field offices in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia. Deep Well typically has welding crews running at any given time, each employing 8 workers per crew. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com EAGLE CARPET: Sanchez Seeks Overtime Premium Pay ------------------------------------------------ An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Eagle Carpet Restoration, Inc. for violation of the overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned WALTER S. SANCHEZ and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff(s), v. EAGLE CARPET RESTORATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21577-BB (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2019). Plaintiff Walter S. Sanchez seeks to recover overtime hours at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour in excess of 40 that he worked in every week period, liquidated damages, and any other relief as allowable by law. Eagle Carpet Restoration is a company specialized in providing carpet cleaning, carpet restorations, janitorial and maintenance services to commercial accounts. The company has place of business at 3389 Sheridan Street #186, Hollywood, Florida but performed business in Miami-Dade County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 ENTERPRISE RESTORATION: Castellano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Castellano, Marlene Castellano Delgado and Rene Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. John W. Adams, III, CEO/PRESIDENT, ENTERPRISE RESTORATION SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10424 (E.D. La., May 15, 2019) is a collective action brought by Plaintiffs seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other relief allowed by law for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (the "FLSA"). The Defendant employs individuals for various types of restoration work and pays those individuals on an hourly basis. Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated work or worked for Defendants as manual laborers and have routinely worked more than 40 hours per workweek without being paid an overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants as manual laborers on various restoration projects both inside and outside of the state of Louisiana. Enterprise Restoration provides a variety of services to its clients in the state of Louisiana and nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cesar R. Burgos, Esq. Robert J. Daigre, Esq. Gabriel O Mondino, Esq. George McGregor, Esq. BURGOS & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. 3535 Canal Street, Suite 200 New Orleans, LA 70119-6135 Phone: (504) 488-3722 Facsimile: (504) 482-8525 EPIC GAMES: Paulino Suit Transferred to Central Dist. of California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JOAN CATHERYN PAULINO, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00099, was transferred from the the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on April 30, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03618-MWF-E to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. The complaint targets Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Act.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Graham Lambert, Esq. Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 445 South Figueroa Street Suite 2625 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: gl@haffnerlawyers.com jhh@haffnerlawyers.com Attorneys for the Defendant: Julie A. Dunne, Esq. Amy Todd-Gher, Esq. Matthew B. Riley, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Telephone: 619 232 0441 Facsimile: 619 232 4302 E-mail: jdunne@littler.com atodd-gher@littler.com mriley@littler.com ESHAI CORP: Shanklin Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------- The case, William Shanklin v. Eshai Corporation d/b/a Courier Distribution Systems and Courier Distribution Systems, LLC, Case No. 1903-03034 (Filed on March 25, 2019), was transferred from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 26, 2019. The removal was based on the grounds that the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction by way of diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. In addition, there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In this complaint, Plaintiff William Shanklin asserts claims for unpaid overtime wages under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Eshai is a Wisconsin corporation, with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Courier Distribution Systems is a Georgia limited liability company with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a single member limited liability company that is wholly-owned by Eshai. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea M. Kirshenbaum, Esq. POST & SCHELL, P.C. Four Penn Center 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-2808 Telephone: (215) 587-1126 Facsimile: (215) 320-4711 E-mail: akirshenbaum@postschell.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Carrington Sues Over Illegal Fund Transfers ----------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS CARRINGTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00398 (W.D. Wis., May 15, 2019) seeks redress for collection practices that violate the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (the "EFTA"), the Wisconsin Consumer Act (the "WCA"), the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the "WDTPA"), and common law principles of contract law. According to the complaint, every month, Experian continues to initiate electronic funds transfer in the amount of $26.99 from Plaintiff's account. At some point prior to August of 2018, Plaintiff noticed the charges had been deducted from his checking account with U.S. Bank by "Experian." Plaintiff does not recall authorizing the electronic funds transfers or entering into any agreement with Experian for goods or services in exchange for the funds subject to the electronic funds transfers. In the event Plaintiff did enter into such agreement, such agreement would be subject to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In attempt to cancel the services associated with such electronic funds transfers, Plaintiff called the toll free number for Experian, and reached a telephone recording which explained that in order to cancel the payments, he needed to send a written letter with details including his driver's license, social security number, and address. On September 30, 2018, and for several months thereafter, again notwithstanding Plaintiff's attempts to contact Defendant both orally and in writing to cancel the automated electronic funds transfers from his account, Defendant initiated another electronic funds transfer in the amount of $26.99 from Plaintiff's account, says the complaint. Plaintiff Dennis Carrington is an individual who resides in the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee County). Experian Information Solutions, Inc. ("Experian") provides information, analytical, and marketing services to organizations and consumers to manage risk and reward of commercial and financial decisions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. O'Reilly, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 Email: roreilly@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Patterson Class Action Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Financial, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al. In a class action captioned Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al., Case No. GD 03-021176, originally filed on October 27, 2003 and pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the named Company underwriters violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") by failing to provide premium discounts in accordance with filed rates in refinancing transactions. Contrary to rulings in similar federal court cases that considered the rate rule and agreed with the Company's position, the court held that the rate rule should be interpreted such that an institutional mortgage in the public record is a "proxy" for prior title insurance entitling a consumer to a discount rate when refinancing when there is a mortgage of record within the number of years required by the rate rule. The rate rule requires sufficient evidence of a prior policy, and because not all institutional mortgages were insured, the Company's position is that a recorded first mortgage alone does not constitute sufficient evidence of an earlier policy entitling consumers to a discounted rate. The court certified the class refusing to follow prior Pennsylvania Supreme Court and appellate court decisions holding that the UTPCPL requires proof of reliance, an individual issue which precludes certification. After notice to the class, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability, and defendants moved for summary judgment. On June 27, 2018, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability, and denying the Company's motion finding that the Company failed to advise its agents on how to interpret the rate rule so that it would be uniformly applied, thereby having engaged in "deceptive conduct." The Company plans to seek an interlocutory appeal of the summary judgment order. The court approved the parties' stipulation in which they agreed that before interlocutory review is appropriate, the court will first determine which party should bear the burden of ascertaining the class and calculating damages, and determine whether the damages should be trebled. Following briefing and oral argument on these issues, the court held that a multiplier of 1.5, not treble, should be applied to the amount of damages, if any, proven by class members at trial. The court also held that plaintiffs should bear the responsibility of identifying class members and calculating damages. The interlocutory appeal of the summary judgment order will now proceed. Fidelity National said, "There has been no determination as to the size of the class. It is unknown whether plaintiffs will seek statutory or actual damages, whether the judge will exercise discretion to award treble damages or award prejudgment interest, or what plaintiffs’ counsel will seek as reasonable attorneys' fees. Accordingly, damages are not reasonably estimable at this time. We will continue to vigorously defend this matter, and we do not believe the result will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition." Fidelity National Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides various insurance products in the United States. The company operates in Title, and Corporate and Other segments. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. was founded in 1847 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. HHB HOLDINGS: Esposito Files Suit Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Esposito, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. HHB Holdings, Inc. and Kevin Campbell, both d/b/a Look Great MD, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02108-GAM (E.D. Pa., May 15, 2019) is a putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Pennsylvania Telemarketer Registration Act ("TRA") and stems from Defendants' practice of harassing consumers nationwide with automated and prerecorded telemarketing calls. To drum-up new business, Defendants engage in intrusive and unlawful telemarketing campaigns, says the complaint. The Defendants' illegal telemarketing activities target individual consumers, without their prior express consent and with little regard for their privacy. Through this putative class action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendants' illegal conduct, which has resulted in the harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff is a natural person who was a citizen of Pennsylvania. Defendants own and operate a full service "medical spa" business that sells aesthetic and cosmetic treatments to consumers at its four locations in Delaware and Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane T. Prince, Esq. Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215-564-1721 Email: cdenittis@denittislaw.com sprince@denittislaw.com IKEA US RETAIL: Burrell Files Consumer Credit Suit in S.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ikea US Retail LLC. The case is styled as Antonia Burrell on behalf of herself, the General Public, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ikea US Retail LLC, a Virginia Corporation, Ikea North America Services, LLC, a Virginia Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00929-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 17, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. IKEA North America Services, LLC operates a chain of home furnishing retail stores in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lindsay Christine David, Esq. Brennan & David Law Group 2888 Loker Avenue, Suite 302 Carlsbad, CA 92010 Phone: (760) 730-9408 Fax: (760) 888-3575 Email: lcdavid@sdlawoffices.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: C. Johnson Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter entitled CANDACE JOHNSON, individually v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., F/K/A LUZENCA AMERICA; PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL F/K/A COSMETIC, TOILETRY, AND FRAGRANCE ASSOCIATION; AND DOES 1 through 100 Inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03412 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on January 6, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was assigned Case No. BC645974. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Kaufman, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: pkaufman@psblaw.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gwynne Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled Alicia Gwynne, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the state of California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03501 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on July 27, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sutter, and was assigned Case No. CVCS17-0001456. The Plaintiff alleges that she developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com - and - Ted G. Meadows, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (800) 898-2034 E-mail: ted.meadows@beasleyallen.com - 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 E-mail: allen@smith-law.org Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hafner Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter styled MARGIE D. HAFNER, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03499 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on November 6, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned Case No. 17CV318651. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hall Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter captioned LAURA HALL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CAROLYN WHITE v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03495 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on April 10, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned Case No. 18CV326338. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's Decedent was injured and suffered harm as a result of purchasing and using Johnson & Johnson's products, including Shower to Shower body powder and Baby Powder. The Plaintiff's Decedent developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the alleged unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Cirsch, Esq. Michael Akselrud, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC 21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (310) 277-5100 Facsimile: (310) 277-5103 E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Susanne Scovern, Esq. Joseph McPeak, Esq. SCOVERNLAW 201 Spear St., Suite 1105 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (888) 725-1890 E-mail: scovern@scovernlaw.com joseph_mcpeak@scovemlaw.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Caroline A. 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: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hansen Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled MARYANN HANSEN, an individual v. JOHNSON' & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the state of California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03494 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on January 19, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura, and was assigned Case No. 56-2017-00491724-CU-PL-VTA. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Caroline A. 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: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Happersett Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled Janelle Happersett, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03500 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on October 28, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned Case No. 16CV301835. The lawsuit is a products liability action against the Defendants because the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs' Decedents have suffered from and/or have passed away from the severe effects of Ovarian Cancer caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and Shower-to-Shower products, which were manufactured, mined, and/or marketed by the Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Akselrud, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 277-5100 Facsimile: (310) 277-5103 E-mail: michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com - and - W. Mark Lanier, Esq. Richard Meadow, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC 6810 FM 1960 Houston, TX 77069 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 Facsimile: (713) 659-2204 E-mail: wml@lanierlawfirm.com Richard.Meadow@lanierlawfirm.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Harris Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter styled PRESTON HARRIS, as surviving statutory beneficiary for the wrongful death of SHEILA HARRIS, deceased, individually, and on behalf of all other heirs of decedent v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. F/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. and DOES 1 - 50, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03503 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on March 13, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was assigned Case No. BC697943. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's Decedent was injured and suffered harm as a result of purchasing and using Johnson & Johnson's products, including Shower to Shower body powder and Baby Powder. The Plaintiff's Decedent was diagnosed with metastatic papillary serious carcinoma of ovarian or fallopian tube primary resulting in death.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Mosier, Esq. Timothy M. Clark, Esq. Lauren A. Welling, Esq. SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 2860 Michelle Drive, Suite 220 Irvine, CA 92606 Telephone: (877) 480-9142 Facsimile: (213) 330-0346 E-mail: rmosier@thesandersfirm.com tclark@thesandersfirm.com lwelling@thesandersfirm.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hasting Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned Y-VONNIE HASTING, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03504 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on February 28, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned Case No. 18CV323996. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Helen Zukin, Esq. Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq. Cherisse Heidi A. 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 palmer@kiesel.law cleofe@kiesel.law - and - Ted G. Meadows, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (800) 898-2034 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: ted.meadows@beasleyallen.com - 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 Facsimile: (601) 952-1426 E-mail: allen@smith-law.org Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Holmes Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter captioned AUBREY HOLMES individually and as next of kin to MERIDITH HOLMES, deceased v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the state of California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03508 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on November 2, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, and was assigned Case No. HG17880973. The claim in this action is a direct and proximate result of the alleged negligent, willful, and wrongful acts and/or omissions of the Defendants and/or their corporate predecessors in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the products known as Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. The Plaintiff seeks recovery for damages as a result of the Decedent's developing ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by such wrongful conduct by the Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, and the attendant effects of developing ovarian cancer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Salkow, Esq. SALKOW LAW, APC 1540 7th Street, Suite 206 Santa Monica, CA 90401-3432 Telephone: (310) 451-8484 Facsimile: (310) 451-8486 E-mail: rsalkow@salkowlaw.com - and - James G. Onder, Esq. THE ONDER LAW FIRM 110 East Lockwood St. Louis, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 963-9000 Facsimile: (314) 963-1700 E-mail: onder@onderlaw.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hutchinson Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled SARA HUTCHINSON v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, and each of them, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03482 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on March 29, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned Case No. 17CV308012. The claims in the action arise from the Plaintiff's use of "Johnson's Baby Powder" and the alleged contributing factors the usage had in the development of her ovarian cancer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel B. Abrams, Esq. Meghan McCormick, Esq. LENIN SIMES LLP 44 Montgomery St., 32nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 426-3000 Facsimile: (415) 426-3001 E-mail: rabrams@levinsimes.com mmccormick@levinsirnes.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jerricks Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter titled Deborah Jerricks, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03420 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on November 2, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was assigned Case No. BC639513. As a direct and proximate result of their use of the Defendants' products, including Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs' Decedents developed serious and/or permanent adverse effects, including death, ovarian cancer and attendant side effects, the Plaintiffs allege.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Mosier, Esq. Timothy M. Clark, Esq. Lauren A. Welling, Esq. Rachel N. Van, Esq. SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 2860 Michelle Drive, Suite 220 Irvine, CA 92606 Telephone: (877) 480-9142 Facsimile: (213) 330-0346 E-mail: rmosier@thesandersfirm.com tclark@thesandersfirm.com lwelling@thesandersfirm.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Johnson Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled DIANE JOHNSON, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the state of California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03433 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on February 10, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, and was assigned Case No. CGC-17-557035. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Bloom, Esq. James R. Dugan, II, Esq. Douglas R. Plymale, Ph.D., Esq. Mekel Alvarez Smith, Esq. THE DUGAN LAW FIRM 409 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 626 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Telephone: (323) 825-8529 Facsimile: (323) 457-2120 E-mail: mark@dugan-lawfirm.com jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Mislabels Benecol Spreads, Chamlin Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Johnson & Johnson and McNeil Nutritionals, LLC for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, violations of New York's General Business Law, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. The case is captioned MATTHEW CHAMLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and McNEIL NUTRITIONALS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03852-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2019). Plaintiff Matthew Chamlin alleges that the Defendants are engaged in false and misleading labeling of Benecol Regular and Light Spreads. The Defendants allegedly claimed that their products did not contain trans fat or trans fatty acids and is generally recognized as safe for human consumption. However, Benecol Spreads contain trans fat through the use of partially hydrogenated oils. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that partially hydrogenated oils -- the same oils found in Benecol Spreads -- are not generally recognized as safe for use in human food due to coronary heart disease by contributing to the buildup of plaque inside the arteries that may cause a heart attack. Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Johnson & Johnson is an international medical device, pharmaceutical, and consumer goods manufacturer founded in 1886. Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and the company is listed in the Fortune 500. Johnson & Johnson has manufactured, marketed, and sold Benecol Spreads. McNeil Nutritionals, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. McNeil is subject to Johnson & Johnson's control, and the companies share employees, resources, and accounts. McNeil represents that it "is a global marketer of innovative nutritional products," as it markets Splenda sweetener products, Viactiv dietary supplements, and Lactaid milk supplements. McNeil has manufactured, marketed, and sold Benecol Spreads. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com - and - Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. Neal J. Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com ndeckant@bursor.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Hardiman Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter captioned LAMONT HARDIMAN individually and on Behalf the ESTATE or BARBARA LYNN PERRY HARDIMAN v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNSEL, F/K/A COSMETIC, TOILETRY, AND FRAGRANCE ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, and each of them, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03502 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on May 9, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned Case No. 16CV294911. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed and continue to fail to inform its customers and end users of Johnson & Johnson's products, including Shower to Shower body powder and Baby Powder, of a known catastrophic health hazard associated with the use of its products. The Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' calculated and reprehensible conduct, Decedent Barbara Lynn Perry Hardiman contracted ovarian cancer caused by exposure to talc, from which the Decedent died on May 7, 2014.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel B. Abrams, Esq. Meghan McCormick, Esq. LEVIN SIMES LLP 44 Montgomery St., 32nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 426-3000 Facsimile: (415) 426-3001 E-mail: rabrams@levinsimes.com mmccormick@levinsimes.com - and - Adam Pulaski, Esq. PULASKI LAW FIRM 2925 Richmond, Suite 1725 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 664-4555 Facsimile: (713) 664-7543 E-mail: adam@pulaskilawfirm.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Harrison Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit titled KATRINA K. HARRISON, Individually and as surviving daughter of KATHALEEN A. HARRISON, DECEDENT v. IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the state of California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03507 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on March 5, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was assigned Case No. BC696316. All claims in this action are a direct and proximate result of the negligent, willful, and wrongful acts and/or omissions of the Defendants and/or their corporate predecessors in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the products known as Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, the Plaintiff contends. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's Decedent have suffered from, and the Decedent has passed away from, the severe effects of ovarian cancer caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and Shower-to-Shower products, which were manufactured, mined, and/or marketed by the Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Baum, Esq. Nicole K.H. Maldonado, Esq. Robert Brent Wisner, Esq. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C. 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444 E-mail: mbaum@bhlaw.us nmaldonado@bhlaw.us rbwisner@bhlaw.us Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Haworth Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter titled MELISSA F. HAWORTH, an individual v. IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the state of California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03466 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on June 1, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Luis Obispo, and was assigned Case No. 18CV-0334. All claims in this action are a direct and proximate result of the alleged negligent, willful, and wrongful acts and/or omissions of the Defendants and/or their corporate predecessors in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the products known as Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Baum, Esq. Nicole Maldonado, Esq. Robert Brent Wisner, Esq. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C. 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444 E-mail: mbaum@bhlaw.us nmaldonado@bhlaw.us rbwisner@bhlaw.us Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Houston Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled JASON HOUSTON, Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest on behalf of the ESTATE OF MARY E. WRIGHT v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/KJA JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03404 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on April 3, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned Case No. 18CV325815. The lawsuit is a products liability action against the Defendants because the Plaintiff has suffered from the severe effects of Ovarian Cancer caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and Shower-to-Shower consumer products, which were manufactured, mined, and/or marketed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff seeks recovery for damages as a result of the Decedent's developing ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by such wrongful conduct by Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of the products and talcum powder, and the attendant effects of developing ovarian cancer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis G. Hoke, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Facsimile: (540) 672-3055 E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Howard Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter styled STEVEN HOWARD individually and as next of kin to BERTHA HOWARD, deceased v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the state of California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03400 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on November 2, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, and was assigned Case No. HG17880966. The claim in this action is a direct and proximate result of the alleged negligent, willful, and wrongful acts and/or omissions of the Defendants and/or their corporate predecessors in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the products known as Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. The Plaintiff seeks recovery for damages as a result of the Decedent's developing ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by such wrongful conduct by the Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, and the attendant effects of developing ovarian cancer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Salkow, Esq. SALKOW LAW, APC 1540 7th Street, Suite 206 Santa Monica, CA 90401-3432 Telephone: (310) 451-8484 Facsimile: (310) 451-8486 E-mail: rsalkow@salkowlaw.com - and - James G. Onder, Esq. THE ONDER LAW FIRM 110 East Lockwood St. Louis, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 963-9000 Facsimile: (314) 963-1700 E-mail: onder@onderlaw.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Huntley Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled JANA HUNTLEY and BRUCE HUNTLEY v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/KJA JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES; INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03396-RSWL-E to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on September 19, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was assigned Case No. BC722125. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's Spouse or the Plaintiff's Decedent was injured and suffered harm as a result of purchasing and using Johnson & Johnson's products, including Shower to Shower body powder and Baby Powder. The Plaintiffs seek recovery for damages as a result of ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by wrongful conduct by Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, and the attendant effects of developing ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Michael C. Zellers, Esq. Amanda Villalobos, Esq. Caroline Toole, Esq. Nicholas Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com - and - Alexander A. Guney, Esq. Emily Weissenberger, Esq. Michael F. Healy, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: aguney@shb.com eweissenberger@shb.com mfhealy@shb.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Husman Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned HEIDI HUSMAN, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03505 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on November 6, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned Case No. 17CV318667. The Plaintiff alleges that she developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Helen Zukin, Esq. Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq. Cherisse Heidi A. 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 palmer@kiesel.law cleofe@kiesel.law Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Johnson Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled CONSTANCE JOHNSON v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the state of California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03427 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on October 31, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa, and was assigned Case No. C17-02143. According to the complaint, the claim in the action is a direct and proximate result of the negligent, willful, and wrongful acts and/or omissions of the Defendants and/or their corporate predecessors in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the products, including Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Salkow, Esq. SALKOW LAW, APC 1540 7th Street, Suite 206 Santa Monica, CA 90401-3432 Telephone: (310) 451-8484 Facsimile: (310) 451-8486 E-mail: rsalkow@salkowlaw.com - and - James G. Onder, Esq. THE ONDER LAW FIRM 110 East Lockwood St. Louis, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 963-9000 Facsimile: (314) 963-1700 E-mail address: onder@onderlaw.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Cook Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned KYNDA COOK v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the state of California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03407-JAK-PJW to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on October 31, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was assigned Case No. BC681547. The claim in this action is allegedly a direct and proximate result of the negligent, willful, and wrongful acts and/or omissions of the Defendants and/or their corporate predecessors in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the products known as Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. The Plaintiff seeks recovery for damages as a result of developing ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by wrongful conduct by the Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, and the attendant effects of developing ovarian cancer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Salkow, Esq. SALKOW LAW, APC 1540 7th Street, Suite 206 Santa Monica, CA 90401-3432 Telephone: (310) 451-8484 Facsimile: (310) 451-8486 E-mail: rsalkow@salkowlaw.com - and - James G. Onder, Esq. THE ONDER LAW FIRM 110 East Lockwood St. Louis, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 963-9000 Facsimile: (314) 963-1700 E-mail address: onder@onderlaw.com Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Amanda Villalobos, Esq. Caroline Toole, Esq. Michael C. Zellers, Esq. Nicholas Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com - and - Alexander A. Guney, Esq. Emily Weissenberger, Esq. Michael F. Healy, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: aguney@shb.com eweissenberger@shb.com mfhealy@shb.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Croft Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled GLENDA CROFT, an Individual, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03446 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on November 2, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The lawsuit is an action for damages relating to the Defendants' design, manufacture, sale, marketing, advertising, promotion, and distribution of Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. The Plaintiffs allege that the use of the products can cause ovarian cancer and other serious health. The Plaintiffs contend that they used the products and as a result, they suffered ovarian cancer and other injuries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Morris, Esq. MORRIS LAW FIRM 6310 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 360 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (323) 302-9488 E-mail: jmorris@jamlawyers.com - and - Derek Potts, Esq. Rachal Rojas, Esq. POTTS LAW FIRM 3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 963-8881 E-mail: dpotts@potts-law.com rrojas@potts-law.com - and - Zona Jones, Esq. PROVOST UMPHREY, LLP 490 Park Street Beaumont, TX 77701 Telephone: (409) 835-6000 E-mail: zjones@provostumphrey.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Amanda Villalobos, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Echols Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter titled KEMO ECHOLS, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03424-CJC-JC to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on April 9, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was assigned Case No. BC701474. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Nicholas Janizeh, Esq. Amanda Villalobos, Esq. Caroline Toole, Esq. Michael C. Zellers, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com - and - Alexander A. Guney, Esq. Emily Weissenberger, Esq. Michael F. Healy, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: aguney@shb.com eweissenberger@shb.com mfhealy@shb.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Guynes Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter entitled PAUL KEITH GUYNES, an Individual, and as Successor in Interest for LOIS A. GUYNES; JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03479 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on July 30, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Amador, and was assigned Case No. 18-CV-10687. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's Decedent was injured and suffered harm as a result of purchasing and using Johnson & Johnson's products, including Shower to Shower body powder and Baby Powder. The Plaintiff's Decedent developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the alleged unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 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 E-mail: ted.meadows@beasleyallen.com - 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 E-mail: allen@smith-law.org Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Haase Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled JUSTINE HAASE, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03493 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on December 24, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, and was assigned Case No. 30-2018-01040095-CU-PL-CXC. The Plaintiff alleges that she developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Chase, Esq. Tom G. Antunovich, Esq. BISNAR CHASE 1301 Dove Street, Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 752-2999 Facsimile: (949) 752-2777 E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com tantunovich@bisnarchase.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hair Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter titled LARAINE HAIR v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., SAFEWAY, INC.; RITE-AID CORPORATION, CVS PHARMACY, INC.; THE KROGER COMPANY (d/b/a RALPHS); PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL f/k/a COSMETIC, TOILETRY, AND FRAGRANCE ASSOCIATION (CFTA); And DOES 1-300, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03496 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on June 17, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, and was assigned Case No. AG16820181. The case is brought by Laraine Hair as a result of her having been diagnosed with ovarian cancer caused by repeated and chronic exposure to the talc in Defendant Johnson & Johnson's "Johnson's Baby Powder" and/or "Johnson's Shower to Shower" distributed, promoted, supplied and/or sold by the Defendants. The Plaintiff in this action seeks recovery for damages as a result of developing ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by such wrongful conduct by the Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talc, and the attendant effects of developing ovarian cancer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jackie Kruger, Esq. THE KRUGER LAW FIRM 485 S. Robertson Blvd., Suite 4 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 550-1234 Facsimile: (310) 550-6904 E-mail: Info@TheKrugerLawFirm.com - and - Stephen T. Blackburn, Esq. STANCHLY HAMILTON, LLP 325 N. St. Paul Street Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone (214) 734-7900 Facsimile: (214) 234-7400 E-mail: sblackburn@hamiltonwingo.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Haney Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter entitled DEBRA HANEY v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03498 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on February 23, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned Case No. 18CV323905. The lawsuit is a products liability action against the Defendants because the Plaintiff has suffered from the severe effects of Ovarian Cancer caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and Shower-to-Shower consumer products, which were manufactured, mined, and/or marketed by the Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis G. Hoke, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Facsimile: (540) 672-3055 E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hardesty Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit titled HESPERANSA HARDESTY, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03506 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on March 27, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Solano, and was assigned Case No. FCS050568. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hargrove Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter entitled TONI HARGROVE v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the state of California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03483 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on October 31, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, and was assigned Case No. 37-2017-00041678-CU-PL-CTL. The claim in this action is allegedly a direct and proximate result of the negligent, willful, and wrongful acts and/or omissions of the Defendants and/or their corporate predecessors in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the products known as Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. The Plaintiff seeks recovery for damages as a result of developing ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by wrongful conduct by the Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, and the attendant effects of developing ovarian cancer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Salkow, Esq. SALKOW LAW, APC 1540 7th Street, Suite 206 Santa Monica, CA 90401-3432 Telephone: (310) 451-8484 Facsimile: (310) 451-8486 E-mail: rsalkow@salkowlaw.com - and - James G. Onder, Esq. THE ONDER LAW FIRM 110 East Lockwood St. Louis, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 963-9000 Facsimile: (314) 963-1700 E-mail address: onder@onderlaw.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hatanaka Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled SARA K. HATANAKA, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03392 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was assigned Case No. BC624643. The Plaintiff brings this products liability case against the Defendants because she allegedly developed ovarian cancer and suffered injuries from her use of tale-based products manufactured, designed, marketed, promoted, labeled, tested, distributed, and/or sold by the Defendants. The Plaintiff contends that they Defendants substantially contributed to the manufacture, design, distribution, promotion, marketing, labeling, testing, and selling of the talc-based products she used, products known as Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Helen Zukin, Esq. Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq. Nicole Ramirez, 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 palmer@kiesel.law ramirez@kiesel.law Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hauck Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter styled DOLORES HAUCK, Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest on behalf of the ESTATE OF DEBRA GARCIA v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03450 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on April 27, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned Case No. 18CV327347. The lawsuit is a products liability action against the Defendants because Decedent Debra Garcia suffered from and died due to the severe effects of Ovarian Cancer caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and Shower-to-Shower consumer products, which were manufactured, mined, and/or marketed by the Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis G. Hoke, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Facsimile: (540) 672-3055 E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hough Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled MARI JO HOUGH AND NICK LOWE v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03461 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on May 22, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, and was assigned Case No. CIVDS1812541. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's Spouse or the Plaintiff's Decedent was injured and suffered harm as a result of purchasing and using Johnson & Johnson's products, including Shower to Shower body powder and Baby Powder. The Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's Spouse or the Plaintiff's Decedent developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the alleged unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee Cirsch, Esq. Michael Akselrud, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC 21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (310) 277-5100 Facsimile: (310) 277-5103 E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Howard Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit title LAKISHIA HOWARD, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03463 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on November 6, 2017, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned Case No. 17CV318663. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Helen Zukin, Esq. Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq. Cherisse Heidi A. 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 palmer@kiesel.law cleofe@kiesel.law Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Joffroy Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned LISA JOFFROY, an individual; BRANDY BURROWS, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the state of California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03408 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on October 13, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was assigned Case No. BC637233. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian D. Chase, Esq. Tom G. Antunovich, Esq. BISNAR CHASE 1301 Dove Street, Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 752-2999 Facsimile: (949) 752-2777 E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com tantunovich@bisnarchase.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Johnson Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter entitled CAROLINA JOHNSON, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03423 to the proceeding. The lawsuit was filed on February 15, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was assigned Case No. BC694135. According to the complaint, all claims in the action are a direct and proximate result of the negligent, willful, and wrongful acts and/or omissions of the Defendants and/or their corporate predecessors in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the products, including Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 429-6506 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com - and - Sterling Starns, Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A. 404 Court Square North P.O. Box 927 Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Michael Carl Zellers, 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 K&N ENGINEERING: Minn. Court Allows J. Penrod to Amend Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed the case styled John Penrod, Gus Erpenbach, and Juan Welsh, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. K&N Engineering, Inc., Defendant, No. 18-cv-02907 (ECT/LIB)(D. Minn.), in federal district court seeking to represent a nationwide class -- or, alternatively, state-specific classes -- of persons who sustained damages caused by the Defendant's allegedly defective oil filters. The Plaintiffs assert only state-law claims and allege there is subject-matter jurisdiction over this case on the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Defendant K&N Engineering seeks dismissal of the case on several grounds, including that the Plaintiffs' claims do not satisfy CAFA's $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold. Because the Plaintiffs' complaint does not allege facts plausibly establishing this jurisdictional requirement, Judge Eric C. Tostrud of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the complaint. The Plaintiffs will be permitted to file an amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxoen6fn from Leagle.com. John Penrod, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Juan Welsh, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith, Esq. -- csmith@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph B. Kenney, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, pro hac vice, Ling Shan Wang, Esq. -- lwang@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek pLLC & Matthew D. Schelkopf, Sauder Schelkopf, LLC, pro hac vice. Gus Erpenbach, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Joseph B. Kenney, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, pro hac vice & Ling Shan Wang, Gustafson Gluek pLLC. K&N Engineering, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda M. Cialkowski, Esq. -- acialkowski@nilanjohnson.com -- Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, Anne Marilyn Kelts, Baker McKenzie LLP, pro hac vice, Leah N. Kippola-Friske, Esq. -- lkippola-friske@nilanjohnson.com -- Nilan Johnson Lewis PA & Mark C. Goodman, Esq. -- mark.goodman@bakermckenzie.com -- Baker McKenzie, pro hac vice. KOHN LAW FIRM: Poindexter Sues over Debt Collection Policy ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Kohn Law Firm S.C. for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is captioned JESSICA POINDEXTER, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. KOHN LAW FIRM S.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00608-WCG (E.D. Wis., April 26, 2019). Plaintiff Jessica Poindexter alleges that Kohn Law Firm sent her a collection letter that falsely implies to the unsophisticated consumer that interest and other charges could accrue on the charged-off debt. Kohn Law Firm S.C. is for-profit service corporation formed under the laws of the State of Wisconsin. It maintains its principal business address at 735 N. Water St., Suite 1300, City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. The company regularly engages in the collection of defaulted consumer debts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis R. Greene, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 3010 South Appleton Road Menasha, WI 54952 Telephone (973) 379-7500 E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com Andrew@SternThomasson.com Francis@SternThomasson.com KOPPERS INC: Arkansas High Court Flips Class Certification Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- Koppers, Inc., took an appeal before the Supreme Court of Arkansas from the Pulaski County Circuit Court's order certifying a class action lawsuit filed by Koppers employees Kelvin Trotter, Nathane Davis, Lonzo Allen, and Ken Piggee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (collectively referred to as employees). The appellate case is captioned KOPPERS, INC., Appellant, v. KELVIN TROTTER, NATHANE DAVIS, LONZO ALLEN, AND KEN PIGGEE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, No. CV-18-228 (Ark.). Employees sued Koppers pursuant to the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), Ark. Code Ann. Sections 11-4-201 et seq. for unpaid overtime. They claimed that Koppers violated the AMWA by failing to compensate them for time spent donning and doffing their uniforms and protective equipment and walking to and from their workstations. After filing their complaint, employees moved to certify a class of: [a]ll individuals who were, are, or will be employed by Defendant as hourly paid employees at the Koppers plant in North Little Rock, Arkansas, at any time within the three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of the final disposition of this action, and who were, are, or will be required to perform donning and doffing activities. Koppers contends that the circuit court failed to provide any reasoning supporting class certification, precluding meaningful review and requiring reversal. Alternatively, Koppers contends that employees did not meet their burden of proving the requirements for class certification. The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the lower court's order in the present case is akin to the order in Industrial Welding Supplies of Hattiesburg, LLC v. Pinson, 2017 Ark. 315, 530 S.W.3d 854. The order stated in relevant part, "[T]he court finds that the requirements of Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied and therefore grants the motion for class certification." Like the order in Pinson, the Trotter order defined the class, but it failed to define the class claims, issues, or defenses. Further, the order, like the one in Pinson, failed to provide any analysis of the six factors under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (2018). Therefore, in conformity with Pinson, the state Supreme Court remands the case with instructions to enter an order that complies with Rule 23. The circuit court must conduct an analysis to determine whether the Rule 23 requirements have been met, and that analysis must be reflected in the circuit court's order. Further, the order must define the class and class claims, issues, or defenses. A full-text copy of the Opinion penned by Chief Justice John Dan Kemp is available at https://tinyurl.com/y347bqpt from Leagle.com. Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, by: E.B. Chiles IV, Esq. -- cchiles@qgtlaw.com -- Joseph R. Falasco, Esq. -- jfalasco@qgtlaw.com -- and Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq., for appellant. For appellees: John Holleman, Esq. Timothy A. Steadman, Esq. Jerry Garner, Esq. Holleman & Associates, P.A. 1008 West Second Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Tel: (501) 975-5040 Fax: (501) 975-5043 Email: jholleman@johnholleman.net KRAFT HEINZ: Timber Hill Sues over Inflated Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Kraft Heinz and its certain current and former senior executives and directors for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned TIMBER HILL LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, BERNARDO HEES, PAULO BASILIO, DAVID H. KNOPF, GEORGE EL ZOGHBI, CHRISTOPHER R. SKINGER, VINCE GARLATI, ALEX BEHRING and 3G CAPITAL INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02807 (N.D. Ill., April 25, 2019). Plaintiff Timber Hill, LLC alleges that Kraft has made materially false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts regarding its value and business prospects. Timber Hill brings this action on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated investors that purchased Kraft Heinz common stock, purchased call options on Kraft Heinz common stock, sold put options on Kraft Heinz common stock and/or purchased futures on Kraft Heinz common stock during the period July 6, 2015 through Feb. 21, 2019. This action arises from Kraft Heinz's February 21, 2019 announcements that it: (i) would be taking a $15.4 billion goodwill impairment write-down primarily relating to its Kraft and Oscar Mayer brands; (ii) had received an SEC subpoena related to an investigation into the Kraft Heinz's accounting and controls; and (iii) was cutting its quarterly dividend from $0.625 cents per share to $0.40 cents per share. Kraft Heinz further announced it would be delaying the filing of its annual report on Form 10-K for fiscal year 2018. Together, these disclosures caused the price of Kraft Heinz's common stock to drop significantly erasing more than $16 billion in market capitalization. Kraft Heinz is a Delaware corporation formed in July 2015. Kraft Heinz's common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol KHC. Kraft Heinz has headquarters in both Chicago, Illinois and Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1900-16 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 710-5960 E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com - and - 299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10171 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 - and - Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. Sean M. Riegert, Esq. Andrew M. Sher, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10171 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 - and - Michael H. Moirano, Esq. MOIRANO GORMAN KENNY, LLC 135 S. LaSalle St., Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 614-1260 E-mail: mmoirano@mgklaw.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Beyers Suit in S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Mutual Insurance. The case is captioned as WILLIAM BEYERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv01601-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind., April 22, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and referred to Magistrate Judge Doris L. Pryor. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company provides insurance products and services in the United States and internationally. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was formerly known as Massachusetts Employees' Insurance Association and changed its name to Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in August 1917. The company was founded in 1912 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Syed Ali Saeed, Esq. SAEED & LITTLE LLP 1 W Vermont Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 721-9214 Facsimile: (888) 422-3151 E-mail: ali@sllawfirm.com LOANME INC: Tbiaa Sues over Credit Background Checks ---------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against LoanMe, Inc. for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCCRAA). The case is captioned VINCENT TBIAA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. LOANME, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00790 (April 26, 2019). The complaint alleges that LoanMe, Inc. pulled Plaintiff Vincent Tbiaa's and similarly situated class members' credit reports and shared private, credit reporting information with third parties without his authorization or consent in violation of the FCRA and CCCRAA. In addition, Defendant allegedly implemented a systemic policy and practice to run hard inquiries on consumer credit reports. Founded in 2013, LoanMe is a California-based lender that offers unsecured installment loans to qualified borrowers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com LOCAL ADVANTAGE: Reasonover Sues over Automated Calls ----------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Local Advantage, Inc. for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned CASEY REASONOVER on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL ADVANTAGE, INC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10985 (D. Mass., April 25, 2019). Local Advantage, Inc. allegedly made automated and pre-recorded telemarketing calls to cellular telephone numbers, including the Plaintiff, which is prohibited by the TCPA. Accordingly, Plaintiff Casey Reasonover seeks redress for the Defendant's wide scale illegal telemarketing practices. Local Advantage, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business of 2166 W. Broadway, Suite 543 in Anaheim, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq. Jeremy Cohen, Esq. CW LAW GROUP, P.C. 188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01701 Telephone: (508) 309-4880 Facsimile: (508) 597-7722 E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com LYFT INC: Malig Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- MATIAS MALIG, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MALIG FAMILY TRUST, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LYFT INC.; LOGAN GREEN; JOHN ZIMMER; BRIAN ROBERTS; PRASHANT (SEAN) AGGARWAL; BEN HOROWITZ; VALERIE JARRETT; DAVID LAWEE; HIROSHI MIKITANI; ANN MIURA-KO; MARY AGNES (MAGGIE) WILDEROTTER; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; JEFFERIES LLC; UBS SECURITIES LLC; STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC.; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.; CANACCORD GENUITY LLC; EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C.; PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.; JMP SECURITIES LLC; WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC; KKR CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC.; BLAYLOCK VAN, LLC; PENSERRA SECURITIES LLC; SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK & CO., L.L.C.; THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P.•; CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P.; C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC.; DREXEL HAMILTON, LLC; GREAT PACIFIC SECURITIES; LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; SAMUEL A RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC.; R. SEELAUS & CO., LLC; and TIGRESS FINANCIAL PARTNERS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02690-HSG (N.D. Cal., May 17, 2019) asserts claims against all Defendants for violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). According to the complaint, the issuance of Lyft common stock in connection with an initial public offering ("IPO" or "Offering") was registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, pursuant to Lyft's registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-229996) declared effective on March 28, 2019 (the "Registration Statement"). This case arises from untrue statements of material fact as well as the omission of other facts necessary in order to make statements contained in the Registration Statement not materially false or misleading. Lyft is a ridesharing company. Beginning in 2012, Lyft sought to revolutionize transportation by launching its peer-to-peer marketplace for on-demand ridesharing. In November 2018, Lyft acquired Bikeshare Holdings LLC's ("Motivate") technology and corporate functions for $251 million. In 2017, Motivate was the largest bikeshare operator in North America with revenue of approximately $100 million. This acquisition enabled Lyft to add bikes to its suite of services. According to its Form S-1, Lyft acquired Motivate to "establish a solid foothold in the bikeshare market and offer access to new transportation options on the Lyft Platform." On March 28, 2019, Lyft offered 32.5 million shares to the public through an IPO at a price of $72.00 per share for total proceeds of $2.34 billion. According to the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in connection with the IPO, Lyft estimated that its ridesharing marketplace "is available to over 95% of the U.S. population, as well as in select cities in Canada." Lyft represented that its "U.S. ridesharing market share was 39% in December 2018, up from 22% in December 2016." Lyft's focus on its market share gain and position were key selling points to IPO investors. Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Registration Statement's representations were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) Lyft's claimed ridesharing position was overstated; (2) more than 1,000 of the bicycles in Lyft's rideshare program suffered from safety issues that would lead to their recall; (3) Lyft's drivers were becoming disincentivized from driving for Lyft; and (4) Lyft failed to warn investors that a labor disruption could affect its operations, says the complaint. Accordingly, the price of the Company's shares was artificially and materially inflated at the time of the Offering. As the true facts emerged in the wake of the Offering, the Company's shares fell sharply from $72.00 to under $57.00 on April 15, 2019. By this action, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other Class Members who also acquired the Company's shares pursuant or traceable to the Offering, now seeks to obtain a recovery for the damages suffered as a result of Defendants' violations of the Securities Act. Plaintiff purchased 50 shares of the Company's common stock on March 29, 2019, at a price of $72.00 per share. Lyft is a transportation network company based in San Francisco, California. Lyft's shares are listed and trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "LYFT".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Jacob A. Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 Email: jake@blockesq.com MAYO CLINIC: Kuhr Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------- NATLIE KUHR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAYO CLINIC JACKSONVILLE and PROFESSIONAL SERVICE BUREAU, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2019-CA-000218 (Fla. Cir., Duval Cty., April 22, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Mayo Clinic Jacksonville Inc. operates an academic medical center in Florida. The company’s facilities include exam rooms; outpatient surgery center equipped for general anesthesia; laboratory; pharmacy; patient-education library; endoscopy suite; and auditorium for patient, staff, and student education programs. It also offers programs in cancer treatment and organ transplantation. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in Jacksonville, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com kslaven@zpllp.com mperez@zpllp.com jgarcia@zpllp.com MEDSPA DEL MAR: Mazzariol Suit Moved From S.D. to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled CAROL N. MAZZARIOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDSPA DEL MAR, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-10015, was transferred on April 26, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers). The Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00276-SPC-UAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is assigned to Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. Ms. Mazzariol brings this action against MedSpa to secure redress for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Through this action, she seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct--unsolicited marketing--which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner Carol N. Mazzariol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jordan David Utanski, Esq. Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 2875 NE 191st Street, Suite 703 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: utanski@edelsberglaw.com scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com Defendant-Respondent Medspa Del Mar, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, is represented by: David M. Landis, Esq. MATEER & HARBERT, PA P.O. Box 2854 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 425-9044 Facsimile: (407) 423-2016 E-mail: rpinkston@mateerharbert.com - and - Jordan Scott Cohen, Esq. Michael Gene Polatsek, Esq. WICKER, SMITH, O'HARA, MCCOY & FORD, PA 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 PO Box 14460 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 847-4800 Facsimile: (954) 760-9353 E-mail: jcohen@wickersmith.com MPolatsek@wickersmith.com MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Romonoyske Suit Removed to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Sharon Romonoyske, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc., Case No. 624012/2018 was removed on April 26, 2019, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02451 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.[BN] Defendant Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc., is represented by: Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG 100 Park Avenue, Suite 2000 10017-5546, Suite 2000 New York, NY 10017-5546 Telephone: (212) 812-4124 Facsimile: (646) 682-7180 E-mail: mjohnson@stradley.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Galino FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Virginia Galino, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 623495/2018, was removed on April 26, 2019, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02442 to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[BN] Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc., is represented by: Dana Brett Briganti, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471-6200 Facsimile: (212) 935-1166 E-mail: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com MONSANTO CO: Accused by Bahl Suit of Selling Defective Herbicide ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Bahl v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01007 (E.D. Mo., April 28, 2019), arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MONSANTO CO: Bailey Seeks Damages Over Roundup(R) Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------- Gloria Bailey v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01010 (E.D. Mo., April 28, 2019), is brought for damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MONSANTO CO: Choate Sues Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- Lanny Choate v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01005 (E.D. Mo., April 28, 2019), is brought for personal injuries allegedly sustained by exposure to Roundup(R). The lawsuit is brought for damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MONSANTO CO: Dedrick Sues for Injuries From Use of Roundup(R) ------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Dedrick v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01011 (E.D. Mo., April 28, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff suffered injuries as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MONSANTO CO: Faces Carpenter Suit for Damages Over Roundup(R) ------------------------------------------------------------- Janet Carpenter v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01016 (E.D. Mo., April 28, 2019), is brought for damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Hampton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- VIRGIL R. HAMPTON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01056 (E.D. Mo., April 30, 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] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Rotramel Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- Debbie Rotramel, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01055 (E.D. Mo., April 30, 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] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Sanders Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Wayne Sanders, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01053 (E.D. Mo., April 30, 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] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Schafer Suit Moved to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled JOHN SCHAFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02292, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 23, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02169-VC to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018, Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Cady, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 22 W Washington Street, 15th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 462-1700 Facsimile: (312) 756-0045 E-mail: scady@molllawgroup.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Serna Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- Larry Serna, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01058 (E.D. Mo., April 30, 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] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Shultz Suit Moved to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled NICHOLE SHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02304, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 23, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02190-VC to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018, Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Cady, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 22 W Washington Street, 15th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 462-1700 Facsimile: (312) 756-0045 E-mail: kmoll@molllawgroup.com MOTT'S LLP: Dalton Files Fraud Class Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mott's LLP. The case is styled as Sharise Dalton, Nancy Bierly, Paula Leblanc, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mott's LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02960 (E.D. N.Y., May 17, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Mott's is an American company involved primarily in producing apple-based products, particularly juices and sauces.[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 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Settlement in Jordan Suit Has Final Okay ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas O. Rice of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted final approval to the class action settlement in the case captioned LAURA ZAMORA JORDAN, as her separate estate, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, and FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, Intervenor, No. 2:14-CV-0175-TOR (E.D. Wash.). This case arises from actions taken by Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC affecting Washington homeowners' residential properties in default. In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff and Class Representative Laura Zamora Jordan asserted the following causes of action: trespass; intentional trespass, RCW 4.24.630; violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RCW 19.86 et seq.; and breach of contract. ECF No. 2-19 at 10-16. The Chelan County Superior Court certified the class under Washington Civil Rule 23 on May 19, 2014. Thereafter, Defendant removed the action to this Court and moved to decertify the class. This Court denied Defendant's motion and certified the following class: All persons who own or owned real property in Washington subject to a deed of trust or a mortgage serviced or held by Nationstar, whose property Nationstar or its agents deemed vacant prior to the completion of a foreclosure sale and between April 3, 2008 and July 31, 2016. Under the settlement, Class Counsel estimates that Class Members will receive awards ranging between $75 and $52,165.34. One objection to the settlement was timely filed but the Court said the objection is overruled. The terms set forth in the settlement are approved as being fair, adequate, and reasonable in light of the degree of recovery obtained in relation to the risks faced by the Settlement Class in litigating the claims. The Settlement Class is properly certified as part of this settlement. The relief provided to the Settlement Class under the settlement agreement is appropriate as to the individual members of the Settlement Class and as a whole. The Class Administrator shall deduct and receive its fees and costs in full payment for its services, not to exceed $45,000 from the Settlement Fund. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Granting Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and the Special Master's Request for Approval of Payment of Fees and Costs are granted. The Court approves the payment of $4,250,000 in attorneys' fees to Class Counsel as fair and reasonable. The Court approves the payment of $208,245.67 to Class Counsel as reimbursement for litigation costs. The Court approves the payment of $63,864.50 in fees and $1,191.65 in costs to Special Master Bruce Kreigman, both deducted from the Settlement Fund. The Court approves the service award of $20,000 to Laura Zamora Jordan as Class Representative. Four individuals have timely and properly excluded themselves from the Settlement Class: Jack Grant, Kimberly Smack, Pamela Turner, and Richard Rutkowski. ECF No. 389-5. Aside from those four identified individuals, all members of the Settlement Class are bound by this Order. Bruce P Kriegman, Special Master, pro se. Laura Zamora Jordan, as her separate estate, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell, Esq. -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Clay M. Gatens, Esq. -- clayg@jdsalaw.com -- Jeffers Danielson Sonn & Aylward PS, Michelle A. Green, Esq. -- michelleg@jdsalaw.com -- Jeffers Danielson Sonn and Aylward PS & Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. -- bchandler@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC. Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael D. Daudt, Esq. Daudt Law PLLC 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250 Seattle, WA 98121-1820 Tel: (206) 445-7733 Fax: (206) 445-7399 Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendant, represented by John Alan Knox, Esq. -- jknox@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs, Andrew Weiss Noble, Severson & Werson APC, Jan T. Chilton, Esq. -- jtc@severson.com -- Severson & Werson PC, pro hac vice, Mark Douglas Lonergan, Esq. -- mdl@severson.com -- Severson & Werson APC, pro hac vice & Mary Kate Sullivan, Esq. -- mks@severson.com -- Severson & Werson PC, pro hac vice. State of Washington, Washington State Attorney General, Interested Party, represented by Amy Chia-Chi Teng, Attorney Generals Office. Michael P Klein, Real Party in Interest on behalf of the bankruptcy estates of In re Caspers and In re Bentley, Trustee, pro se. Federal Housing Finance Agency, Intervenor, represented by Asim Varma, Esq. -- asim.varma@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel J. Gibbons, Witherspoon Kelley, David B. Bergman, Esq. -- david.bergman@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, pro hac vice & Howard N. Cayne, Esq -- howard.cayne@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, pro hac vice. NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Kohanski Sues over Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Nationwide Credit Inc. (NCI) for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The case is captioned BARBARA KOHANSKI, also known as BARBARA PAULSON-KOHANSKI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00600 (E.D. Wis., April 25, 2019). Plaintiff Barbara Kohanski alleges that NCI has violated FDCPA by engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. Kohanski allegedly received NCI's collection letter that falsely suggests to the unsophisticated consumer that a settlement offer was a one-time take-it-or-leave-it offer. NCI maintains its principal business address at 1000 Abernathy Rd., Suite 200, City of Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. NCI's agent of service in Wisconsin is the Corporation Service Company, 8040 Excelsior Dr., Suite 400, Madison, Wisconsin. The company is engaged in the collection defaulted consumer debts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis R. Greene, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 3010 South Appleton Road Menasha, WI 54952 Telephone (973) 379-7500 E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com Andrew@SternThomasson.com Francis@SternThomasson.com NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Hunter Sues Over Erroneous Collection Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Navient Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00557 (E.D. Va., May 8, 2019), seeks compensatory damages including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Telephone Consumers Protection Act. Defendants attempted to collect a debt incurred by another person not known to Hunter using an automatic telephone dialing system with a pre-recorded or artificial voices, notes the complaint. Navient Solutions, Inc. provides loan management, servicing and asset recovery solutions to clients in higher education and business clients, as well as federal, state, and local governments. The company offers financial services in the areas of education loan, private student loan and asset recovery. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Yanchunis, Esq. Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: (813) 223-5505 Fax: (813) 223-5402 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com jcohen@ForThePeople.com - and - John G. Harnishfeger, Esq. One South Street, 23rd Floor Baltimore, MD Tel: (410) 951-8744 Fax: (410) 539-6599 Email: john.harnishfeger@murphyfalcon.com NEW YORK: Subway Renovations Violate ADA, Forsee Suit Asserts ------------------------------------------------------------- LISA FORSEE, VINCENT RUSSELL, JEAN RYAN, BRONX INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES, BROOKLYN CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, NEW YORK, DISABLED IN ACTION OF METROPOLITAN NEW YORK, HARLEM INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, PATRICK FOYE, in his official capacity as chair and chief executive officer of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, ANDY BYFORD, in his official capacity as President of the New York City Transit Authority, and the CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04406 (S.D. N.Y., May 15, 2019) is a class-action lawsuit challenging the Defendants' ongoing discriminatory practice of renovating New York City subway stations without installing elevators or other stair-free routes in blatant violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). People with mobility disabilities have been protesting the inaccessibility of the subway and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's ("MTA's") practice of renovating stations without making them accessible for decades. The subway is the backbone of New York City's transportation network. Millions of people rely on it every day to get to work, school, public services, shops, parks, places of entertainment, social and cultural events, and everything else the City has to offer. However, nearly three decades after the passage of the ADA, less than 25% of New York City's subway stations are accessible to persons with mobility disabilities—the lowest rate of any subway system in the United States. As a consequence, people with mobility disabilities are often excluded from the City's subway system entirely, asserts the complaint. According to the complaint, the ADA clearly states that when a public entity alters "an existing facility or part thereof" in a way that "affects or could affect" usability, it must ensure that the altered portion is "readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs. Failure to abide by this requirement is unlawful "discrimination" against people with disabilities. There is no exception for cost: if a required access improvement is technically feasible, Defendants must make it. The MTA's repeated failure to do so, or even to adequately assess whether it could, is a longstanding and ongoing discriminatory practice that has played out in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens. If the MTA had followed the law requiring it to install stair-free routes in these renovated stations whenever feasible, the New York City subway system would be much more accessible today. Nonetheless, the requirement that the MTA take all feasible steps to make its renovated stations accessible, which is rooted in this basic observation and congressional intent, has been ignored. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring suit to end the MTA's discriminatory practice of renovating stations without regard to accessibility, and to seek remediation for past violations, so that people with disabilities can use the subway system like everyone else. Plaintiffs are persons with disabilities making the use of stairs difficult, dangerous, or impossible. The MTA operates the largest transportation network in North America, serving a population of 15.2 million people in the 5,000 square mile area covering New York City, Long Island, southeastern New York State, and Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michelle Caiola, Esq. Maia Goodell, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 644-8644 Fax: (212) 644-8636 Email: mcaiola@dralegal.org mgoodell@dralegal.org - and - Daniel L. Brown, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 Phone: (212) 634-3095 Fax: (212) 655-1768 Email: dlbrown@sheppardmullin.com NIGHTSTAR THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Sues over Biogen Merger ----------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Nightstar Therapeutics PLC and its board of directors and corporate officers for alleged violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned EARL M. WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NIGHTSTAR THERAPEUTICS PLC, PAULA COBB, DAVID FELLOWS, CHRIS HOLLOWOOD, DAVID LUBNER, JAMES MCARTHUR, DAVID MOTT, SCOTT WHITCUP, and BIOGEN INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00761-UNA (D. Del., April 26, 2019). Plaintiff Earl M. Wheby, Jr. alleges that the Defendants filed a Proxy Statement that contains false and misleading information in connection with the proposed acquisition by affiliates of Biogen Inc. Among other things, the Proxy Statement allegedly failed to disclose Nightstar's financial projections and the analyses performed by Centerview Partners in connection with the acquisition. Nightstar is an England and Wales public limited company and maintains its principal executive offices at 10 Milford Place, 2nd Floor, London W1T 5BJ United Kingdom. Nightstar's common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol NITE. Biogen Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It is an American multinational biotechnology company that specializes in the discovery, development, and delivery of therapies for the treatment of neurodegenerative, hematologic, and autoimmune diseases. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and – Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com O'RYAN OIL: Johnson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Glendale Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ryan C. Hoerauf, Inc. and Ryan C. Hoerauf, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00205, (E.D. Tex., May 8, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses/costs, including expert witness fees and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate as O'Ryan Oil & Gas and Big "R" Gas Plant in Henderson County, Texas, where Johnson worked as an operator. He regularly works in excess of 40 hour per work week without being compensated the appropriate rate, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Tel: (903) 596-7100 Fax: (469) 533-1618 Email: info@hommelfirm.com QUIK PICK: Truck Driver Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties ----------------------------------------------------- JUAN HERNANDEZ on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUIK PICK EXPRESS, LLC, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV16799 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2019) is an action pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, and any other applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, seeking unpaid lawful wages, unpaid rest and meal period compensation, penalties and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint notes that Defendants enforced shift schedules, employment policies and practices, and workload requirements wherein Plaintiff and all other Non-Exempt Employees: (1) were not paid proper wages they earned for all hours they worked including minimum wage and/or proper overtime compensation; (2) were not permitted to take their full statutorily authorized rest and meal periods, or had their rest and meal periods shortened and/or provided to them late due to the scheduling and work load and time requirements placed upon them by Defendants. Defendants also failed to pay such employees one hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period and/or rest period was not properly provided. The Defendants further failed to maintain accurate itemized records reflecting total hours worked and have failed to provide Non Exempt Employees with accurate, itemized wage statements reflecting total hours worked and appropriate rates of pay for those hours worked, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by QUIK PICK as a truck driver in or about October 2017 and currently occupies said non- exempt, hourly position. QUIK PICK is a California corporation which is headquartered in Carson, California and engaged in providing, among others, trucking, warehousing and shipping services throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Isandra Fernandez, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949)387-7200 Fax: (949)387-6676 RED ROBIN: Frisby Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY FRISBY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01787 (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2019) is a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week and Defendant failed to pay for work performed off-the-clock. Plaintiff was initially employed as a Server (aka Waiter) and later he split time as a Server and Shift Supervisor from approximately July, 2017 through October, 2018. Defendant is an American chain of casual dining restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin S. Dunagan, Esq. The Dunagan Law Firm, P.C., 13231 Champion Forest Dr., Suite 112 Houston, TX 77069 Phone: (713) 828-0619 Facsimile: (281) 809-4587 RESTAURANT DEPOT: Goodman Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES GOODMAN AND DOMINIC SCHROEDER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RESTAURANT DEPOT, LLC, AND JETRO HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00399 (W.D. Wis., May 15, 2019) seeks redress for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiffs worked over forty hours per week on numerous occasions. However, they were paid overtime based on their incorrect hourly rate, and they did not receive all of the overtime pay they were entitled to, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are individuals who resides in the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee County) and worked for Defendants. Restaurant Depot is an independent distributor of restaurant supplies, with over 130 service centers located throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert K. O'Reilly, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 Email: roreilly@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com SIX STAR: Silva Seeks OT Pay, Reimbursement of Expenses ------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Six Star Transportation, Inc. and Artur Bazyan for alleged violations of the Massachusetts General Laws. The case is captioned Mario Silva, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Six Star Transportation, Inc. & Artur Bazyan, Defendants, Case No. 19:1178 (Mass. Cmmw., Middlesex Cty., April 26, 2019). Plaintiff Mario Silva alleges that the Defendants have misclassified him and other workers as independent contractors, rather than employees. As a result of this misclassification, the Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiff and putative Class Members overtime compensation and failed to provide reimbursement for transportation expenses. Plaintiff and the putative class seek to recover unpaid overtime wages, unlawful deductions taken from their wages, unreimbursed transportation expenses, benefits to which they would have been entitled had they been properly classified as employees, statutory treble damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief permitted by law. Six Star, located in Randolph, Massachusetts, provides non-emergency medical transportation services to individuals. These services generally include driving individuals to and from doctor's appointments, to and from clinical facilities, and to and from other related non-emergency medical appointments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Shafran RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 723-7700 Facsimile: (617) 227-0313 E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com SOFIA RISTORANTE: Sinchi Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- SEGUNDO LUIS JERES SINCHI, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 8406 THIRD AVE REST CORP. d/b/a SOFIA RISTORANTE ITALIANO and PAUL BAVARO, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02882 (S.D. N.Y., May 15, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to remedy Defendants' wrongful withholding of Plaintiff's earned wages and overtime compensation. Plaintiff also brings these claims under New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), as well as the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations for violations of minimum wage and overtime wage requirements, and notice and record-keeping requirements. The Defendants engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation by knowingly violating the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Defendants repeatedly suffered or permitted Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per week without paying him the appropriate premium overtime pay of one and one half times the statutory minimum wage, it adds. Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendants from June 2004 to February 1, 2019, and worked at their restaurant. 8406 THIRD AVE REST CORP. owns and operates an Italian restaurant called SOFIA RISTORANTE ITALIANO located at 8406 Third Avenue, Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, NY 11209.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq. Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP 950 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (718) 777-0400 Facsimile: (718) 777-0599 SOUTH CITY GAS: Faces Saravia et al. Labor Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against South City Gas, Inc. for violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned MANUEL ANTONIO SARAVIA, an individual; REBECCA AGUILAR, an individual; ALEJANDRA CHAVEZ, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH CITY GAS, INC., a California Corporation; HUMBERTO FLORES, an individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 19STCVH499 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 25, 2019). Saravia et al. allege that South City Gas failed to pay minimum and overtime wages and failed to provide rest and meal breaks to its employees. In addition, Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant used non-compliant wage statements, failed to compensate all hours they worked, and engaged in unfair business practices. Owned and managed by Humberto Flores, South City Gas, Inc. operates gasoline stations in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq. SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (818) 473-5003 Facsimile: (818) 476-5619 E-mail: contact@slawla.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (310) 601-3131 Facsimile: (310) 388-8444 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com SPECTRUM BRANDS: SEC Disclosures Misleading, Pension Fund Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- WEST PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SPECTRUM BRANDS LEGACY, INC. f/k/a SPECTRUM BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC., ANDREAS R. ROUVE, DAVID M. MAURA, and DOUGLAS L. MARTIN, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00347 (W.D. Wisc., April 30, 2019), asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks an award of damages to compensate Spectrum stockholders for the Defendants' misrepresentations. The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Spectrum Brands Legacy, Inc. between June 14, 2016 and November 16, 2018, inclusive. On June 14, 2016 and February 3, 2017, Spectrum announced that it was consolidating the operations of its GAC and HHI businesses into two brand-new distribution centers in Dayton, Ohio and Edgerton, Kansas, respectively (the "Consolidations"). These were time- and capital-intensive projects on which analysts and other market-watchers commented extensively. Once operational, the Dayton and Edgerton facilities would impact every aspect of the GAC and HHI businesses. From June 2016 through April 2018, Spectrum and its senior management gave real-time updates about the status of the Consolidations that presented the Company's execution as unreservedly positive and effective. For example, Rouve and Martin routinely described the "good progress," asserted that the Consolidations were "on track" to "reduce expenses and inventory in the back half of 2017 and in 2018," and characterized any problems faced as "temporary," "transitional," "short-term," and "quickly addressed." In late 2017, Spectrum announced that the GAC project was complete and that the HHI project was nearing completion. Rouve told the market that the operational improvements were already manifest, saying in a November 11, 2017 press release that Spectrum had "delivered strong continuous improvement savings along with major efficiency enhancement programs in GAC and HHI." On February 8, 2018, Rouve reiterated that the GAC consolidation was complete, which "[wa]s important as we head into the peak spring and summer period." 1 These statements were materially misleading, falsely conveying to the market that the new facilities were already improving the cost profile and ready, willing, and able to execute on Spectrum's seasonal spring and summer demand. In truth, the execution of the Consolidations had been flawed and the Company knew those projects were far from complete. On April 26, 2018, the Company announced poor earnings for the second quarter of 2018 and revised its full-year 2018 EBITDA guidance downward by about 9%. Spectrum also announced that it had fired Rouve as CEO and replaced him with Maura, then Chairman of the Board of Directors. The Company admitted that its disastrous quarter was largely driven by bad execution on the consolidation projects, even though Rouve and Martin had assured the market that the projects were completed effectively as recently as two months earlier. As a result, Spectrum's share price declined by about 22.1%. Despite acknowledging problems with the Consolidations, the Defendants continued to falsely assure investors that those problems had been resolved. During the second quarter 2018 earnings call, and the subsequent third quarter earnings call on July 26, 2018, Maura and Martin represented that the problems at the distribution centers were "largely behind" the Company. Then, on November 19, 2018, Spectrum surprised the market by announcing a $92.5 million goodwill write down on the GAC business. Maura said that this was necessary to clean up the inventory and balance sheet mess caused by the poorly executed Consolidations. In other words, the November 2018 write down constituted additional economic harm to the Company stemming from the inadequately performed consolidation projects. After the April 2018 disclosures, Spectrum should have disclosed to investors that the problems related to the Consolidations had not been resolved and that the Company's bottom line would continue to suffer, instead of falsely insisting that the worst was over. Because of the November 2018 write down and related disclosures regarding the Consolidations, Spectrum's share price declined by another 19%. Spectrum is a Wisconsin-based company. Its primary business is manufacturing and marketing consumer products, which it then distributes largely to "big-box" retailers like Home Depot. During the Class Period, Spectrum owned the trademarks or held licenses for well-known household brands like Armor All, Kwikset, and Black & Decker. Spectrum was organized into five divisions, of which two -- Global Auto Care ("GAC") and Home & Hardware Improvement ("HHI") -- are relevant here. Spectrum relied heavily on its "distribution centers" – physical plants where Spectrum manufactured, packaged, and/or distributed its products.[BN] counsel for West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund: Douglas M. Poland, Esq. RATHJE WOODWARD LLC 10 East Doty St., Ste. 507 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 960-7430 E-mail: dpoland@rathjewoodward.com astites@rathjewoodward.com - and - Avi Josefson, Esq. Michael Blatchley, Esq. Edward G. Timlin, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 875 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 373-3880 E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com edward.timlin@blbglaw.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. Bonni S. Jensen, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com bonni@robertdklausner.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Woek Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC for minimum wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned RICHARD D. WOEK JR., an individual, Plaintiff, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-05342 (W.D. Wash., April 25, 2019). Plaintiff Richard D. Woek Jr. alleges that Swift failed to pay its driver employees for all hours worked. Plaintiff and the collective class were allegedly paid by Swift based on the number of miles driven. As a result, Plaintiff and the class' compensation was tied to the distance travelled. Plaintiff was not paid for on duty time when not driving. For over-the-road trips, this resulted in significant uncompensated on-duty time. In many weeks, Plaintiff and other Swift drivers were paid less than the minimum wage for each hour that they worked. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC is a transportation company that is authorized to conduct and is actually conducting business in the state of Washington. Swift designates its main office Arizona. The company specializes in moving goods in trucks throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Cox Seeks Minimum Pay for Waitstaff ---------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Texas Roadhouse, Inc. and Texas Roadhouse Delaware, LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA). The case is captioned CHELSEA COX, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. TEXAS ROADHOUSE, INC. and and TEXAS ROADHOUSE DELAWARE, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01688-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 8, 2019). Plaintiff Chelsea Cox alleges that the Defendants pay their tipped employees, including servers and bartenders, below the minimum wage rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA and, in Ohio, the OMFWSA. However, Defendants failed to correctly inform Plaintiff of the desire to rely on the tip credit to meet its minimum wage obligations. In addition, Defendants required the Plaintiff to pay from her tips for customer walkouts, shortages, or errors in customer orders. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., is a foreign for-profit corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, which does business in Ohio. Texas Roadhouse Delaware, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and a subsidiary of Texas Roadhouse, Inc. Defendants operate a nationwide chain of restaurants with the name "Texas Roadhouse" under the control of the same senior level management. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN 8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 644-3425 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com - and – Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com TJX COMPANIES: Schuchard Sues over Background Checks ---------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against The TJX Companies, Inc et al for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is captioned VLADIMIR SCHUCHARD, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; HOMEGOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation; T.J. MAXX OF CA, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; MARSHALLS OF MA, INC., a Massachusetts corporation; SIERRA TRADING POST, INC., a Wyoming corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV14308 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 25, 2019). Plaintiff Vladimir Schuchard alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer, investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports to conduct background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former employees and use information from credit and background reports in connection with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the law. Headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts, The TJX Companies, Inc. describes itself as the leading multinational off-price apparel and home fashions retailer in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. Alexandra R. McIntosh, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com alex@setarehlaw.com TOTAL SYSTEM: Telexfree Securities Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------ Total System Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court in the case entitled, In Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation (4:14-md-02566-TSH) (D. Mass.), has held a scheduling conference on March 20, 2019, but has not yet entered an order setting the case schedule. ProPay, Inc. ("ProPay"), a subsidiary of the Company, has been named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to the activities of TelexFree, Inc. and its affiliates and principals. TelexFree is a former merchant customer of ProPay. With regard to TelexFree, each purported class action lawsuit generally alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor defendants, including ProPay, aided and abetted the improper activities of TelexFree. TelexFree filed for bankruptcy protection in Nevada. The bankruptcy proceeding was subsequently transferred to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court. Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the following purported class action complaints relating to TelexFree: (i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No. BK-S-14-12524-ABL) (Bankr. D. Nev.); (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) (Bankr. D. Mass.); (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v. Telexelectric, LLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) (E.D.N.C.); (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No. 2:14-CV-00134) (N.D. Ga.); (v) Felicia Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG) (S.D. Fla.); (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere, et al. v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO) (D. Mass.); (vii) Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et al. (Case No. 14-04080) (Bankr. D. Mass); (viii) Magalhaes v. TelexFree, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-12437 (D. Mass.); (ix) Griffith v. Merrill et al., No. 14-CV-12058 (D. Mass.); (x) Abelgadir v. Telexelectric, LLP, No. 14-09857 (S.D.N.Y.); and (xi) Rita Dos Santos, v. TelexElectric, LLP et al., 2:15-cv-01906-NVW (D. Ariz.) (together, the "Actions"). On October 21, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") transferred and consolidated the Actions filed before that date to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Consolidated Action"). The JPML subsequently transferred the remaining Actions to the Consolidated Action. The Consolidated Action is styled In Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation (4:14-md-02566-TSH) (D. Mass.). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint on March 31, 2015 and filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") on April 30, 2015. The Second Amended Complaint, which supersedes the complaints filed prior to consolidation of the Actions, purports to bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased certain TelexFree “memberships” and suffered a "net loss" between January 1, 2012 and April 16, 2014. With respect to ProPay, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by TelexFree, and that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of providing payment processing services to TelexFree. Several defendants, including ProPay, moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on June 2, 2015. The court held a hearing on the motions to dismiss on November 2, 2015. On January 29, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part ProPay's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claim that ProPay was unjustly enriched by the alleged TelexFree fraud, but denied ProPay's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim that ProPay allegedly aided and abetted TelexFree's purported scheme. The court's ruling does not reflect any determination of the merits of the plaintiffs' aiding and abetting claim against ProPay, but instead is merely a ruling that the plaintiffs have alleged facts that could potentially entitle them to relief from ProPay if those facts were true. ProPay denies that it had any knowledge of TelexFree's alleged fraud or that it aided and abetted that fraud in any way. After deciding the motions to dismiss filed by ProPay and some of the other defendants in the litigation, the court lifted the stay on discovery that had been in place since the outset of the Consolidated Action. Approximately 50 defendants remain in the litigation. The Court held a scheduling conference on March 20, 2019, but has not yet entered an order setting the case schedule. Total System Services, Inc. provides payment processing, merchant, and related payment services to financial and nonfinancial institutions worldwide. The company operates through three segments: Issuer Solutions, Merchant Solutions, and Consumer Solutions. Total System Services, Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Columbus, Georgia. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Broom Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Wayne Broom individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld Systems, Inc., MSW Capital, LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00581-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla., May 17, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500 companies, and small businesses in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zeig, Esq. Zeig Law Firm, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33024 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Does not Pay Drivers Promised Rates, Says Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bart Haynie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00336, (E.D. Ark., May 8, 2019) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees for failure to pay lawful minimum and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Uber Technologies operates a transport network company via a cellphone application. Haynie is an Uber driver within Little Rock. He claims that Uber did not pay him the promised rate that was set. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. WH LAW, PLLC 1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 Email: chris@whlawoffices.com UNION CITY HOTEL: Vinalay Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Union City Hotel Management Corporation for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned DIANA VINALAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. UNION CITY HOTEL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00021559-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty.). In the complaint, Plaintiff Diana Vinalay alleges several causes of action against the Defendant, including for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide rest and meal periods, and for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under the FLSA. Union City Hotel Management Corporation operates several hotels in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAWFIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 UTGR INC: Ramer, Morales Seek OT Premium Pay -------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against UTGR, Inc., d/b/a Twin River Casino, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act (RIPWA). The case is captioned RYAN RAMER AND JULIE MORALES, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. UTGR, INC. d/b/a TWIN RIVER CASINO, alias Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00218 (D.R.I., April 26, 2019). Plaintiffs Ryan Ramer and Julie Morales allege that the Defendant willfully and repeatedly violated the FLSA as well as the RIPWA by employing them and Class Plaintiffs for more than 40 hours per workweek without compensating them at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they were employed. Accordingly, Ramer and Morales seek compensatory, liquidated, and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other equitable relief arising out of violations of the FLSA and RIPWA. UTGR, Inc. is a corporation duly organized under the laws of Delaware and doing business in the State of Rhode Island, with a principal place of business located at 100 Twin River Road in the Town of Lincoln, County of Providence, and State of Rhode Island. The company operates Twin River Casino, which offers 162,000 square-feet of gaming space with over 5,000 gaming positions. The casino operates over 4,200 slot machines and virtual table games, as well as 119 live table games including blackjack, roulette, craps, a poker room and more. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas J. Enright, Esq. ENRIGHT LAW LLC 696 Reservoir Avenue Cranston, RI 02910 Telephone: (401) 526-2620 Facsimile: (401) 457-7117 E-mail: tom@enrightlawoffice.com VISA INC: Bid to Dismiss Injunctive Relief Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the Injunctive Relief class action suit in the Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), is pending. On December 6, 2018, the district court held a hearing on the Damages Class plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement, and on January 24, 2019, the district court granted preliminary approval. Settlement discussions with plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class are ongoing. On January 16, 2019, the bank defendants moved to dismiss the claims brought against them by the Injunctive Relief Class, on the grounds that plaintiffs lack standing and fail to state a claim against the bank defendants. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. WABCO HOLDINGS: Class Suits over ZF Friedrichshafen Merger Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- WABCO Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been named as defendant in two class action suits related to its merger with ZF Friedrichshafen AG, entitled, Collier v. WABCO Holdings Inc., et al. and Kent v. WABCO Holdings Inc., et al. On March 28, 2019, WABCO entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) with ZF Friedrichshafen AG (ZF), a stock corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, and Verona Merger Sub Corp., a Delaware corporation and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ZF, pursuant to which ZF will acquire 100% of the issued and outstanding shares of WABCO common stock (the Merger). Consummation of the Merger is subject to approval by WABCO's shareholders, customary closing conditions, and regulatory approvals and is expected to close in early 2020. Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement, two putative class action complaints were filed against the Company and the Board of Directors. On April 23, 2019, the first putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the caption Collier v. WABCO Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-00729 (D. Del.). On April 24, 2019, the second putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the caption Kent v. WABCO Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-00735 (D. Del.). Both actions allege violations of federal securities laws and regulations due to allegedly material and misleading statements and omissions in the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection with the Merger, including with respect to the financial analyses of the Company's financial advisors and financial projections prepared by the Company's management. The actions seek to enjoin the special meeting and the closing, as well as damages, costs and attorneys' fees. WABCO Holdings said, "The defendants believe that the lawsuits are without merit." WABCO Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, supplies electronic, mechanical, electro-mechanical, and aerodynamic products worldwide. WABCO Holdings Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. WELLCARE HEALTH: Kent Seeks to Halt Centene Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Kent, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Wellcare Health Plans, Inc., Christian P. Michalik, Richard C. Breon, Kenneth A. Burdick, Amy Compton-Phillips, H. James Dallas, Kevin F. Hickey, Bobby Jindal, Glenn D. Steele, Jr., William L. Trubeck, Kathleen E. Walsh, Paul E. Weaver, Centene Corporaton, Wellington Merger Sub I, Inc., and Wellington Merger Sub II, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00865 (D. Del., May 8, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of WellCare Health Plans, Inc. by Centene Corporation, Wellington Merger Sub I, Inc. and Wellington Merger Sub II, Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under the transaction, WellCare's stockholders will receive 3.38 shares of Parent and $120.00 in cash for each share of WellCare common stock they own. The complaint asserts that the registration statement filed in connection with the merger failed to include critical financial analysis performed by its financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, needed by the shareholders to make an informed decision on the merger deal. WellCare focuses primarily on providing government-sponsored managed care services to families, children, seniors, and individuals with complex medical needs primarily through Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Prescription Drug Plans, as well as individuals in the Health Insurance Marketplace. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 Email: rm@maniskas.com WELLCARE OF FLORIDA: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Harrison Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH HARRISON and CHERYL MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLCARE OF FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a STAYWELL HEALTH PLAN OF FLORIDA and COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00222-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla., May 15, 2019) is a collective and class action brought by Individual and Representative Plaintiffs who are or were denied overtime pay required by federal wage and hour laws. These employees are similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the Putative Collective Class members to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay, asserts the complaint. The Defendants have been aware, or should have been aware, that Plaintiffs, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the Putative Collective Class members performed non-exempt work that required payment of overtime compensation. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek relief for the Opt-In Plaintiffs and Collective Class under the FLSA to remedy Defendants' failure to pay appropriate overtime compensation. Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Case Managers delivering and performing case management and care coordination services. STAYWELL is a Florida for-profit corporation doing business throughout Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, ESQ. Jeremiah J. Talbott, P.A. 900 East Moreno Street Pensacola, FL 32503 Phone: (850) 437-9600 Fax: (850) 437-0906 Email: jjtalbott@talbottlawfirm.com - and - SEAN CULLITON, ESQ. Sean Culliton, LLC 150 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Phone: (850) 385-9455 Fax: (813) 441-1999 Email: Sean@seancullitonlaw.com - and - JOHN C. DAVIS, ESQ. Law Office of John C. Davis 623 Beard Street Tallahassee, FL, 32303 Phone: (850) 222-4770 Fax: (850) 222-3119 Email: john@johndavislaw.net ********* 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 ***