/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190531.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 31, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 109 Headlines 21ST MORTGAGE: Trites Alleges Bias in Denial of Loan Application 7-ELEVEN INC: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Haitayan FLSA Class Suit ACE AMERICAN: M. Mayfield's ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga. ADTALEM GLOBAL: 7th Cir Appeal over Petrizzo Suit Dismissal Pending ADTALEM GLOBAL: Brown Class Action Underway in W.D. Missouri ADTALEM GLOBAL: Faces Robinson Class Action in N.D. Georgia ADTALEM GLOBAL: June 19 Status Conference in Engineers Fund Suit ADTALEM GLOBAL: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in Versetto Suit ALABAMA: Court Unseals Redacted Report in E. Bragg Suit ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Derivative Suit Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Surfside Suit Still Pending AMERICAN BOTTLING: Guzman-Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California AMN HEALTHCARE: Class Suit Settlements Await Court Approval AVAILITY LLC: Stephens Sues over Medical-Related Data Breach BANK OF AMERICA: Court Dismisses Untimely Plaintiffs in Duque Suit BASF CORP: Porter Seeks Overtime Pay BILLABONG HOLDINGS USA: Faces Haggar Suit over ADA Violations BIMBO BAKERIES: Peatry Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois BORG-WARNER MORSE: Walker et al Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. CAESARS ENTERPRISE: Loses Bid to Dismiss D'Amore Wage & Hour Suit CAL WEST: Court OKs $185K Settlement in C. Mora Suit CANNUKA LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CBS CORP: Seeks Dismissal of NY Consolidated Class Suit CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Potter Suit to Recover Overtime Wages, Damages CHAMPION PETFOODS: Bid to Modify Stay Order in Vado Suit Denied CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Orozco Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif. CHEMED CORP: $5.75MM Accord in Seper/Chhina in the Works CHEMED CORP: Class Discovery Remains Stayed in Phillips Lawsuit CHEMED CORP: Class Discovery Remains Stayed in Williams Lawsuit CHEMED CORP: Unit Still Defends Lax Class Suit over Unpaid Wages CHICAGO, IL: Court Narrows Claims in IDEA Suit vs. Educ. Board CIGNA CORP: Amara Plaintiffs Challenge Calculation of Benefits CIGNA CORP: Aug. 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set CMRE FINANCIAL: Gentile Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida COFIROUTE USA: Faces Chavez Suit over Damages of Personal Property COGNIZANT TECH: June 10 Deadline to Respond to Amended Complaint COSTCO WHOLESALE: Nevarez et al. Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. CP OPCO: Court OKs $3MM Settlement in D. McDonald Suit DASCO HOME MEDICAL: Perry Seeks OT Pay DISH NETWORK: Subsidiary Still Defends Krakauer Litigation DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Suit in Arkansas Still Pending DT HOPITALITY: Denied Nuno, Marquez, Overtime Pay, Paystubs DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS: Vaughn Sues over Deceptive Collection DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Sanchez Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls E & M FOOD MARKET: Valdez Moronta Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Delaware High Court Narrows Olenik Claims EASTERN COMMONWEALTH: Bragiforte Seeks OT Pay for Movers ELI LILLY: 9th Cir. Appeal in Strafford Class Suit Still Pending ELI LILLY: MMO to Appeal Dismissal of Class Action ELI LILLY: Plaintiff Voluntarily Drops Glucagon Pricing Class Suit ELI LILLY: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint in Insulin Pricing Litigation ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Still Awaits Court OK on McGee Settlement ERIE INDEMNITY: Ritz's Bid to Reconsider Nixed Suit Still Pending ERNST & YOUNG: Miranda Seeks OT Premium Pay for AML Consultants EVANS DELIVERY: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California EXECUTIVE CREDIT: Bell Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey FAIR COLLECTIONS: Muldowney Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York FARMERS GROUP: Holmes Suit Transferred to D. New Mexico FASHION NOVA: Haggar Files ADA Suit in C.D. California FEDERAL SIGNAL: Still Defends Hearing Loss Litigation FORD MOTOR: Court Refuses to Modify Export Report in Kasper FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Dismissal of Connecticut Suit GOHEALTH LLC: Roby Sues over Automated Telemarketing Text Messages GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI: Greifman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York H&R BLOCK: Court Grants Arbitration Bid in J. Davidow Suit HANOVER INSURANCE: Nixed Durand Suit No Longer Subject to Appeal HCP INC: Still Defends Boynton Beach Pension Fund Class Suit HERTZ LOCAL: Court Remands T. Belton's Wage & Hour Suit IMERYS TALC: Fong et al. Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. INTUIT INC: Sinohui et al Sue over TurboTax Deceptive Practices J.P. MORGAN: Sept. 6 ERISA Settlement Fairness Hearing Set JEFFERSON SESSIONS: Kolev Files Class Suit in D. New Jersey JESA 31: Delivery Personnel Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime JLING INC: Ji Appeals E.D.N.Y. Memorandum and Order to 2nd Cir. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bailey Talc Injury Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Brannin Sues over Cancer-Causing Talcum Powder JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Callahan Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Croft et al Sue over Harmful Talcum-Based Powder JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cunnie Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Diess Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Heard Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Lowe et al Suit Moved to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Luecker et al Suit Moved to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Luther Suit Moved to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: McNeal Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Dominguez Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Packard Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Nicholson Suit Moved to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Noorda Suit Moved to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Owens Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Petas Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Crone Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Crudge Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Diess Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Fong Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Gagnon Talc Injury Suit to S.D. Texas JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Nott Talc Injury Suit to N.D. Calif. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes O'Dell Suit to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Root Suit to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Salamanca Suit to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Valenzuela Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Zimmerman Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. JPMORGAN CHASE: Injunctive Relief Class Pending JPMORGAN CHASE: Lawsuits Related to Forex Trading Remain Pending JPMORGAN CHASE: LIBOR and Benchmark Rate Litigation Underway JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Faces Suits over Precious Metals Futures LEONARD LAW: Holdner Referred to Oregon District Bankruptcy Court LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Complaint Pending LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Still Pending LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit Against Unit, Voya Still Pending LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Action v. FPP Still Pending LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Faces 2017 COI Rate Litigation LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Defends Class Action Suit by TVPX ARS LOS ANGELES, CA: Oct. 9 Gas Users Tax Settlement Hearing Set LYFT INC: Carpenters Pension Fund Says IPO Documents Misleading MASONITE INT'L: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action MCMC LLC: Court Denies Summary Judgment in R. Mauthe TCPA Suit MEDNAX INC: Bid to Nix Suit over Anesthesiology Business Pending MELITTA USA: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MOMENTA PHARMA: Faces 2 Suits Related to M923 Biosimilar Candidate MOMENTA PHARMA: Still Defends Remaining Claims in LOVENOX Suit MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Zamarripa Class Settlement Has Final Approval MONOLITH PROPERTIES: Carradine Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas MONSANTO CO: Faces Ross Suit Over Roundup(R)-related Injuries MONSANTO CO: Faces Wiley Suit Over Roundup-Related Death & Injuries MONSANTO CO: Ferkel Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries MONSANTO CO: Harrison Suit Seeks Damages for Roundup(R) Injuries MONSANTO CO: McMillan Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries MONSANTO CO: Reid Files Suit Over Sale of Dangerous Herbicide MONSANTO CO: Stohler Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries MONSANTO CO: Sued by Short for Damages Over Roundup(R) Injuries MONSANTO COMPANY: Chatman Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Erb Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Lazenbys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Perales Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Ruff Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Wright et al. Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONTMORENCY, MI: Morris Seeks Review of Circuit Court Ruling MOWI ASA: Prime Steakhouse Alleges Price-Fixing of Salmon NANTKWEST INC: $12MM Settlement in Sudunagunta Suit Has Final OK NCAA: Ruiz Sues over Football Injuries NCAA: Scott Sues over Negligence in Collegiate Football NETGEAR INC: Hearing Today on Motion to Stay State Court Cases NEW YORK, NY: Allen et al. Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. NRA GROUP: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Isaac FDCPA Class Suit OLIN CORP: 6 Class Suits over Caustic Soda Sales Underway in N.Y. PANDA RESTAURANT: Block Sues over Non-Accessible Facilities PAYCRON INC: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Jackson Suit PDC ENERGY: Dufresne Suit Stayed Due to Partnerships' Chapter 11 PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Grower Class Suit Still Pending PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Adamov Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit PURDUE PHARMA: Schneider Sues over Deceptive Marketing of Opioids QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Remer Sues over False Financial Statements SCORES HOLDING: Santos de Oliveira Suit in Discovery Phase SEE'S CANDY: Ping Claims Uniform Cost Reimbursement SOURCE CONSTRUCTION: Sastre Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay SPIRITUAL GANGSTER: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STERICYCLE INC: Contract Class Accord Opt-Out Members File Suits STERICYCLE INC: July 22 Fairness Hearing for Securities Class Pact STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Faces Wright Labor Suit in Calif. SUNRUN INC: Saunders Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois TACO MIX: Sanchez-Torres Seeks Overtime Pay TD AMERITRADE: Court Dismisses T. Gray's FINRA Suit TEVA PHARMA: Bids to Dismiss Ontario Teachers' Fund Suit Pending TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Actions Pending in Israel TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Still Stayed TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Grodko/Baker Securities Suit Still Pending TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Suits over Sales of Generics Underway TRENTON, NJ: Court Dismisses A. Guille's Prisoner's Class Suit TYSON FOODS: Sevy Alleges Price-Fixing of Fed Cattle UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Ward Labor Suit in California US SECURITY ASSOCIATES: Faces Scott Labor Suit in NY US STEEL: Facing Class Action over 2018 Clairton Fire US STEEL: Underwriters Dropped as Defendants in Shareholder Action VACATIONS INTERNATIONAL CLUB: Williams Sues over Autodialed Calls WAITR HOLDINGS: Bobbys Country Cookin' Sues over Service Fee WASHINGTON GAS: Still Defends Silver Spring Incident Suit WEIGHT WATCHERS: Securities Class Action Remains Pending WELLCARE HEALTH: Merger Documents Misleading, Clarke Claims WELLS FARGO: Aug. 1 Derivative Settlement Fairness Hearing Set WILLIS TOWERS: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit WILLIS TOWERS: Awaits Ruling on Appeals from Stanford Settlement WILLIS TOWERS: UC Regents' Appeal in Securities Suit Still Pending WISCONSIN: ACLU's Class Action Seeks Parole Opportunities WYNDHAM HOTEL GROUP: Kang Says Website Not Accessible Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 347 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 59 Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankruptcy Court Confirms Maremont Plan ASBESTOS UPDATE: Busch Case to Impact Maryland Product ID Standard ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Not Obligated to Contribute to Asbestos Deal ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Has $113MM Unfavorable Development ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $292MM Accrual at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Upholds $33MM Award for Widow ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Can't Escape Mechanic's Claims Under La. Law ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Saw Doctor Dies from Asbestos Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler On Hook for $2.25MM Asbestos Award ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $105.2MM Reserve at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Faces Pushback in Bid for Victims' Info ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Win for Pep Boys Upheld in Exposure Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Jury Awards $25MM Verdict in J&J Talc Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites Kansas Contractors for Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: San Diego Firefighters File Asbestos Exposure Docs ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Jury Finds No Asbestos in J&J Baby Powder ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,490 Fibro Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swiss Billionaire Convicted Over Asbestos Deaths ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 184 PI Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 370 Pending Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Social Housing Firm Launches Asbestos Probe ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Pleas to Luton Workers Over Asbestos Death ********* 21ST MORTGAGE: Trites Alleges Bias in Denial of Loan Application ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against 21st Mortgage Corporation for its violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The case is captioned CRYSTAL KAYE TRITES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11387-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich. May 9, 2019). Plaintiff Crystal Kay Trites alleges that the Defendant's policies and practices have denied and discouraged individuals receiving public assistance an equal opportunity to obtain financing and financial services. The Defendant's policy and practice, which resulted in Plaintiff being required to provide a physician's note to prove that her children's disabilities will continue permanently, imposes unwarranted burdens on persons receiving public assistance, in direct violation of the ECOA. 21st Mortgage Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee. The company boasts on its website that it is the nation's largest manufactured home lender and originates more than $1.3 billion in new and used home loans each year. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Myers, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL O. MYERS, PLLC 4020 Copper View Ste. 225 Traverse City, MI 49684 Telephone: (231) 943-1135 Facsimile: (231) 368-6265 E-mail: dmyers@domlawoffice.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Carlson Lynch, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com - and ??? Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. BCJ LAW LLC 186 42nd Street PO Box 40127 Pittsburgh, PA 15201 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 E-mail: kevina@bcjlawyer.com 7-ELEVEN INC: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Haitayan FLSA Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Serge Haitayan, et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Serge Haitayan, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-07454-DSF-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, 7-Eleven owns, operates, and franchises convenience stores under the trademarked name "7-Eleven". 7-Eleven is one of the largest, well-known, and most-successful franchise systems in the world. Currently, there are more than 7,800 7-Eleven stores operating in the United States, approximately 1,500 of which are franchised to independent business owners in California. Each of the franchised 7-Eleven locations are governed by a written franchise agreement. Plaintiffs Serge Haitayan, Jaspreet Dhillon, Robert Elkins and Maninder Paul Lobana have for many years operated 7-Eleven stores in various locations in California pursuant to franchise agreements and in accordance with policies and procedures contained in 7-Eleven's Operations Manual. On October 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed this action against 7-Eleven and on November 1, 2017, they filed a First Amended Complaint alleging six claims against 7-Eleven, including failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code. The appellate case is captioned as Serge Haitayan, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 19-55485, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SERGE HAITAYAN, JASPREET DHILLON, ROBERT ELKINS and MANINDER LOBANA, indiviudally, and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com Defendant-Appellee 7-ELEVEN, INC., a Texas corporation, is represented by: Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 615-6052 E-mail: ellen.bronchetti@dlapiper.com - and - Norman M. Leon, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 444 West Lake Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 368-2192 E-mail: norman.leon@dlapiper.com - and - James Speyer, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 243-4141 Facsimile: (213) 243-4199 E-mail: james.speyer@apks.com ACE AMERICAN: M. Mayfield's ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga. -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle issued Order granting Defendant???s Motion to Transfer Venue in the case captioned MICHAEL MAYFIELD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. C18-1695RSM. (W.D. Wash.) ACE moves to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404, this Court has discretion to transfer this case in the interests of convenience and justice to another district in which venue would be proper. Section 1404(a) states: For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented. Plaintiff Michael Mayfield brings this ERISA action as a putative class action. As a benefit of his employment with Delta Air Lines, Mr. Mayfield was a participant in an insurance plan (Plan) which included accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) insurance. The policy provided Mr. Mayfield coverage for him and his wife for accidental loss of life. This case concerns the death of Mrs. Mayfield, ACE's initial refusal to pay on the claim, and ACE's current refusal to pay interest on the delayed payment. Mr. Mayfield brings this action on behalf of all others similarly situated as a putative class action. Mr. Mayfield resides in the Western District of Washington and Defendant ACE is an insurance company licensed to conduct business in the State of Washington, incorporated and with its principal place of business in the State of Pennsylvania. The Plan Administrator for the insurance policy at issue is the Administrative Committee of Delta Air Lines, Inc., located in the Northern District of Georgia. The Plan is governed by ERISA but provides that it shall be governed by the laws of the State of Georgia to the extent not preempted by ERISA. ACE asserts that, in the applicable 3-year period from 2015 to 2018, 114 individuals submitted claims for benefits under the policy, and that of that number 45 reside in Georgia and 4 in Washington State. Venue in ERISA cases is proper in any district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found. ACE argues that venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because (1) it is where the Plan is administered (2) the policy that forms the basis for the alleged breach of the Plan was delivered in Georgia and (3) ACE has at least some employees with knowledge of this case in Georgia. The Plaintiff argues that Georgia law is unlikely to arise in this case, which is governed largely by federal law, and that ACE fails to articulate a single question of state law that might arise. Plaintiff argues that his choice of forum should be given great weight, and that "as to the Delta plan participants, the majority reside somewhere outside Georgia. Based on the record before it, the Court is convinced that this case might have been brought in the Northern District of Georgia, and that it would be more convenient to all parties involved, including potential class members and witnesses, for the case to proceed in that district. Because this is a putative class action, the deference to Plaintiff's choice of forum is clearly reduced. Having reviewed the relevant pleadings and the remainder of the record, the Court finds and orders that Defendant ACE American Insurance Company's Motion to Transfer Venue, is granted. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for all further proceedings. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2m73eeb from Leagle.com. Michael Mayfield, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented byLindsay Halm, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Adam J. Berger -- berger@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, John David Toren, MENZER LAW FIRM & Matthew N. Menzer, MENZER LAW FIRM, 705 2nd Ave, #800, Seattle, WA 98104 ACE American Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Emily C. Hootkins -- Emily.hootkins@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice, H. Douglas Hinson -- doug.hinson@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice, Tiffany L. Powers -- tiffany.powers@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Rahn Bentson -- dan.bentson@bullivant.com -- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY & John A. Bennett -- john.bennett@bullivant.com -- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC. ADTALEM GLOBAL: 7th Cir Appeal over Petrizzo Suit Dismissal Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the court order dismissing the Petrizzo class action, as refiled, remains pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, according to Adtalem Global Education Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Petrizzo Case"). The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at DeVry University from at least 2002 through the present and who were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study within six months of graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of six different states' consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Jara Case"). The individual plaintiffs claimed to have graduated from DeVry University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those who obtained a degree from DeVry University and who were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study within six months of graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of ten different states' consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. By order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the Petrizzo and Jara Cases be consolidated under the Petrizzo caption for all further purposes. On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38 individual plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The amended consolidated complaint sought to bring claims on behalf of the named individuals and a putative nationwide class of individuals for unjust enrichment and alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and the Illinois Private Businesses and Vocational Schools Act of 2012. In addition, it purported to assert causes of action on behalf of certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states' consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. Finally, it sought to bring individual claims under Georgia state law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed by the Adtalem Parties and granted by the court, without prejudice, on February 12, 2018. On April 12, 2018, the Petrizzo plaintiffs refiled their complaint with a new lead plaintiff, Renee Heather Polly. The plaintiffs' refiled complaint is nearly identical to the complaint previously dismissed by the court on February 12, 2018. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this refiled complaint on May 14, 2018. The court granted defendants' motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on February 13, 2019. On March 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and this matter is currently pending on appeal before the Seventh Circuit. Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business. Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. ADTALEM GLOBAL: Brown Class Action Underway in W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ Adtalem Global Education Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit initiated by Robby Brown, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On March 29, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Robby Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Adtalem Global Education Inc. and DeVry University, Inc., in the Western District of Missouri. The complaint was filed on behalf of himself and two separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Missouri and who purchased or paid for and received any part of a DeVry University program. The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees. The Company said, "Defendants have not yet been served with the complaint." Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business. Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. ADTALEM GLOBAL: Faces Robinson Class Action in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------- Adtalem Global Education Inc. has been named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit initiated by T'Lani Robinson, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On April 3, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by T'Lani Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Adtalem Global Education Inc. and DeVry University, Inc., in the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Georgia who purchased or paid for and received any part of a DeVry University program. The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees. The Company said, "Defendants have not yet been served with the complaint." Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business. Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. ADTALEM GLOBAL: June 19 Status Conference in Engineers Fund Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In a putative class action lawsuit initiated by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, a status conference has been set for June 19, 2019, to address any preliminary discovery disputes arising from the parties' initial discovery responses, according to Adtalem Global Education Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against Adtalem, Daniel Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased Adtalem common stock between February 4, 2011 and January 27, 2016. The complaint cites the January 27, 2016 Notice of Intent to Limit (the "January 2016 Notice") and a civil complaint (the "FTC lawsuit") filed by the FTC on January 27, 2016 against Adtalem, DeVry University, Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc. (collectively, the "Adtalem Parties"), which was resolved with the FTC in 2017, that alleged that certain of DeVry University's advertising claims were false or misleading or unsubstantiated at the time they were made in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, as the basis for claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate and the earnings of DeVry University graduates relative to the graduates of other universities and colleges. As a result of these alleged false or misleading statements, the plaintiff alleged that defendants overstated Adtalem's growth, revenue and earnings potential and made false or misleading statements about Adtalem's business, operations and prospects. The plaintiff alleged direct liability against all defendants for violations of Section10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff sought monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other unspecified relief. On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System ("URS") moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of counsel, which was not opposed by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers. URS was appointed as lead plaintiff on August 24, 2016. URS filed a second amended complaint ("SAC") on December 23, 2016. The SAC sought to represent a putative class of persons who purchased Adtalem common stock between August 26, 2011 and January 27, 2016 and named an additional individual defendant, Patrick J. Unzicker. Like the original complaint, the SAC asserted claims against all defendants for alleged violations of Section10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged material misstatements or omissions regarding DeVry University graduate outcomes. On January 27, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the SAC, which motion was granted on December 6, 2017, without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on January 29, 2018. The defendants moved to dismiss the TAC on March 30, 2018. The court denied the motion to dismiss the TAC on December 20, 2018. On February 8, 2019, defendants filed their answer to the TAC wherein defendants denied all material allegations in the TAC. The parties have exchanged written discovery requests and responses and objections to those requests. The Magistrate Judge assigned to manage discovery in this case has set a status conference for June 19, 2019, to address any preliminary discovery disputes arising from the parties' initial discovery responses. Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business. Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. ADTALEM GLOBAL: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in Versetto Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Adtalem Global Education Inc. and other defendants have sought the Court's ruling to dismiss the amended complaint in the putative class action suit initiated by Nicole Versetto, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2019, with Dave McCormick as the new lead plaintiff. On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016. The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to violations of state law. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20, 2018. On March 11, 2019, the court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead plaintiff, Dave McCormick. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint on April 15, 2019. Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business. Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. ALABAMA: Court Unseals Redacted Report in E. Bragg Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District Alabama, Northern Division, issued Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Unseal Redacted Potion of WA Report in the case captioned EDWARD BRAGGS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:14cv601-MHT. (M.D. Ala.). The plaintiffs moved to unseal redacted portions of the WA (Warren Averett) report, including the recommended correctional-officer compensation increases. The plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit include a group of mentally ill prisoners in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC). The defendants are the ADOC Commissioner and Associate Commissioner of Health Services, who are both sued in only their official capacities. In a liability opinion, this court found that ADOC's mental-health care for prisoners in its custody was, simply put, horrendously inadequate. The court laid out seven factors contributing to the Eighth Amendment violation. The public has a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records and documents. The test for whether a judicial record can be withheld from the public is a balancing test that weighs the competing interests of the parties to determine whether there is good cause to deny the public the right to access the document. This balancing test weighs the public interest in accessing court documents against a party's interest in keeping the information confidential. The defendants conceded that certain portions of the report that they originally redacted no longer need to remain under seal. Those portions include data concerning correctional staffing levels at ADOC facilities, as well as current and past salaries for correctional staff. The redacted portions of the report that remain in dispute fall into three categories. The first category is comprised of the WA report's recommended compensation increases for correctional officers, including salaries and bonuses. The second includes comparisons between ADOC correctional officers' current compensation and that of similar jobs in the public and private sectors. The third includes WA's estimated costs of implementing the recommended compensation increases. First Category: Recommended Compensation Increases The Public's Interest The public has an enormous interest in accessing the WA report's recommended compensation increases. To start, if ADOC follows this court's order, the recommendations will have a large impact on how taxpayer dollars are spent. This is because the understaffing remedial order mandates that ADOC implement WA's recommended compensation increases. The understaffing remedial order states: By December 1, 2018, ADOC is to implement the recommendations of consultants Condrey and the firm Warren Averett, as modified by any agreements between the parties or orders of this court. The WA recommendations, in defense counsel's own words, call for arguably the largest reform in the benefit and pay structure that's ever been done to the Department of Corrections. Accordingly, the recommendations, if implemented, will greatly impact Alabama government spending. As this court and others have recognized, the public has a powerful interest in overseeing government spending. The Defendants' Interests On the other side of the scale, the defendants asserted three central interests in keeping the recommended compensation increases sealed. All three are part of their overarching contention that unsealing the recommendations would impede ADOC's ability to comply with court orders to increase correctional compensation and staffing levels. First, the defendants argued that unsealing the recommended compensation increases would undermine their efforts to obtain the necessary approvals for implementing them. ADOC cannot unilaterally increase correctional officer compensation. Implementing WA's compensation recommendations will require passing legislation to secure adequate funding. Commissioner Jefferson Dunn also testified that in addition to approving funding, the legislature also must approve the salary increases. After obtaining the required legislative approvals, ADOC will need to secure approvals from the Alabama Department of Finance and work with representatives from the State Personnel Department and State Personnel Board to implement the proposed changes to pay grades and compensation rates. Commissioner Dunn asserted that, in working with these other government branches and agencies and attempting to secure their approvals, ADOC "must preserve the right to control the manner and timing of when it discloses the full details of Warren Averett's recommendations to these third parties so as to most effectively address the recommendations with the third parties. Full disclosure of the report at this juncture could unnecessarily complicate ADOC's discussions with these third parties, he said. Specifically, the defendants maintained that publicizing the recommended raises for ADOC correctional staff would cause personnel from other State agencies to also seek raises. Second, the defendants argued that unsealing the recommendations would disadvantage them with respect to competitor employers in the labor market. They argued, for example, that, if the recommended compensation increases became public, other law enforcement and correctional employers would enjoy a head start on ADOC in competing for employees. Third, the defendants contended that unsealing the recommendations would risk hurting correctional officer morale???and thus contributing to staff departures???because it would create unrealistic expectations that compensation would be immediately increased. According to Commissioner Dunn, morale would decline if ADOC cannot timely implement salary increases. In short, by publicly filing Dr. Condrey's report and announcing the 20% pay increase in its budget request, ADOC already disclosed that it is planning to increase compensation significantly for correctional officers. This disclosure would already have triggered all three of the harms that the defendants claimed would result from unsealing the WA report. One additional argument, raised by the defendants at the April hearing, remains. At the hearing, the defendants presented attorneys from the State Personnel Department. The attorneys represented to the court that their department and ADOC had agreed to pursue compensation increases for correctional staff in the next fiscal year that are significantly lower than the WA and Condrey reports' recommendations and the 20% increase announced in the budget document. Defense counsel did not dispute the existence of this agreement between ADOC and the State Personnel Department. To the contrary, defense counsel argued that the agreement -- and its approval by the legislature -- would be endangered by unsealing the report. This argument is not persuasive. The court is troubled by the prospect of selectively concealing judicial documents in the hope of achieving a legislative outcome. Hiding such documents from the public in order to impact legislative deliberations strikes the court as an improper exercise of judicial power. Weighing the Interests For these reasons, the public's enormous interest in accessing the recommended compensation increases outweighs the defendants' interest in confidentiality an interest that is weakened by the public disclosures ADOC has already made. This is true regardless of whether ADOC ultimately implements the WA report's recommendations. The question is not even close. Second and Third Categories: Compensation Comparisons and Costs of Recommended Increases Because the defendants devoted very little of their argument to keeping the second and third categories of information sealed, the court will briefly dispose of those issues. As previously mentioned, the second category of information includes comparisons of current ADOC correctional officer compensation to compensation for similar jobs in the private and public sectors. The public has a strong interest in accessing the comparisons, as it provides crucial context for the WA report's recommended compensation increases. Accessing both pieces of information serves the public's interest in overseeing government spending. By contrast, the defendants have a minimal interest in keeping the comparisons confidential. Much if not all of the information is already public; the defendants conceded that someone could go and research" the information for themselves. Nevertheless, the defendants essentially argued that the comparisons should remain confidential because they consolidate the information in a neatly packaged and easily digestible way. The court rejects this argument. Whatever interest the defendants have in keeping confidential the packaging of otherwise-accessible information is outweighed by the public's compelling interest in accessing the comparisons. This is especially true given that a key takeaway from the comparisons is already publicly available in another part of the report, which states that ADOC correctional officer pay is below other law enforcement agencies requiring similar qualifications. The third and final category of information pertains to the costs of implementing the WA report's recommended compensation increases. Obviously, knowing the estimated costs of the recommended increases is critical for evaluating the propriety of the recommendations. The public thus has a significant interest in accessing the estimated costs. The court is not aware of any specific arguments made by the defendants for why the costs of the recommendations should remain sealed. Nor can the court conceive of any convincing arguments, particularly since the court has already decided to unseal the recommended compensation increases. Accordingly, the public's interest in accessing the cost information outweighs the defendants' interest in keeping it confidential. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to unseal the Warren Averett report in its entirety. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yywl9xjn from Leagle.com. Edward Braggs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Tedrick Brooks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Gary Lee Broyles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Chandler Clements, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Christopher Gilbert, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Dwight Hagood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Sylvester Hartley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Christopher Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Brandon Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, John Maner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Rick Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Willie McClendon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Roger McCoy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Jermaine Mitchell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Tommie Moore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Matthew Mork, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Bradley Pearson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Leviticus Pruitt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Turner Rogers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Timothy Sears, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Brian Sellers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Augustus Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Hubert Tollar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Daniel Tooley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Joseph Torres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Donald Ray Turner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Jamie Wallace, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Robert Myniasha Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Roger Moseley, Quang Bui, Charlie Henderson, Sheila Allen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, William Sullivan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Serena English, Valerie Wheeler, Justin Hall, Raymond Bosarge, Cordara Dunner, Karen Norris, Cherritha Harris, Brittany Ellis & Tomas Snyder, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Philip Walsh -- awalsh@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Jack Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette McCrary, Southern Poverty Law Center, Maria Viette Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, 400 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36104, Patricia Clotfelter -- pclotfeller@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, William Glassell Somerville, III -- wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr. -- wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu -- Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. Ruth Naglich, in her official capacity as Associate commissioner of health Services for the Alabama Department of Corrections & Jefferson S. Dunn, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, Defendants, represented by David Randall Boyd -- dboyd@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, Elizabeth Anne Sees, Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division, 301 South Ripley Street P.O. Box 301501. Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1501 -- jgsmith@balch.com, Balch & Bingham LLP, Joseph Gordon Stewart, Jr., Alabama Dept of Corrections, 301 South Ripley Street P.O. Box 301501. Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1501, Luther Maxwell Dorr, Jr. -- rdorr@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Matthew Reeves -- mreeves@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Steven C. Corhern -- scorhern@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham, William Richard Lunsford -- blunsford@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale PC. ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Derivative Suit Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order for Limited Stay of Proceedings in the case captioned IN RE ALLEGIANT TRAVEL CO. STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. No. 2:18-cv-01864. (D. Nev.) The Federal Derivative Action alleges claims against defendants Maurice J. Gallagher, Jr., John T. Redmond, Gregory Anderson, Scott Sheldon, Eric Gust, Charles W. Pollard, Linda A. Marvin, Gary E. Ellmer, and Montie R. Brewer (Defendants) and Allegiant Travel Company (Allegiant) A related securities fraud class action captioned Checkman v. Allegiant Travel Co., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01758-APG-PAL is pending before this Court (the "Securities Class Action"). The Securities Class Action arises from similar facts and also names as defendants several of the Individual Defendants. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action is fully briefed and the parties have requested oral argument. The Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action may inform proceedings in the Federal Derivative Action. Subsequently filed shareholder derivative action arising from the same facts as the Derivative Action, captioned Woolery v. Gallagher, et al., Case No. A-18-785044-C, is pending the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for Clark County (State Court Action). The Defendants have moved the state court to stay the State Court Action in favor of the Securities Class Action and the Federal Derivative Action. The Federal Derivative Action including any obligation to respond to the complaint or any amended complaint, and all discovery and disclosure obligations under the applicable local and federal rules, is hereby stayed until the Court issues a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. Upon 30 days' written notice to all counsel of record via e-mail, any party may lift the stay. The Individual Defendants and Allegiant will promptly notify plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative Action should they become aware of any additional derivative lawsuits filed in any forum that allege the same or similar misconduct as that alleged in the Federal Derivative Action. If any of the Individual Defendants or Allegiant produces documents to the plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action or the State Court Action, they will provide to Plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative Action access to the same document production subject to the parties entering into an appropriate confidentiality agreement and/or protective order. If any of the Individual Defendants or Allegiant engages in a settlement mediation with the plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action or the State Court Action, the Individual Defendants and Allegiant will request that the Plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative Action be invited to attend the mediation and participate in the settlement talks. The parties must file a joint status report on September 10, 2019, and every 120 days thereafter, until the stay is lifted. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y29rrdo3 from Leagle.com. Charles Blackburn, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels -- BSACHSMICHAELS@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Gancy Prongay and Murray LLP, pro hac vice, David C. OMara -- david@omaralaw.net -- The OMara Law Firm, P.C., Lesley Portnoy -- LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Martin Muckleroy, 6077 S Fort Apache Rd Ste 140, Las Vegas, NV, 89148-5580 & Robert V. Prongay -- RPRONGAY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Mark Fullenkamp, on behalf of Allegiant Travel Co., Plaintiff, represented by Martin Muckleroy& David J. Stone, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., pro hac vice. Maurice J. Gallagher, Jr., John T. Redmond, Gregory Anderson, Scott Sheldon, Eric Gust, Charles W. Pollard, Linda A. Marvin, Gary E. Ellmer, Montie R. Brewer & Allegiant Travel Co., Defendants, represented by Jacob D. Bundick, Greenberg Traurig, LLP. ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Surfside Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the purported class action styled Surfside Non-Surgical Orthopedics, P.A. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On January 25, 2018, a complaint was filed in Surfside Non-Surgical Orthopedics, P.A. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00566, in the Northern District of Illinois. This is a purported class action lawsuit related to a January 18, 2018 ransomware attack, and alleges the following counts: (1) negligence, gross negligence and negligence per se; (2) breach of contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; and (5) violation of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of customers seeking damages from Allscripts. Allscripts has moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. provides information technology solutions and services to healthcare organizations in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. AMERICAN BOTTLING: Guzman-Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned JUAN M. GUZMAN-LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE AMERICAN BOTTLING COMPANY, a corporation; KEURIG-DR. PEPPER, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV13050 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 20, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-04358. The Complaint asserts nine causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (5) Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statements; (6) Failure to Maintain Required Records; (7) Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees; (8) Unfair Business Practices; and (9) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Business Expenditures and Losses.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel C. Whang, Esq. Jennifer R. Nunez, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: dwhang@seyfarth.com jnunez@seyfarth.com AMN HEALTHCARE: Class Suit Settlements Await Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the settlement agreements relating to claims in two wage and hour class actions are subject to court approval, which the Company considered as probable. The Company said, "From time to time, the Company is involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These matters typically relate to professional liability, tax, compensation, contract, competitor disputes and employee-related matters and include individual and class action lawsuits, as well as inquiries and investigations by governmental agencies regarding the Company's employment and compensation practices. Additionally, some of the Company's clients may also become subject to claims, governmental inquiries and investigations, and legal actions relating to services provided by the Company's healthcare professionals. Depending upon the particular facts and circumstances, the Company may also be subject to indemnification obligations under its contracts with such clients relating to these matters. The Company records a liability when management believes an adverse outcome from a loss contingency is both probable and the amount, or a range, can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability of loss and the estimated amount. The Company reviews its loss contingencies at least quarterly and adjusts its accruals and/or disclosures to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, or other new information, as deemed necessary. The most significant matters for which the Company has established loss contingencies are class actions related to wage and hour claims under California and Federal law. Specifically, among other claims in these lawsuits, it is alleged that employees were not afforded required breaks or compensated for all time worked, employees' wage statements are not sufficiently clear, and certain expense reimbursements should be included in the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime rates. The Company believes that its wage and hour practices conform with law in all material respects, but litigation is always subject to inherent uncertainty. As a result, the Company entered into settlement agreements relating to claims in two wage and hour class actions during September and October 2018. The settlement agreements are subject to court approval, which is considered probable. The Company recorded increases to its accruals established in connection with these matters amounting to US$12,140,000 during the third quarter of 2018." AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. provides healthcare workforce solutions and staffing services in the United States. The Company operates through three segments: Nurse and Allied Solutions, Locum Tenens Solutions, and Other Workforce Solutions. It was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. AVAILITY LLC: Stephens Sues over Medical-Related Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Availity, LLC for its alleged violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The case is captioned ALICIA STEPHENS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVAILITY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00236 (M.D. Fla., May 10, 2019). Plaintiff Alicia Stephens brings this action against Availity, LLC for its failure to properly secure and safeguard protected health information as defined by the HIPAA, medical information, and other personally identifiable information (PII), and for failing to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to her and other Class Members that their PII had been compromised. The exposure was due to a weakness in Availity's network and its security protocols that enabled unauthorized third parties to create fraudulent health-provider accounts on the Availity network through which they were then able to gain access to patient PII. Availity, LLC is a Delaware company headquartered at 5555 Gate Parkway, Suite 110 Jacksonville, Florida, 32256. It develops network software which provides an information exchange between various healthcare stakeholders. It connects health care providers with various health plans through an Internet-based and purportedly HIPAA-compliant network that allows for automation of business transactions. The company offers healthcare providers a single destination for efficiently, quickly and effectively processing patient claims and payments. Availity operates the largest real time information network in healthcare system today, connecting over a million providers, health plans and their technology partners. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Patrick A. Barthle, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com pbarthle@forthepeople.com - and ??? Jean S. Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 2018 Eastwood Road, Suite 225 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 E-mail: Jean.martin@forthepeople.com BANK OF AMERICA: Court Dismisses Untimely Plaintiffs in Duque Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an Judgment dismissing Untimely Plaintiffs in the case captioned LUIS DUQUE and DANIEL THIBODEAU, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and DOES 1-50, Defendants. No. SACV 18-1298 PA (MRWx). (C.D. Cal.). Pursuant to the amended settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement) filed on behalf of themselves and the FLSA Collective and California Class and defendant Bank of America, National Association (BANA). The Court enters Judgment consistent with the December 10, 2018 and May 13, 2019 Minute Orders and the approved Settlement Agreement. The claims of the Named Plaintiffs and the members of the California Class, FLSA Collective, or both who do not timely and properly exclude themselves from the terms of the Settlement Agreement by opting out, withdrawing written consent, or for FLSA Collective members never opting in are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear his, her, or its own costs, except as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the Court's May 13, 2019 Minute Order. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ea42va from Leagle.com. Luis Duque, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public & Daniel Thibodeau, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, represented by DeCarol Alicia Davis decarol@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law, Rachel Meyers Terp -- rachel@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law & Bryan J. Schwartz, Bryan Schwartz Law, 80 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380, Oakland, California 94612 Bank of America, National Association, Defendant, represented by John A. Van Hook -- jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP & Michael David Mandel -- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP. BASF CORP: Porter Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against BASF Corporation for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, as implemented by the Colorado Minimum Wage Order. The case is captioned Randy Porter, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BASF Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01352 (D. Colo., May 10, 2019). BASF Corporation routinely scheduled Plaintiff Randy Porter and other hourly-paid non-exempt Personal Protective Equipment-equipped employees and other hourly-paid non-exempt employees, who received remuneration in addition to his typical hourly rate of pay, to work at least 40 hours per week. However, at times, the Plaintiff and other employees similarly situated worked additional hours, including overtime hours in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff and the members of the class alleged worked off-the-clock without receiving compensation, as required by the FLSA, the Wage Claim Act and the Minimum Wage Order. BASF Corporation is a Delaware Corporation with its corporate headquarters located at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801. It is a manufacturer and supplier of basic chemicals and intermediates ranging from solvents, plasticizers, and monomers to glues and electronic chemicals, as well as raw materials for detergents, plastics, textile fibers, paints and coatings, plant protection, and pharmaceuticals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: 970-214-0562 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com - and - J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com BILLABONG HOLDINGS USA: Faces Haggar Suit over ADA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Billabong Holdings USA, Inc. for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is captioned Elia Haggar et al v. Billabong Holdings USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-03386-SVW-FFM (C.D. Cal., April 26, 2019). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson. Founded in 1988 and based in Irvine, California, Billabong Holdings USA, Inc. produces and markets sports clothes designed for water sports, skateboarding and snowboarding. Billabong runs stores under the Beach Works and Honolua Surf Co.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com BIMBO BAKERIES: Peatry Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- The case, LISA PEATRY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03945 ( Filed on March 26, 2019), was transferred from the Circuit Court of Cook County to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 12, 2019. This case is assigned to Hon. Judge Sara L. Ellis. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02942 to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiff Lisa Peatry accuses the Defendant of unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of her sensitive and proprietary biometric data. Bimbo Bakeries is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business located at 255 Business Center Drive, Horsham, Pennsylvania. Bimbo Bakeries is a bakery product manufacturing company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com BORG-WARNER MORSE: Walker et al Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SAMUEL WALKER and FRANCES WALKER, Plaintiffs, v. BORG-WARNER MORSE TEC LLC (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to BORG-WARNER CORPORATION), et al., Defendants, Case No. BC713775, was removed from the Superior Court of California of the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Several claims pending in state court against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. center on allegations that exposure to the Imerys Talc America's talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries -- specifically, mesothelioma. On Feb. 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Given the pendency of the Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy at the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. believe that the state court cannot and, in any event, should not take any further action in this civil action until the District of Delaware has ruled on the Motion. Founded in 1886, Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational medical devices, pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods manufacturing company. Its products include Johnson & Johnson's cosmetic talcum powder products. Imerys Talc is Johnson & Johnson's sole supplier of talc.[BN] Attorneys for Defendants: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Jennifer T. Stewart, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: +1 (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: +1 (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com jstewart@kslaw.com CAESARS ENTERPRISE: Loses Bid to Dismiss D'Amore Wage & Hour Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order denying, without prejudice, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned MICHAEL D'AMORE, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. CAESARS ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendant(s). Case No. 2:18-CV-1990 JCM (VCF). (D. Nev.). The Plaintiffs bring forth the putative class action challenging Caesars' practice of declining overtime pay to table game service supervisors. Because the motion to dismiss the amended complaint and related filings fully brief the relevant issues in this case, the court will dismiss without prejudice Caesars' motion to dismiss the original complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxfmyt8u from Leagle.com. Michael D'Amore, Adam Bycina & Richard D'Hondt, Plaintiffs, represented by Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation, Dana Sniegocki, Leon Greenberg, 2965 South Jones Boulevard # E-3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89146, David R. Markham, The Markham Law Firm, Maggie Realin, The Markham Law Firm, pro hac vice &Michael Morphew, The Markham Law Firm, 750 B ST STE 1950, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 pro hac vice. Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher John Stevens -- Christopher.Stevens@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., pro hac vice, Elayna J. Youchah -- Elayna.Youchah@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C, Susan N. Eisenberg -- seisenberg@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, pro hac vice & Deverie J. Christensen -- Deverie.Christensen@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. Desert Palace LLC, doing business as Caesars Palace -- Las Vegas, Defendant, represented byDeverie J. Christensen, Jackson Lewis P.C., Susan N. Eisenberg, Cozen O'Connor, pro hac vice &Christopher John Stevens, Jackson Lewis P.C. CAL WEST: Court OKs $185K Settlement in C. Mora Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a Findings and Recommendations granting Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned CARMELA MORA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAL WEST AG SERVICES, INC., JON MARTHEDAL, and ERIC MARTHEDAL, Defendants. Case No. 1:15-cv-01490-LJO-EPG. (E.D. Cal.). This action was filed by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against defendants Cal West Ag Services, Inc., Jon Marthedal, and Eric Marthedal, alleging wage and hour claims for the proposed class for, among other things, violations of the Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA). The Settlement covers all Cal West Ag's non-exempt workers who were employed by and/or performed work for the Marthedal Defendants as agricultural workers at Marthedal Farms in California between September 30, 2011, and August 22, 2019, which is the date of preliminary approval of the Settlement. The core damages are alleged to involve approximately 225 non-exempt field workers who worked for the Defendants picking and packing blueberries during the period April 30, 2015, to June 5, 2015. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Marthedal Defendants will pay a total settlement amount of $185,000, with this amount to be placed into a settlement fund administered by the settlement administrator, Simpluris. The $185,000 settlement amount is inclusive of payments to the proposed class and class representative; to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA); for the Plaintiff and class counsel's attorneys' fees and costs; and to the settlement administrator for the costs of administering the settlement. The Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement. After a hearing on the motion and obtaining supplemental information from the parties, the Court issued findings and recommendations (F&R's) making a preliminary finding that the proposed Settlement was fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court noted that when settlement occurs before class certification, the Court must also take extra care to ensure that the settlement is not the product of collusion among the negotiating parties. After balancing the relevant factors, the Court found the proposed Settlement to be fair and to meet the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2). The Court therefore issued F&Rs recommending that the District Court grant preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement, conditioned on the settling parties making specified modifications to the notice to be provided to class members. The Plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of the Settlement. After reviewing the motion, the Court determined that counsel had not complied with conditions imposed in the Court's order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement. Specifically, the parties had failed to file for Court approval a second revised Notice of Class Action Settlement incorporating the modifications required by the Court and, further, the Notice sent to class members did not include the required modifications. Rule 23(e)'s class settlement process generally proceeds in two phases. In the first phase, the court conditionally certifies the class, conducts a preliminary determination of the fairness of the settlement (subject to a more stringent final review), and approves the notice to be provided to the class. The purpose of the initial review is to ensure that an appropriate class exists and that the agreement is non-collusive, without obvious deficiencies, and within the range of possible approval as to that class. In the second phase, the court holds a full fairness hearing where class members may present objections to class certification, or the fairness of the settlement agreement. Following the fairness hearing, the court is to take into account all of the information before it and confirm that class certification is appropriate, and that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Here, the first phase of the Rule 23(e) class settlement process the conditional approval of the class, the preliminary approval of the Settlement, and the approval of the notice to be provided to the class members has been completed. The parties are now before the Court for the second phase of the Rule 23(e) class settlement process: (1) final class certification and (2) final approval of the Settlement. In this Court's previous F&Rs adopted in full by the District Court, the Court made a preliminary finding that the proposed settlement class satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) for purposes of settlement. The Court also made a preliminary finding that the proposed settlement class met the predominance and superiority requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which provides: A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if . . . the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Thus, the class was conditionally certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1), for the purposes of settlement only. Turning to the proposed Settlement and whether it should be granted final approval, the following table sets forth the total settlement amount, the distributions from the total settlement amount that were initially proposed and preliminarily approved, the distributions finally proposed, and the recommended adjustments to the proposed distributions. Initial Final Amount that is Fair, Proposed Proposed Reasonable, and Adequate Gross Settlement Fund $185,000 $185,000 $185,000 Requested Attorneys' Fees ($61,661) ($61,661) ($61,661) Requested Litigation Costs ($10,000) ($9,613) ($9,613) Requested Plaintiff Service Award ($10,000) ($10,000) ($4,000) Requested Settlement ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) Administration Costs PAGA Penalties ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000) As indicated by this table, and as discussed below, the Court finds the total amount of the Settlement, and the final proposed distribution of the gross settlement fund with the exception of the requested Plaintiff service award to be reasonable, fair, and adequate. Where, as here, the proposed settlement agreement will bind absent class members, the Court must find that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate. When settlement occurs before class certification, the Court must also take extra care to ensure that the settlement is not the product of collusion among the negotiating parties. Although the factors in a court's fairness assessment will vary from case to case, courts generally must weigh: (1) the strength of the plaintiff's case (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation (3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial (4) the amount offered in settlement (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings (6) the experience and views of counsel (7) the presence of a governmental participant and (8) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. As to the strength of the Plaintiff's case, the Court recognizes that wage-and-hour cases, such as the present one, brought on behalf of low-wage workers who are part of a migratory work force can be difficult to prove. Although Plaintiff indicates her belief that she has a strong case, she acknowledges the uncertainties of proving the class claims. During the May 3, 2018, preliminary approval hearing, counsel indicated some of the potential risks if the litigation were to proceed, including the difficulty of calculating damages, the potential inaccuracy of wage statements, and unsettled or unclear law relating to whether the proposed class would be entitled to penalties. The parties engaged in a fair amount of discovery, investigation, and analysis and indicate that they were well informed of the strengths and weaknesses of the case. Plaintiff's counsel interviewed numerous witnesses, reviewed thousands of pages of documents and/or data from employees, and propounded several sets of discovery on Defendants through which counsel obtained critical information, such as core payroll and timekeeping information. The Plaintiff has been represented by experienced counsel throughout this litigation, including during the mediation. Plaintiff's counsel indicates the belief that the Settlement is reasonable, fair and adequate; and that the Settlement is a compromise figure, taking into account the risk associated with further litigation both in determining the fairness of total Settlement as well as the propriety of other terms. Counsel opines that the Settlement of the case for $185,000. The Plaintiff represents that the $185,000 provides an amount that is close to the alleged actual damages (but not civil penalties) that are available in a successfully prosecuted class action under Code Sections 226, 226.3, 203, 256, and 210. Although Plaintiff valued the class action claims and penalties at $1.2 million, more than $1 million of that amount is comprised of derivative penalties under Cal. Labor Code Sections 226, 226.3, 203, 256, and 210. The Plaintiff concedes the difficulty of recovering such penalties, including the need to show that Defendants acted willfully and the speculative nature of the recovery of penalties. Although the Settlement amount is only 15% of the $1.2 million value Plaintiff places on the case, when the $1 million in estimated derivative penalties is removed, the value is reduced to $200,000, making the Settlement amount 92% of the estimated likely recovery. The Court finds, after considering the relevant factors, including the lack of objection to the Settlement, that the $185,000 settlement amount is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, approving the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and modified herein; finding the Settlement, as modified, is in all respects, fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the entire settlement class; and directing implementation of all remaining terms, conditions, and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, as modified. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Findings and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/yymdgk8p from Leagle.com. Carmela Mora, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented byMario Martinez, Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch, APLC, Hector Rodriguez Martinez -- hectorm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez & Stanley Mallison -- stanm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez. Cal West Ag Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony Peter Raimondo -- APR@raimondoassociates.com -- Raimondo & Associates, Gerardo Hernandez, Jr. -- gvh@raimondoassociates.com -- Raimondo & Associates & Thomas Elmer Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp., Airport Office Center,1685 North Helm Avenue, Fresno, CA 93727 Jon Marthedal & Eric Marthedal, Defendants, represented by Thomas Elmer Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp. & Justin Thomas Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp., Airport Office Center,1685 North Helm Avenue, Fresno, CA 93727 Jon Marthedal, Counter Claimant, represented by Justin Thomas Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp. CANNUKA LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cannuka LLC. The case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Cannuka LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02966 (E.D. N.Y., May 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cannuka is a medically inspired, natural skin care regime first and foremost, designed to treat stubborn skin conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com CBS CORP: Seeks Dismissal of NY Consolidated Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corporation, together with other defendants, has sought the Court's order dismissing the consolidated putative class action initiated by Gene Samit and John Lantz, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On August 27, 2018 and on October 1, 2018, each of Gene Samit and John Lantz, respectively, filed putative class action suits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, for claims that are similar to those alleged in the amended complaint described below. On November 6, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the two actions. On November 30, 2018, the Court appointed Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California as the lead plaintiff of the consolidated action. On February 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended putative class action complaint against the Company, certain current and former senior executives and members of the Board. The consolidated action is stated to be on behalf of purchasers of the Company's Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock between September 26, 2016 and December 4, 2018. This action seeks to recover damages arising during this time period allegedly caused by the defendants' purported violations of the federal securities laws, including by allegedly making materially false and misleading statements or failing to disclose material information, and seeks costs and expenses as well as remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On April 12, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action. CBS Corporation operates as a mass media company worldwide. The company operates in four segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local Media. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in New York, New York. CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Potter Suit to Recover Overtime Wages, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Potter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cenikor Foundation, Inc. and Bill Bailey, II, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00294 (M.D. La., May 9, 2019), seeks to recover wages and other damages to which they are entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Cenikor is an inpatient facility that provides rehabilitation counseling to its patients. Potter claims to be paid straight hourly time for all hours worked and were not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. He also alleges that Cenikor withheld wages earned by employees in exchange for board, lodging and use of facilities. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, L.L.C. 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com - and - James R. Bullman, Esq. THE BULLMAN LAW FIRM, LLC 201 St. Charles Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 993-7169 Facsimile: (225) 387-3198 Email: james@thebullmanlawfirm.com - and - Christopher K. Jones, Esq. Patrice Haley, Esq. KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LTD. 701 Main Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 383-3796 Facsimile: (225) 343-9612 Email: cjones@keoghcox.com phaley@keoghcox.com CHAMPION PETFOODS: Bid to Modify Stay Order in Vado Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JESIKA VADO, Plaintiff, v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07118-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Pet Food Express Ltd.'s motion to modify the Feb. 14, 2019 Stay Order. In the action, Plaintiff Vado brought a putative class action against Champion and Pet Food Express in Alameda Superior Court, alleging that she had purchased Champion's Acana and Orijen brand pet foods at a Pet Food Express store and that these products did not live up to the claims that the Defendants made about them and contained harmful chemicals. Pet Food Express asserted a cross-claim for indemnity against Champion. Subsequently, Champion removed the action to the Court under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") and brought a motion to stay the action pending resolution of virtually the same claims asserted against Champion in an action currently pending in the Central District of California. Pet Food Express brought a motion to remand, arguing that the "local controversy" exception to CAFA jurisdiction applied. Pet Food Express did not, however, oppose the motion to stay. The Court granted the motion to stay and denied the motion to remand in its Feb. 14, 2019 Order. Now Pet Food Express brings a motion to modify the stay ("Motion"), arguing that the stay should be modified so that it can proceed with its claim for indemnification against Champion. It asserts that its indemnification claim is ripe because if it prevails on that claim it may be entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and it has already incurred attorneys' fees in the case. As there has been no change in the circumstances that relate to the Court's decision to stay the action, the Magistrate Judge finds that Pet Food Express' Motion is untimely and that its arguments have been waived. In any event, he concludes that Pet Food Express' claim for indemnification (and any fees to which it might be entitled if it prevails on that claim) is premature. He denied the Motion and vacated the hearing set for May 3, 2019. A full-text copy of the Court's April 23, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/qhM0nT from Leagle.com. Jesika Vado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey R. Krinsk -- jrk@classactionlaw.com -- Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, Joshua Charles Anaya, jca@classactionlaw.com -- Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP &Mark L. Knutson -- MLK@Knutson-Law.com -- Law Offices of Mark L. Knutson, APC. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. & Champion Petfoods LP, Defendants, represented by David Andrew Coulson -- coulsond@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, Michael D. Lane -- lanemd@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Ricky Lynn Shackelford -- shackelfordr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP. Pet Food Express Ltd., Defendant, represented by John Douglas Moore -- jmoore@recyclelaw.com -- Henn, Etzel & Moore. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Orozco Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Humberto Orozco v. Charter Communications Inc, Case No. 19STCV10589 (Filed on March 28, 2019), was transferred from Superior Court of California of the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court Central District of California on April 29, 2019. This class action complaint alleges Charter Communications' violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt. The United States District Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03550-JAK-SK to the proceeding. Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Charter Communications offers cable services to residential and commercial customers in the United States. It also provides high-speed Internet and telephone services. [BN] Attorneys for Defendant: Aimee G Mackay, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 S. Grand Avenue 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: aimee.mackay@morganlewis.com - and - Max C Fischer, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: max.fischer@morganlewis.com - and - Megan McDonough, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: megan.mcdonough@morganlewis.com CHEMED CORP: $5.75MM Accord in Seper/Chhina in the Works -------------------------------------------------------- Chemed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that parties in the "Chhina and Seper" consolidated class actions are processing a long-form agreement to be presented to the court for preliminary approval, notice to class members, and eventual final approval and payment. The settlement amount, subject to court approval is US$5.75 million plus employment taxes. The definition of the class to participate in the settlement is intended to cover claims raised in the consolidated Seper/Chhina matter, claims raised in Phillips and Moore, as well as any class claims in Williams. Jordan Seper ("Seper"), a Registered Nurse at VITAS??? Inland Empire program from May 12, 2014 to March 21, 2015, filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court on September 26, 2016. She alleged VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA ("VITAS CA") (1) failed to provide minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failed to provide overtime for all hours worked; (3) failed to provide a second meal period; (4) failed to provide rest breaks; (5) failed to indemnify for necessary expenditures; (6) failed to timely pay wages due at time of separation; and (7) engaged in unfair business practices. Seper seeks a state-wide class action of current and former non-exempt employees employed with VITAS in California within the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit. She seeks court determination that this action may be maintained as a class action for the entire California class and subclasses, designation as class representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages (including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly worked but not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest periods, and unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties associated with each claim, pre and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Seper served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jordan A. Seper on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 642857 on October 13, 2016 ("Jordan Seper case"). On November 14, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation to transfer the venue of the lawsuit from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Division accepted transfer of the case on December 6, 2016 and stayed the case. On December 16, 2016, VITAS CA filed its Answer and served written discovery on Seper. Jiwann Chhina ("Chhina"), hired by VITAS as a Home Health Aide on February 5, 2002, is currently a Licensed Vocational Nurse for VITAS??? San Diego program. On September 27, 2016, Chhina filed a lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court, alleging (1) failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide overtime for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay wages for all hours at the regular rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide rest breaks; (6) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; (7) failure to pay for all reimbursement expenses; (8) unfair business practices; and (9) violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act. Chhina seeks to pursue these claims in the form of a state-wide class action of current and former non-exempt employees employed with VITAS in California within the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit. He seeks court determination that this action may be maintained as a class action for the entire California class and subclasses, designation as class representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages (including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly worked but not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest period, and unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties associated with each claim, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Chhina served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jiwan Chhina v. VITAS Health Services of California, Inc., a California corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation dba VITAS Healthcare Inc.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2015-00033978-CU-OE-CTL on November 3, 2016 ("Jiwann Chhina case"). On December 1, 2016, VITAS CA filed its Answer and served written discovery on Chhina. The Seper and Chhina cases were consolidated in Los Angeles County Superior Court; Chhina was dismissed as a separate action and joined with Seper in the filing of amended complaint on August 28, 2018, in which both Chhina and Seper were identified as named plaintiffs. The parties engaged in a mediation process beginning in October 2018 and concluded with an agreement in March 2019. The agreement is in the process of incorporation into a long-form agreement to be presented to the court for preliminary approval, notice to class members, and eventual final approval and payment. The settlement amount, subject to court approval is $5.75 million plus employment taxes. The definition of the class to participate in the settlement is intended to cover claims raised in the consolidated Seper/Chhina matter, claims raised in Phillips and Moore, as well as any class claims in Williams. Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. CHEMED CORP: Class Discovery Remains Stayed in Phillips Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- All class discovery remains stayed in the class action case styled, Chere Phillips and Lady Moore v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2017-0021-2755, according to Chemed Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On May 19, 2017, Chere Phillips (a Home Health Aide in Sacramento) and Lady Moore (a former Social Worker in Sacramento) filed a lawsuit against VITAS CA in Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging claims for (1) failure to pay all wages due; (2) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (3) failure to provide off-duty meal periods; (4) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (5) unreimbursed business expenses; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) violations of unfair competition law; and (8) violation of the Private Attorneys General Act. Plaintiffs sought to pursue these claims in the form of a state-wide class action of current and former non-exempt employees employed with VITAS CA in California within the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit. Plaintiffs served VITAS with the lawsuit on June 5, 2017. VITAS CA timely answered the Complaint generally denying the Plaintiffs' allegations. The Court has stayed all class discovery in this case pending resolution of mediation in the Jordan Seper and Jiwann Chhina cases. In the Seper/Chhina case, the mediation process has concluded with an agreement in March 2019. The agreement is in the process of incorporation into a long-form agreement to be presented to the court for preliminary approval, notice to class members, and eventual final approval and payment. The definition of the class to participate in the settlement is intended to cover claims raised in the consolidated Seper/Chhina matter, as well as in other lawsuits including the Phillips and Moore case. Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. CHEMED CORP: Class Discovery Remains Stayed in Williams Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Class discovery is still stayed in the case styled Williams v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, filed on May 22, 2017 in Alameda County Superior Court, RG 17853886, according to Chemed Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. Jazzina Williams (a Home Health Aide in Sacramento) filed a lawsuit alleging claims for (1) failure to pay all wages due; (2) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (3) failure to provide off-duty meal periods; (4) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (5) unreimbursed business expenses; (6) waiting time penalties; and (7) violations of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). Williams seeks to pursue these claims both individually and as a representative action under the PAGA on behalf of current and former California non-exempt employees. Plaintiff served VITAS with the lawsuit on May 31, 2017. VITAS CA timely answered the Complaint generally denying Plaintiff's allegations. Williams is pursing discovery of her individual claim and has agreed to a stay of class discovery pending possible resolution through ongoing mediation in the Jordan Seper and Jiwann Chhina cases. Defendant filed and served each of Plaintiffs Williams, Phillips, and Moore with a Notice of Related Cases on July 19, 2017. In the Seper/Chhina case, the mediation process has concluded with an agreement in March 2019. The agreement is in the process of incorporation into a long-form agreement to be presented to the court for preliminary approval, notice to class members, and eventual final approval and payment. The definition of the class to participate in the settlement is intended to cover claims raised in the consolidated Seper/Chhina matter, as well as in other lawsuits including the Williams case. Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. CHEMED CORP: Unit Still Defends Lax Class Suit over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chemed Corporation's subsidiary, Roto-Rooter Services Company, continues to defend itself against a lawsuit filed by Alfred Lax over unpaid wages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. Alfred Lax, a current employee of Roto-Rooter Services Company ("RRSC"), was hired in the RRSC's Menlo Park branch in 2007. On November 30, 2018, Lax filed a class action lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging (1) failure to provide or compensate for required rest breaks; (2) failure to properly pay for all hours worked; (3) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (4) failure to reimburse for work-related expenses; and (5) unfair business practices. Lax has stated these claims as a representative of a class defined as all service technicians employed by RRSC in California during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint. He seeks a determination that the action may proceed and be maintained as a class action and for compensatory and statutory damages (premium payments for missed rest periods, uncompensated rest periods, wages for time allegedly not paid such as travel time, repair time, and vehicle maintenance time, and unreimbursed expenses), penalties and restitutions, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The lawsuit, Alfred Lax, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1 through 50 inclusive; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number 18CV338652, was received by RRSC on December 11, 2018 and RRSC timely filed its answer denying the claims. Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. CHICAGO, IL: Court Narrows Claims in IDEA Suit vs. Educ. Board -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants??? Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned H.P., E.V., G.G., R.L., J.B., J.M., O.L., and M.P., by their parents and next friends, VICTORIA G., HECTOR P., AIXIA H., CARLOS V., ASENCION G., MIREYA L., MIRIAM B., ROSALBA C., XI LONG L., and IZABELA P., for themselves and all others similarly situated; VICTORIA G., HECTOR P., AIXIA H., CARLOS V., ASENCION G., MIREYA L., MIRIAM B., ROSALBA C., XI LONG L., and IZABELA P., for themselves and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO; DR. JANICE JACKSON, Chief Executive Officer of Chicago Public Schools, in her official capacity; ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; and DR. TONY SMITH, State Superintendent of Education, in his official capacity, Defendants. No. 18 C 621. (N.D. Ill.). The CPS Defendants have moved for dismissal of all the claims against them. The Plaintiffs, eight Chicago Public School (CPS) students and their parents, have filed this putative class action against Defendants the Board of Education of the City of Chicago and Dr. Janice Jackson, the Chief Executive Officer of CPS (CPS Defendants), and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and Dr. Tony Smith, the State Superintendent of Education (ISBE Defendants). The Plaintiffs claim that the CPS and ISBE Defendants systematically fail to provide CPS students with disabilities, whose parents are Limited English Proficient (LEP), with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by federal law because the CPS and ISBE Defendants do not provide translations of documents or competent interpretation services for the LEP parents during the individualized education program (IEP) process. Specifically, in the first amended complaint (FAC), Plaintiffs allege violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (count I against the CPS and ISBE Defendants and count II against the ISBE Defendants); Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 (Title VI) (count III against the CPS and ISBE Defendants and count IV against the ISBE Defendants); the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (count V against the CPS and ISBE Defendants and count VI against the ISBE Defendants, with both counts solely on behalf of the Student Plaintiffs); and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (count VII against the CPS Defendants). Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies The CPS Defendants argue that because the Plaintiffs have not properly exhausted their administrative remedies under the IDEA or, for those who did, the administrative process mooted their claims, the Court should dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims against the CPS Defendants. The IDEA requires a plaintiff to first exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit under the statute. The exhaustion requirement extends to claims under other statutes to the extent those claims seek relief that is also available under the IDEA. Only H.P., E.V., and their parents sought relief through the administrative process prior to filing this suit. The hearing officers in H.P. and E.V.'s cases determined that they did not have jurisdiction under the IDEA to address CPS' failure to provide all Spanish-speaking LEP parents with children with disabilities with qualified interpreters and translation of documents or to grant relief to all Spanish-speaking LEP parents with children with disabilities. However, both hearing officers did provide some individual relief to H.P. and E.V. and their parents with respect to translation and interpretation services. In H.P.'s case, the hearing officer concluded that CPS denied H.P. a FAPE because it significantly impeded his parents' opportunity to participate in the IEP process by failing to provide trained and certified interpreters and translations of vital documents. The hearing officer ordered that CPS provide qualified interpretation services at all future IEP meetings and translations of key special education documents to H.P.'s parents. In E.V.'s case, the hearing officer did not find that E.V. was denied a FAPE because CPS did not provide his parents with translations and did not have competent interpreters, where Aixia H. demonstrated sufficient understanding of her rights under the IDEA and she meaningfully participated in IEP meetings. The hearing officer did order CPS to provide translations of various documents concerning special education but denied relief with respect to interpretation services. The CPS Defendants argue that the results of these proceedings have rendered H.P., E.V., and their parents' claims moot. The Seventh Circuit has questioned whether allegations of systemic violations automatically exempt an IDEA claim from exhaustion requirements, stating that while some IDEA violations may implicate the structure of a school district's special-education program and may not be remediable through ordinary administrative review, it does not necessarily follow that administrative review is futile or inadequate for all violations that are alleged to be systemic. But the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs' claims qualify as systemic violations before any such exception to exhaustion becomes relevant. The Plaintiffs allege that CPS has no policy or practice to ensure that LEP parents receive competent interpretation or translation services. They claim to seek systemic, not individual, relief, specifically that CPS: (1) institute an express policy and consistent practice of providing interpretation services by impartial and competent interpreters at IEP meetings and written translations of vital IEP process documents to LEP parents (2) develop a protocol to identify LEP parents who may need translation and interpretation services (3) "timely translate all vital IEP process documents for LEP parents and (4) notify all LEP parents of children with disabilities enrolled in CPS schools in writing in their native language of their right to receive translated vital IEP process documents and competent interpretation services. The Plaintiffs cannot simply assert that their allegations are systemic in order to survive the exhaustion requirement, and courts have not excused claims that are merely couched as allegations of systemic violations. The Plaintiffs' allegations of systemic violations ignore the fact that, under the IDEA, CPS need only provide translation and interpretation services to the extent necessary to ensure meaningful parent participation. And under the IDEA, meaningful participation does not proscribe a certain course of conduct by a school district, but rather requires a fact-intensive inquiry into the individual circumstances. Even in this case, the FAC demonstrates the individualized nature of the inquiry because the hearing officers in H.P. and E.V.'s cases came to different conclusions when assessing the extent to which the lack of interpretation and translation services affected the parents' ability to meaningfully participate in the decisionmaking process for their children. Plaintiffs contend that because of the inconsistent results, they need systemic relief, but, considering Plaintiffs' claims against the IDEA's requirements, they require a case-by-case inquiry into how CPS' policies or practices regarding translation and interpretation services affect each student and his or her parents individually. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that, in H.P. and E.V.'s cases, the hearing officers in the due process hearings addressed their individual requests for relief related to translation and interpretation services, suggesting that structural relief is not the only solution to the alleged violations. And even systemic relief, which the hearing officers determined they could not grant, would only lead to individualized determinations related to each parent's ability to meaningfully participate in the IEP decision-making process. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged systemic nature of Plaintiffs' claims does not render exhaustion futile or inadequate. As for E.V. and his parents, the hearing officer determined that the lack of translation and interpretation services did not deny E.V. a FAPE and so did not provide them with all the relief they seek here. This, then, allows E.V. to challenge the hearing officer's decision concerning the provision of interpretation and translation services. And because E.V. and his parents exhausted their claims, the remaining Plaintiffs may also pursue their similar claims without going through the administrative process. Therefore, the Court proceeds to address the CPS Defendants' remaining arguments for dismissal. IDEA Claim With respect to their IDEA claim, the Plaintiffs allege that, because of CPS' refusal to translate vital IEP process documents and to provide competent and impartial interpreters to LEP parents, CPS denied the Student Plaintiffs a FAPE. The CPS Defendants first argue that Plaintiffs have failed to state an actionable IDEA claim because their allegations confirm that CPS' policies and practices did not deny any of the Student Plaintiffs a FAPE or any of the Parent Plaintiffs denied meaningful participation in the IEP process. Procedural flaws in the IEP process do not automatically rise to the level of a denial of a FAPE. Procedural inadequacies in the IEP process rise to the level of a FAPE denial where the procedural inadequacies (1) impeded the student's right to a FAPE (2) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the parents' child or (3) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. The CPS Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' allegations demonstrate that each parent meaningfully participated in the IEP process and obtained substantive relief for their child through that participation. But the Court cannot make this determination at the motion to dismiss stage, where it must take Plaintiffs' allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in their favor. The Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the Parent Plaintiffs faced significant difficulties in their attempts to participate in the IEP process because CPS did not provide translations of vital documents or competent interpreters. The allegations do suggest that many of the Parent Plaintiffs ultimately obtained modifications to their children's IEPs, and the Court acknowledges that delay in itself does not amount to a violation. But here, Plaintiffs do not rely solely on the delay in receipt of services to support a violation, and the allegations suggest that the lack of translation and interpretation significantly impeded the Parent Plaintiffs' participation in the IEP process and caused additional harms to the Student Plaintiffs. While the evidence may ultimately undermine the Plaintiffs' claim, at this stage, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated an IDEA claim to proceed. Title VI Claim Finally, the Court considers Plaintiffs' Title VI claim, in which they allege that the CPS Defendants have engaged in language-based, and therefore national origin, discrimination prohibited by Title VI by failing to translate vital IEP process documents and to provide competent interpretation services for LEP parents of children with disabilities. This failure, according to Plaintiffs, has denied the Parent Plaintiffs the right to meaningfully participate in the IEP process to the same extent as parents who read and speak English proficiently. The parties agree that Title VI provides a private cause of action only for intentional discrimination and not for disparate impact. Although a failure to comply with regulations promulgated under Section 602 may be actionable to the extent that failure also amounts to a failure to comply with Section 601, this requires intentional discrimination because Section 601 only reaches intentional discrimination. The CPS Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs only allege a disparate impact on the Parent Plaintiffs, with CPS' alleged failure to provide translation and interpretation services potentially disproportionately impacting parents whose country of national origin does not speak English as a native language. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that they have alleged intentional discrimination, specifically that CPS knows of the Parent Plaintiffs' need for competent interpretation and translation services but nonetheless intentionally and systematically fails to provide these services. They provide specific instances where CPS has denied requests for such services. According to the Plaintiffs, these actions, done with knowledge of the LEP parents' need for services, deny the Parent Plaintiffs the ability to meaningfully participate in the LEP process. At this stage, this is all Plaintiffs must allege to suggest intentional discrimination. To the extent discovery reveals that Plaintiffs' Title VI claim amounts only to one for disparate impact, or that language-based discrimination should not be considered a proxy for protected national origin discrimination, the CPS Defendants can make these arguments to the Court based on a more complete record. The Court grants in part and denies in part the CPS Defendants' motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6gvnwzb from Leagle.com. H. P., E. V., G. G., R. L., J. B., J. M., O. L., M. P., by their parents and next friends, Victoria G., Hector P., Aixia H., Carlos V., Asencion G., Mireya L., Miriam B., Rosalba C., Xi Long L. & Izabela P., for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Donna M. Welch -- donna.welch@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Olga Frances Pribyl, Equip for Equality, 20 N Michigan Ave Ste 300, Chicago, IL, 60602-4861, Alec Jason Solotorovsky, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60654, Barry Charlton Taylor, Equip for Equality, 20 N Michigan Ave Ste 300, Chicago, IL, 60602-4861, Luke Christian Ruse -- luke.ruse@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Margaret Mcauslan Wakelin, Equip For Equality, Margo L. Weinstein, Equip For Equality, 20 N Michigan Ave Ste 300, Chicago, IL, 60602-4861 &Rachael Jordan Morgan, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice. Board Of Education Of The City Of Chicago & Janice Jackson, Dr., Chief Executive Officer, in her official capacity, Defendants, represented by Michael A. Warner, Jr. -- maw@franczek.com -- Franczek Radelet PC, Jennifer Ann Smith -- jas@franczek.com -- Franczek Radelet PC & Nicole Beth Bazer -- nbb@franczek.com -- Franczek Radelet P.C. Illinois State Board Of Education & Tony Smith, Dr. State Superintendent of Education, in his official capacity, Defendants, represented by Thomas A. Ioppolo, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Michael A. Warner, Jr., Franczek Radelet PC & Sarah Hughes Newman, Illinois Attorney General. CIGNA CORP: Amara Plaintiffs Challenge Calculation of Benefits -------------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that plaintiffs are challenging certain aspects of the methodology used to calculate and pay benefits related to the "Amara" cash balance pension plan litigation. In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation (now Old Cigna) and the Cigna Pension Plan on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Plan participants affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate disclosures about these conditions. In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the post-conversion cash balance formula. From 2008 through 2015, this case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in the original District Court Order being largely upheld. In 2015, the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members and plaintiffs responded in August 2015. Since then, there has been continued litigation regarding the calculation of benefits, attorneys' fees, and the administration of the remedy payments. On November 29, 2018, the Court ordered the Pension Plan to pay attorneys' and incentive fees of US$32 million, and to pay any past due lump sums and back benefits within 90 days of the Order. The attorneys' fees were paid as ordered in December 2018. In the first quarter of 2019, the Company amended the Plan, notified class participants of their increased benefits and commenced remedy benefit payments out of the Plan, including the past due lump sums and back benefits. In April 2019, plaintiffs challenged certain aspects of the methodology used to calculate and pay benefits. The Company and the Plan are vigorously opposing plaintiffs' motion. Cigna Corporation, a health services organization, provides insurance and related products and services in the United States and internationally. It operates through Global Health Care, Global Supplemental Benefits, Group Disability and Life, and Other Operations segments. Cigna Corporation was founded in 1792 and is headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut. CIGNA CORP: Aug. 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------- In re Cigna-American Specialty Health Administrative Fee Litigation Case No. 2:16-cv-03967-NIQA (E.D. Pa.) LEGAL NOTICE A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit on behalf of patients who received chiropractic, physical therapy, acupuncture, naturopathy, occupational therapy, and/or massage therapy services and were charged an allegedly improper administrative fee. The Settlement Class includes: Any Plan Member whose Plan benefits and/or cost share under a Plan were determined based on ASH's charges to Cigna through the Final Approval Date for the following types of services: chiropractic, acupuncture, massage therapy, naturopathy, physical therapy, or occupational therapy. What does the Settlement provide? A Settlement totaling approximately $8.25 million has been reached with Cigna Corp. ("Cigna"), American Specialty Health Group, Inc. ("ASH"), and each of their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, and agents (collectively known as "Defendants"). You do not need to do anything to receive a payment from the Settlement. Each Settlement Class Member will automatically receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund for every instance that a Settlement Class Member paid co-insurance or deductible amounts for an approved health benefit claim for services from an ASH contracted provider based on ASH's charges to Cigna, rather than the ASH contracted provider's charges to ASH. At this time, it is unknown exactly how much each Settlement Class Member will receive. How Can I Get a Payment? You do not need to do anything to receive a payment from the Settlement. Inclusion is automatic and you will be included, unless you specifically request to exclude yourself from the Settlement. Class members were mailed notice postcards on May 6, 2019. Settlement checks will be mailed to the same address utilized for the postcard notice. What are my rights? If you remain a Settlement Class Member, you will give up your right to sue the Defendants on your own for the claims described in the Settlement Agreement. You will also be bound by any decisions by the Court relating to the Settlement. The Defendants will be released from claims stemming from the alleged conduct concerning administrative fees charged to Plan Members and Plans identified in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement describes the released claims in further detail. Requests for exclusion from the Settlement Class must be submitted to the Settlement Administrator by July 10, 2019. If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object in writing to the Settlement by July 10, 2019. The Settlement Agreement, along with details on how to exclude yourself or object, are available at www.AdminFeeSettlement.com. When is the Final Fairness Hearing? The Court will hold a Final Fairness Hearing at 1:00 p.m. on August 9, 2019, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are objections or comments, the Court will consider them at that time and may listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may also decide how much to pay Lead Counsel and whether to reimburse Lead Counsel for certain costs, and whether to pay Service Awards to the Lead Plaintiffs. At or after the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement. This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of the Settlement, please see the Long Form Notice and the Settlement Agreement available at www.AdminFeeSettlement.com. For more information on the Settlement, please contact the Settlement Administrator at 888-206-2123. QUESTIONS? VISIT WWW.ADMINFEESETTLEMENT.COM OR CALL 1-888-206-2123. CMRE FINANCIAL: Gentile Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CMRE Financial Services, Inc. The case is styled as Ronald D Gentile individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CMRE Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80668-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. CMRE Financial Services, Inc. provides accounts receivables management services to healthcare organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com COFIROUTE USA: Faces Chavez Suit over Damages of Personal Property ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Cofiroute USA, LLC for personal property damages. The case is captioned, Daniel Chavez v. Cofiroute USA, LLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-00779-RGK-AFM (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2019). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner. Based in Irvine, California, Cofiroute USA is a tolling and express lanes operator specializing in the design, integration, management and maintenance of express lane systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William McGrane, Esq. MCGRANE PC Four Embarcadero Center Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111-4164 Telephone: (415) 292-4807 Facsimile: (415) 276-5762 E-mail: william.mcgrane@mcgranepc.com - and ??? Matthew S Sepuya, Esq. MCGRANE PC Four Embarcadero Center Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 292-4807 E-mail: matthew.sepuya@mcgranepc.com COGNIZANT TECH: June 10 Deadline to Respond to Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation and other defendants have until June 10, 2019, to respond to the second amended complaint in a consolidated securities class action pending in New Jersey, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company said, "In 2016, three putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming us and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. These complaints were consolidated into a single action and on April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased our common stock during the period between February 27, 2015 and September 29, 2016, naming us and certain of our current and former officers as defendants and alleging violations of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false or misleading statements related to potential violations of the FCPA, our business, prospects and operations, and the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting and our disclosure controls and procedures. The lead plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory damages, among other relief, and their reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. "Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2017. On August 8, 2018, the Court issued an order which granted the motion to dismiss in part, including dismissal of all claims against current officers of the Company, and denied them in part. "On September 7, 2018, we filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to certify the August 8, 2018 order for immediate appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). On October 18, 2018, the District Court issued an order granting our motion, and staying the action pending the outcome of our appeal petition to the Third Circuit. "On October 29, 2018, we filed a petition for permission to appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On March 6, 2019, the Third Circuit denied our petition without prejudice." In an order dated March 19, 2019, the District Court directed the lead plaintiffs to provide the defendants with a proposed amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint and the defendants must file a motion to dismiss the complaint on or before June 10, 2019. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. provides information technology consulting and technology services in North America, Europe, and Asia. The company was founded in 1994 and is based in Teaneck, New Jersey. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Nevarez et al. Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SILVERIO NEVAREZ, individually, EFREN CORREA, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10017 (Filed on March 25, 2019), was transferred from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 26, 2019. The removal was based on the grounds that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs and that there is an existing minimal diversity. The United States District Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03454 to the proceeding. In this complaint, Plaintiff Silverio Nevarez and Efren Correa assert six causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages due; failure to provide itemized wage statement to employees; failure to pay upon termination or quitting employee; failure to pay minimum wages; unfair business practice; and claim for a civil penalty. Costco is incorporated under the laws of the state of Washington, with its principal place of business in Washington and with its headquarters in Issaquah, Washington. The company operates a chain of membership-only warehouse clubs that sells electronics, computers, furniture, outdoor living, appliances, jewelry and more. [BN] Attorneys for Defendant: David D. Kadue, Esq. David D. Jacobson, Esq. Jinouth D. Vasquez Santos, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com djacobson@seyfarth.com jvasquezsantos@seyfarth.com CP OPCO: Court OKs $3MM Settlement in D. McDonald Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's unopposed motions for final approval of class action settlement in the case captioned DAVID McDONALD, Plaintiff, v. CP OPCO, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 17-cv-04915-HSG. (N.D. Cal.). Currently before the Court are Plaintiff David McDonald's unopposed motions for final approval of class action settlement. The Plaintiff alleged that he worked as a full-time employee at Classic's location in Burlingame, California, along with approximately 135 other full-time employees. The Plaintiff had worked for Classic for approximately 18 months when Bright Event Rentals, LLC (Bright) acquired Classic. Prior to the transaction, the Plaintiff received assurances that his job was not at risk, despite the possible sale of the business. Classic's general manager for the Burlingame location announced to the staff members who were physically present that they were terminated. Employees who were not physically present learned of their termination when they came to work. Settlement Fund: $3 million, non-reversionary, funded by Insperity and the Apollo Defendants, with $2.06 million available for class member settlement payments. Counsel estimates that the average individual settlement payment will be $1,983. The Settlement The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled only with the court's approval. The Court may finally approve a class settlement only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate. To assess whether a proposed settlement comports with Rule 23(e), courts should consider the following factors: the strength of the plaintiff's case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. Adequacy of Class Notice The Court finds that the notice plan previously approved by the Court was implemented and complies with Rule 23(c)(2)(B). The settlement administrator mailed the class notice to putative class members, attempted to find updated addresses for class members whose notices were returned undelivered, and re-mailed those notices. Only nine of the 1,039 notices were ultimately deemed undeliverable. The administrator also established a website and toll-free number for putative class members who had questions about the settlement. The administrator received one request for exclusion and no objections. In light of these facts, the Court finds that the parties have sufficiently provided the best practicable notice to the class members. Fairness, Adequacy, and Reasonableness of Settlement Having found the notice procedures adequate under Rule 23(e), the Court next considers whether the entire settlement comports with Rule 23(e). Strength of Plaintiff's Case; Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely Duration of Continued Litigation; and Risks of Maintaining Class Action Status This case settled before the Court had an opportunity to consider the merits of the claims, including before the Court ruled on Insperity's motion for judgment on the pleadings. However, continuing to litigate this case would have posed substantial risks for Plaintiff and generated significant costs. For example, Plaintiff would have needed to continue discovery into the relationship between the various entities named as Defendants and Defendants would have continued to litigate whether they could be held liable for Classic's alleged WARN Act violations. Eventually, Plaintiff would have needed to move for class certification and summary judgment, as well as potentially proceed to trial, and Defendants might have moved for summary judgment. This additional litigation would have, in the best-case scenario, been expensive and time-consuming and in the worst-case scenario, could have led to Plaintiff and the class going home empty-handed. Accordingly, these factors support approving the settlement. Settlement Amount The settlement amount also weighs in favor of approval. Defendants will make a non-reversionary settlement payment of $3,000,000 and individual class members stand to recover an average of nearly $2,000. Given that WARN Act damages are limited to 60 days' worth of back pay, this is a significant recovery for the class members, who, as class counsel points out, earned approximately $10 to $30 per hour when they were employed by Classic. As the Court previously noted, the settlement represents approximately 37.5% of the Defendants' maximum possible exposure. In addition, because class members are not required to submit claims and uncashed checks will be redistributed to class members, settlement dollars will reach the class members in a timely and efficient manner. Further, if less than $30,000 remains in the fund after the initial distribution, the residual will be donated to Legal Aid at Work, which the Court finds to be an appropriate cy pres recipient. Therefore, the settlement amount supports approval. Extent of Discovery Completed and Stage of Proceedings This factor evaluates whether class counsel had sufficient information to make an informed decision about the merits of the case. Class counsel has engaged in significant discovery, including obtaining and reviewing thousands of pages of documents relating to the structure of the various entities, the sale of Classic's California locations, and payroll records. The Court finds that the parties have received, examined, and analyzed information, documents, and materials that sufficiently enabled them to assess the likelihood of success on the merits and the extent of the potential damages. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of approval. Experience and Views of Counsel The Court next considers the experience and views of counsel, and it finds that this factor also weighs in favor of approval. Parties represented by competent counsel are better positioned than courts to produce a settlement that fairly reflects each party's expected outcome in litigation. Accordingly, the recommendations of plaintiffs' counsel should be given a presumption of reasonableness. The Court has previously evaluated class counsel's qualifications and experience and concluded that counsel is qualified to represent the class's interests in this action given their extensive experience litigating class actions. The Court recognizes, however, that courts have diverged on the weight to assign counsel's opinions. This factor's impact is therefore modest but favors approval. Reaction of Class Members The reaction of class members supports final approval. The absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action settlement raises a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement action are favorable to the class members. Class notice advising each class member of the requirements regarding objections and exclusions was served in accordance with the methods approved by the Court. Of the 1,039 class members, only one opted out and none submitted an objection. Further, at the May 9 final fairness hearing, no putative class member voiced an objection. The Court finds that the nearly unanimous positive reception of the settlement by class members favors approval. After considering and weighing all of the above factors, the Court finds that the settlement agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that the settlement class members received adequate notice. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y299mqlg from Leagle.com. David McDonald, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eileen B. Goldsmith -- egoldsmith@altshulerberzon.com -- Alshuler Berzon LLP, James M. Finberg -- jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, John T. Mullan -- jtm@rezlaw.com -- Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe, L.L.P., Chaya M. Mandelbaum -- cmm@rezlaw.com -- Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe, L.L.P., Meghan F. Loisel -- mfl@rezlaw.com -- Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe L.L.P., Meredith Anne Johnson -- mjohnson@altshulerberzon.com -Altshuler Berzon LLP & Michelle G. Lee -- mfl@rezlaw.com -- Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe, LLP. Insperity PEO Services, L.P., Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Ahearn -- cahearn@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP, Lauren Stockunas -- lstockunas@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher and Phillips LLP & Mark Jarrod Jacobs -- mjacobs@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP. Apollo Global Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Ehrlich -- aehrlich@paulweiss.com- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory F. Laufer -- glaufer@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Carrie Doolin -- mdoolin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Summer Jerre Wynn -- swynn@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP. Apollo Centre Street Partnership, L.P., Apollo Franklin Partnership, L.P., Apollo Credit Opportunity Fund III AIV I, L.P., Apollo SK Strategic Investments, L.P., Apollo Special Opportunities Managed Account, L.P. & Apollo Zeus Strategic Investments, L.P., Defendants, represented by Andrew J. Ehrlich, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Gregory F. Laufer, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Michelle Carrie Doolin, Cooley LLP & Summer Jerre Wynn, Cooley LLP. DASCO HOME MEDICAL: Perry Seeks OT Pay -------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Dasco Home Medical Equipment, Inc. for violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned NOEL PERRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DASCO HOME MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01921-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 10, 2019). Plaintiff Noel Perry was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly delivery technician, delivering medical equipment to Defendant's customers in Ohio. Within the three years prior to the filing of this complaint, Defendant paid Plaintiff a non-discretionary on call payment of $100 per pay period. The on call payment was remuneration for employment that Defendant paid to Plaintiff. In the past three years, Plaintiff frequently worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks. However, Defendant failed to include the on call payment in Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for purposes of computing the overtime pay due to Plaintiff. By failing to include the on call payment when calculating Plaintiff's regular rate, Defendant underpaid Plaintiff overtime. Non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant similarly situated to Plaintiff likewise received on call payments, which were not included in their regular rates of pay. This resulted in such similarly situated non-exempt hourly employees being underpaid overtime in violation of the FLSA and Ohio law. Dasco Home Medical Equipment, Inc. is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Franklin County at 375 N. West St., Westerville, Ohio. The company operates in Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, and Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 824-5770 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and ??? Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. 614 West Superior Avenue, Suite 1148 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com - and ??? Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com DISH NETWORK: Subsidiary Still Defends Krakauer Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- DISH Network Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that wholly-owned subsidiary Dish Network L.L.C. remains a defendant in the Krakauer litigation. A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action"). Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover US$400 in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA. On March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017. On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful and knowing, and trebled the damages award to US$1,200 for each call made in violation of TCPA. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a US$61 million judgment in favor of the class. On May 4, 2018, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal was calendared for oral argument on May 9, 2019 in Richmond. During the second quarter 2017, the Company recorded US$41 million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action on its Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss). The Company recorded US$20 million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action during the fourth quarter 2016. The Company's total accrual related to the Krakauer Action at March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018 was US$61 million and is included in "Other accrued expenses" on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. DISH Network Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV services in the United States. The company operates in two segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. DISH Network Corporation was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado. DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Suit in Arkansas Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc.'s request to dismiss the amended complaint in a purported class action complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2019. The Company has asserted that it was prejudiced by plaintiff's long delay in filing the amended complaint. In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (the "Center"). The Company answered the original complaint in 2009, and there was no other activity in the case until May 2017. At that time, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting new causes of action. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the patients of the Center over a multi-year period by failing to meet minimum staffing requirements, failing to otherwise adequately staff the Center and failing to provide a clean and safe living environment in the Center. The Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying plaintiffs' allegations and asked the Court to dismiss the new causes of action asserted in the amended complaint because the Company was prejudiced by plaintiff's long delay in filing the amended complaint. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, so the lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as a class action. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest United States. Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee. DT HOPITALITY: Denied Nuno, Marquez, Overtime Pay, Paystubs ----------------------------------------------------------- Patricio Nuno Carrera and Geraldo Marquez, on behalf of themselves, individually, and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. DT Hopitality Group Inc., Co Ba Restaurant and Kien Truong, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04235, (S.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations; unpaid minimum wages; spread of hours compensation under New York Labor Law; and redress for failure to furnish accurate wage statements for each pay period and failure to issue timely payment of wages. Defendants operate a Vietnamese restaurant, located at 110 9th Avenue, New York, New York 10011. Nuno and Marquez worked for DT as delivery personnel. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway, Suite B Hauppauge, NY 11788 Tel: (631) 257-5588 DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS: Vaughn Sues over Deceptive Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is captioned Shontia R. Vaughn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02761 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2019). Plaintiff Shontia R. Vaughn alleges that the Defendant did not accurately convey, from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, the actual amount of the alleged Debt he owed as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(1). She also asserts that the Defendant used false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. The collection letter allegedly named Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC as the creditor but Plaintiff claimed that she did not owe the alleged Debt to this company. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, is a South Carolina Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business in Greenville County, South Carolina. The company is engaged in debt collection business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Sanchez Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ JOANNE SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-at-00318 (E.D. Cal., May 2, 2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff's cellular telephone, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In addition to Plaintiff's Class Claims, Plaintiff also brings an action for damages as an individual consumer for Defendant's violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibit debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices. Beginning in or around May of 2018, the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on her cellular telephone number ending in -6963 in an effort to collect an alleged debt owed from Plaintiff. The Defendant called Plaintiff from telephone numbers confirmed to belong to Defendant, including without limitation (559) 795-5018 and (559) 795-5119. According to the complaint, all calls and voicemails were made by Defendant in connection with collection on an alleged debt. Further, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6963 was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about August 30, 2013. The Plaintiff requested for Defendant to stop calling Plaintiff during one of the initial calls from Defendant, thus revoking any prior express consent that had existed and terminating any established business relationship that had existed, as defined under 16 C.F.R. 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). Further, Plaintiff informed Defendant that she was not the person who allegedly owed the debt. The Defendant is debt collection company.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, 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 E & M FOOD MARKET: Valdez Moronta Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against E & M Food Market Corp. (d/b/a Key Food) and Miguel Martinez for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The case is captioned LEANDRO VALDEZ MORONTA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- E & M FOOD MARKET CORP. (D/B/A KEY FOOD) and MIGUEL MARTINEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04289 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2019). Plaintiff Leandro Valdez Moronta alleges that he used to work for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. He also asserts that the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Valdez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. E & M Food Market Corp owns, operates, or controls a supermarket, located at 760 Melrose Avenue, Bronx, New York 10451 under the name "Key Food". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Delaware High Court Narrows Olenik Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Earthstone Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2019, that in the case styled, Olenik v. Lodzinksi et al., the Delaware Supreme Court has affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the proxy disclosure claims but reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the other claims, holding that the allegations with respect to those claims were sufficient for pleading purposes. On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Earthstone's Chief Executive Officer, along with other members of the Board, EnCap Investments L.P. ("EnCap"), Bold, Bold Energy Holdings, LLC ("Bold Holdings") and OVR. The complaint alleges that Earthstone's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the contribution dated as of November 7, 2016 and as amended on March 21, 2017 (the "Bold Contribution Agreement"), by and among Earthstone, EEH, Lynden US, Lynden USA Operating, LLC, Bold Holdings and Bold. The Plaintiff asserts that the directors negotiated the Bold Transaction to benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to obtain adequate consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who were not affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not follow an adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold Transaction and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy disclosures in connection with the Bold Transaction. The suit seeks unspecified damages and purports to assert claims derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on behalf of all persons who held Common Stock up to March 13, 2017, excluding defendants and their affiliates. On July 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the action in its entirety with prejudice. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. On February 6, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court heard oral arguments from the Plaintiff and Defendants' counsel. On April 5, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the proxy disclosure claims but reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the other claims, holding that the allegations with respect to those claims were sufficient for pleading purposes. The Company said, "Earthstone and each of the other defendants believe the claims are entirely without merit and intend to mount a vigorous defense. The ultimate outcome of this suit is uncertain, and while Earthstone is confident in its position, any potential monetary recovery or loss to Earthstone cannot be estimated at this time." Earthstone Energy, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in the development and operation of oil and gas properties in the United States. Earthstone Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas. EASTERN COMMONWEALTH: Bragiforte Seeks OT Pay for Movers -------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Eastern Commonwealth Moving & Storage, Inc. for violations of the Massachusetts General Laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned DOMENIC BRANGIFORTE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EASTERN COMMONWEALTH MOVING & STORAGE, INC. AND JOSEPH PORTER, Defendants, Case No. 19-1343H (Mass. Cmmw., April 26, 2019). Plaintiff Domenic Brangiforte brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated hourly-paid employees who worked for Defendants as movers and were not paid required overtime pay within the relevant limitations periods. Eastern Commonwealth Moving & Storage, Inc. is a Massachusetts corporation with a regular place of business in Everett, Massachusetts. The company provides eviction services, such as moving and storage of personal and household belongings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard M. Brown, Esq. Boston Employment Law PC 1170 Beacon Street, Suite 200 Brookline, MA 02446 Telephone: (617) 566-8090 Facsimile: (617) 566-8091 E-mail: hmb@bostonemploymentlaw.com ELI LILLY: 9th Cir. Appeal in Strafford Class Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' appeal from a decision in the case, Strafford et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, remains pending, according to Eli Lilly and Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2019. The Company was named as a defendant in a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (now called Strafford et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company) involving Cymbalta. The plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of all persons within the U.S. who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta, asserted claims under the consumer protection statutes of California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various alleged economic injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification and dismissed the suits. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit. In July 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of California denied plaintiffs' motion to reopen the case. Plaintiffs' appeal of this denial is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. ELI LILLY: MMO to Appeal Dismissal of Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2019, that Medical Mutual of Ohio (MMO) has filed a Notice of Appeal from the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Company and other multiple manufacturers of testosterone products. The Company said, "We are named as a defendant in approximately 480 Axiron personal injury/product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving approximately 480 plaintiffs. In about one-third of the cases, other manufacturers of testosterone are named as co-defendants. Nearly all of these lawsuits have been consolidated in a federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A small number of lawsuits have been filed in state courts. "The cases generally allege cardiovascular and related injuries. We have reached agreement on a settlement framework that provides for a comprehensive resolution of nearly all of these personal injury claims alleging cardiovascular and related injuries from Axiron treatment. There can be no assurances, however, that a final settlement will be reached. "We have also been engaged in litigation with Medical Mutual of Ohio ("MMO"), which filed a class action complaint against multiple manufacturers of testosterone products, including us, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of third-party payers who paid for those products and is seeking damages under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. MMO's motion for class certification was denied, and in February 2019, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, dismissing MMO's lawsuit with prejudice. MMO has filed a Notice of Appeal from this dismissal order. "We continue to believe all of these lawsuits are without merit and are defending against them vigorously." Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. ELI LILLY: Plaintiff Voluntarily Drops Glucagon Pricing Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eli Lilly and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2019, that in April 2019, the plaintiff seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey relating to glucagon pricing have voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice. The Company, along with Novo Nordisk and various pharmacy benefit managers, were named as defendants in a lawsuit seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey relating to glucagon pricing. The lawsuit sought damages under various state consumer protection laws, the federal RICO Act, the Sherman Act, and other state and federal laws. Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. ELI LILLY: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint in Insulin Pricing Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the consolidated purported class action lawsuit styled, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in March 2019, according to Eli Lilly and Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2019. The Company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are named as defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey relating to insulin pricing. Plaintiffs seek damages under various state consumer protection laws and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (federal RICO Act). In February 2019, the court dismissed without prejudice the federal RICO Act claim as well as certain state consumer protection claims. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in March 2019. Separately, the Company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the same court, seeking damages under various state consumer protection laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and the federal RICO Act. In March 2019, the court dismissed, without prejudice, the plaintiffs' federal RICO Act, unjust enrichment, and certain state consumer protection law claims. Finally, the Minnesota Attorney General's Office filed a complaint against the Company, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, State of Minnesota v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, alleging unjust enrichment, and violations of various Minnesota state consumer protection laws and the federal RICO Act. The Company said, "We believe all of these claims are without merit and are defending against them vigorously." Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Still Awaits Court OK on McGee Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that in the case, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al., the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has not yet ruled on the plaintiffs' unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of a proposed settlement, certification of the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, and approval of notice to the settlement class. On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant Contact and two of its former officers. An amended complaint, which named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed December 19, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015. The parties mediated the claims on March 27, 2018, and as a result of that mediation reached an agreement in principle with the lead plaintiff to settle the action. The parties then negotiated the terms and conditions of a stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers, which, among other things, provide for the release of all claims asserted against Constant Contact and its former officers. On May 18, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, certification of the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, and approval of notice to the settlement class. The court has not yet ruled on this motion. Endurance International said, "The Company's combined contribution to the settlement pool under this proposed settlement and the potential settlement of the Machado litigation would be approximately equal to the US$7.3 million it reserved for these matters during the year ended December 31, 2018. The Company cannot make any assurances as to whether or when the McGee settlement will be approved by the court." Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides cloud-based platform solutions for small-and medium-sized businesses in the United States and internationally. The company operates in three segments: Web Presence, Domain, and Email Marketing. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts. ERIE INDEMNITY: Ritz's Bid to Reconsider Nixed Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the "Ritz" lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's ruling dismissing the suit with prejudice remains pending, according to Erie Indemnity Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On December 28, 2017 a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania captioned Lynda Ritz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company, J. Ralph Borneman, Jr., Terrence W. Cavanaugh, Eugene C. Connell, LuAnn Datesh, Jonathan Hirt Hagen, Thomas B. Hagen, C. Scott Hartz, Brian A. Hudson, Sr., Claude C. Lilly, III, George R. Lucore, Thomas W. Palmer, Martin P. Sheffield, Richard L. Stover, Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck, and Robert C. Wilburn, and Erie Insurance Exchange (Nominal Defendant) (the "Ritz" lawsuit). The individual named as Plaintiff is alleged to be a policyholder (subscriber) of the Erie Insurance Exchange (the "Exchange"). With the exception of Terrence W. Cavanaugh and Robert C. Wilburn, the individuals named as Defendants comprise the current Board of Directors of Indemnity. Messrs. Cavanaugh and Wilburn are former Directors of Indemnity (the "Directors"). The Complaint alleges that since at least 2007, Erie Indemnity Company has taken "unwarranted and excessive" management fees as compensation for its services under the Subscriber's Agreement. Count I of the Complaint purports to allege a claim for breach of alleged fiduciary duties against Indemnity and the Directors on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class of subscribers. Count II purports to allege a claim for breach of alleged fiduciary duties against Indemnity and the Directors on behalf of Exchange. Count III purports to allege a claim for breach of contract and an alleged implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Indemnity on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class. Count IV purports to allege a claim of unjust enrichment against several Directors. The Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and requests the Court to enjoin Indemnity from continuing to retain excessive management fees; and order such other relief as may be appropriate. On March 5, 2018, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the Ritz lawsuit. The Directors also filed their own motions to dismiss the Ritz lawsuit on March 5, 2018. Plaintiff filed her responses to both motions on April 26, 2018; and Indemnity and the Directors filed their replies in support of their motions on May 25, 2018. On February 4, 2019, the Court granted Indemnity's and the Directors' motions to dismiss the Ritz suit in its entirety, with prejudice, on the basis that all of the alleged claims in the Ritz suit are barred and precluded as a matter of law by the judgment entered in favor of Indemnity and the Directors in the Beltz II suit. On March 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's ruling dismissing the suit with prejudice. On April 5, 2019, Indemnity and the Directors filed their opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion for Reconsideration remains pending. Indemnity believes it has meritorious legal and factual defenses and intends to vigorously defend against all allegations and requests for relief in the Ritz lawsuit. The Directors have advised Indemnity that they intend to vigorously defend against the claims in the Ritz lawsuit and have sought indemnification and advancement of expenses from the Company in connection with the Ritz lawsuit. Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United States. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policy issuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the Erie Insurance Exchange. Erie Indemnity Company was founded in 1925 and is based in Erie, Pennsylvania. ERNST & YOUNG: Miranda Seeks OT Premium Pay for AML Consultants --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Ernst & Young U.S. LLP for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The case is captioned DAVID MIRANDA, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. ERNST & YOUNG U.S. LLP., a Delaware Limited Liability Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03754 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2019). Despite working more than 40 hours per week, Ernst & Young allegedly failed to pay its anti-money laundering consultants, including Plaintiff David Miranda, overtime compensation at a rate of time and a half their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The company also failed to maintain proper time records as mandated by the FLSA and the NYLL. Ernst and Young was and continues to be a Delaware Limited Liability Partnership, with its principal executive office located at 5 Times Square, New York, New York. It is an accounting and consulting firm servicing a multitude of clients, including banking and money managers. It also provides anti-money laundering and counter financing of terrorism and sanctions compliance advising services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: 954-WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com EVANS DELIVERY: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned SANTOS H. GARCIA; RAMIRO OROZCO; and MICHEL SALMO, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, all current, former and future aggrieved employees, and the general public of California, and WILVER ANTONIO VASQUEZ QUINTANILLA and EDGAR VELIZ BAEZA, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public of California, Plaintiffs, v. EVANS DELIVERY COMPANY, INC., a corporation; ALLEN CEPEDA; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV04250 was removed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 17, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-04316. The Complaint alleges Evans violated California law by: (1) failing to separately pay piece rate employees for rest periods and other nonproductive time in violation of California Labor Code; (2) failing to reimburse for necessary business expenses in violation of California Labor Code; (3) failing to provide required meal and rest periods in violation of California Labor Code; (4) taking unlawful deductions in violation of California Labor Code; (5) failing to pay all earned wages upon separation in violation of California Labor Code; (6) failing to provide accurate wage statements in violation of California Labor Code; and (7) engaging in unfair competition in violation of the Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alaina C. Hawley, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46214 Phone: (317) 637-1777 Fax: (317) 687-2414 Email: ahawley@scopelitis.com EXECUTIVE CREDIT: Bell Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EXECUTIVE CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. The case is styled as CONNITA BELL individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXECUTIVE CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-12721-AET-TJB (D. N.J., May 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Executive Credit Management, Inc. is a full-service Debt Collection and Applicant Screening agency with over 20 years experience located in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: ARI HILLEL MARCUS, ESQ. YITZCHAK ZELMAN, ESQ. Marcus Zelman, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (347) 526-4093 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com ari@marcuszelman.com FAIR COLLECTIONS: Muldowney Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Muldowney individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00594-FJS-ATB (N.D. N.Y., May 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Inc. was founded in 2004. The company's line of business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com FARMERS GROUP: Holmes Suit Transferred to D. New Mexico ------------------------------------------------------- The case, Holmes v. Farmers Group, Inc. et al, Case No. D-101-CV-2019-00248, was transferred from First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, New Mexico to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on April 26, 2019. The clerk of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00387-JHR-SCY to the proceedings. This insurance-related class action is assigned to Hon. Judge Jerry H. Ritter. Farmers Group, Inc. is a multiline insurer that provides auto insurance and recreational insurance, including auto, collectible auto, motorcycle, boat, travel trailer, motor home, off-road, and food truck insurance. It also provides home insurance, such as mobile and manufactured home insurance, homeowner insurance, specialty home insurance, condo insurance, earthquake insurance, and flood insurance; and business insurance that covers property, liability, crime, auto, and worker compensation. [BN] Attorneys for Defendants: Marilyn Brown, Esq. Stacy Allen, Esq. JACKSON WALKER LLP 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 236-2000 E-mail: mbrown@jw.com E-mail: stacyallen@jw.com - and - Brian K Nichols, Esq. MODRALL SPERLING LAW FIRM PO Box 2168 Albuquerque, NM 87103-2168 Telephone: (505) 848-1800 Facsimile: (505) 848-1889 E-mail: bkn@modrall.com FASHION NOVA: Haggar Files ADA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fashion Nova, Inc. The case is styled as Elia Haggar, Kyo Hak Chu, Valerie Brooks, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Fashion Nova, Inc. a California corporation, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04351-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fashion Nova offers plus size, curvy body types, maternity sizes, and a men's clothing line.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq. Wilshire Law Firm 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Wilshire Law Firm 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com FEDERAL SIGNAL: Still Defends Hearing Loss Litigation ----------------------------------------------------- Federal Signal Corporation continues to defend itself in the Hearing Loss Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in 2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company. An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling US$0.4 million. The Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this appeal. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013. The Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs, which resulted in final dismissal of these cases. A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this trial. Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial court's certification order. Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December 2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012, the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company. Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March 11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10, 2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class certification order. On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of the firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues and that there is an adequate representative for the class. During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the Court that they would again seek to certify a class of firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago firefighter plaintiffs, as well as the approximately 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. On March 11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiff's motions to amend their complaints. On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues. On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify as a class all firefighters from the Chicago Fire Department who have filed lawsuits in this matter. The Company has served discovery upon plaintiffs related to this motion and intends to continue its objections to any attempt at certification. The court has scheduled a hearing regarding discovery issues in this case on May 21, 2019. Federal Signal Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, and supplies a suite of products and integrated solutions for municipal, governmental, industrial, and commercial customers in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally. It operates through two segments, Environmental Solutions Group and Safety and Security Systems Group. Federal Signal Corporation was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Oak Brook, Illinois. FORD MOTOR: Court Refuses to Modify Export Report in Kasper ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Modify the Expert Report Exchange Deadline in the case captioned EDWARD KASPER, on behalf of himself and similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 1:18-cv-2895. (N.D. Ohio). Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to modify the expert report exchange deadline. Edward Kasper brings a disability discrimination class action against Ford Motor Company. Plaintiff Kasper seeks relief on two scheduling matters. Plaintiff incorrectly states that the Court has not set an expert report disclosure deadline. In evaluating whether good cause exists to change court-ordered deadlines, the inquiry mostly focuses on the moving party's diligence, but the Court also considers presence or absence of prejudice to the other party.3 The only legitimate reason Plaintiff offers in support of his request to considerably accelerate the expert report deadline is his desire to have time to determine whether he needs to go to the expense of deposing Defendant's experts before the May 28, 2019 class certification motion deadline. The Court does not find this to be good cause to modify the Court's scheduling order.4 In particular, the Court finds that accelerating the date by almost three months would prejudice Defendant. Defendant represents that Plaintiff has not yet produced the necessary discovery on which Defendant's expert intends to rely and that Defendant's expert report will likely respond to the arguments Plaintiff makes in his class certification motion. The Plaintiff in part also seeks the earlier expert report deadline to allow him time to determine whether he needs to retain his own experts, but this is not a valid reason. Plaintiff's deadline to identify experts February 25, 2019 has long since passed. To the extent that Plaintiff implicitly seeks an extension of the expert identification deadline, the Court also finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause and excusable neglect for an extension of that deadline. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to modify the briefing schedule and grants Plaintiff's request to push back the class certification motion deadlines by two weeks. The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to modify the expert report exchange deadline. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2tbdfq9 from Leagle.com. Edward Kasper, and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lewis A. Zipkin, Zipkin Whiting, 3637 Green Rd, Cleveland, OH 44122 & Shawn A. Romer, 2012 W 25th St, Ste. 716, Cleveland, OH, 44113 Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Blaine H. Evanson -- bevanson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, David A. Posner -- dposner@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, Eugene Scalia -- escalia@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, pro hac vice Naima L. Farrell -- nfarrell@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher & Ronald G. Linville -- rlinville@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Dismissal of Connecticut Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has granted in its entirety Frontier Communications Corporation's motion to dismiss an amended consolidated securities class action suit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings. The complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28, 2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to Frontier's offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015. The complaint asserts, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with certain disclosures relating to the CTF Acquisition. The complaint sought, among other things, damages and equitable and injunctive relief. On March 8, 2019, the District Court granted in its entirety Frontier's motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court dismissed with prejudice a number of claims and with respect to certain other claims that were not dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiffs have until May 10, 2019 to seek the court's permission to refile. The Company said, "We will continue to dispute any replead allegations and intend to vigorously defend against such claims." Frontier Communications Corporation provides communications services to consumer, commercial, and wholesale customers in the United States. It offers broadband, video, voice, and other services and products through a combination of fiber and copper based networks to consumer customers. The company was formerly known as Citizens Communications Company and changed its name to Frontier Communications Corporation in July 2008. Frontier Communications Corporation was founded in 1927 and is based in Norwalk, Connecticut. GOHEALTH LLC: Roby Sues over Automated Telemarketing Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against GoHealth, LLC for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Federal Communication Commission's regulations. The case is captioned BARBARA ROBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOHEALTH, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02756 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2019). Plaintiff Barbara Roby alleges that GoHealth is engaged in illegal telemarketing practices in advertising the sale of its health insurance. GoHealth allegedly sent automated text messages to the telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and the class members without prior express written consent. GoHealth is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the state of Delaware. Headquartered at 214 W. Huron St., Chicago, Illinois, GoHealth describes itself as a pioneer in health insurance technology industry. The company offers affordable health insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe St. Ste. 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092/(312) 726-1093 E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com tsostrin@keoghlaw.com GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI: Greifman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grossman & Karaszewski, PLLC. The case is styled as Sarah Greifman individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grossman & Karaszewski, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-04625 (S.D. N.Y., May 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Grossman & Karaszewski, PLLC is a debt collection law office located in East Amherst, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com H&R BLOCK: Court Grants Arbitration Bid in J. Davidow Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, issued an Order granting Defendant???s Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned JANICE DAVIDOW, individually and o/b/o others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. H&R BLOCK, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 18-01022-CV-W-ODS. (W.D. Mo.) Plaintiff Janice Davidow worked as a seasonal tax preparer for H&R Block in Florida. Plaintiff filed this putative class action against Defendants H&R Block, Inc. and H&R Block Tax Services LLC, alleging Defendants, along with other entities and persons, enacted a scheme related to the recruitment of employees and potential employees, which included policies and agreements not to solicit or recruit without prior approval from each other's personnel. The Defendants move to compel arbitration on an individual basis. They argue that, in November 2011 (2011 agreement) and in November 2012 (2012 agreement), the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate all claims against H&R Block companies when she signed her tax professional employment agreements. Whether parties agreed to arbitrate disputes is a question for judicial determination A court's role is limited to determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute. This is because arbitration is a matter of consent. Absent an enforceable agreement to arbitrate a particular dispute, neither party can compel arbitration of that dispute. Under Missouri law, the party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement exists. The Defendants contend a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement exists, and the claims alleged by Plaintiff are covered by the arbitration agreement. The Plaintiff contends a valid arbitration agreement does not exist because (1) the agreement lacks consideration, and (2) Defendants are not parties to the agreement. Whether a Valid Arbitration Agreement Exists Sufficient consideration may be a promise to do (or refrain from doing) something or may be a transfer or relinquishment of something of value to the other party. If a contract contains mutual promises imposing a legal duty or liability on each party as a promise to the other party, the contract is a bilateral contract with sufficient consideration. A court may look to the contract's language, as well as the practical effects of the contract's provisions to determine whether the parties are mutually obligated such that sufficient consideration exists. In the agreements, the Plaintiff and the Company agree that any Covered Claims will be resolved by final and binding arbitration. The arbitration agreement applies with respect to all Covered Claims, whether initiated by Plaintiff or the Company. Covered Claims include any and all claims or disputes between [Plaintiff] and the Company, or the Company's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, and successor corporations and its business entities. The express terms include mutual obligations and agreements to arbitrate claims, supporting Defendants' argument that sufficient consideration exists. The Plaintiff contends the agreements do not contain mutual promises of arbitration because the agreements specifically exempt the claims an employer is more likely to bring, including claims for injunctive relief. The Plaintiff cites two cases to support her position. Both cases are distinguishable. In Goolsby v. PrimeFlight Aviation Services, Inc., the parties' agreement exempted from arbitration remedies or claims that only the defendant would bring against the plaintiff such as, seeking injunctive or declaratory relief due to allegations of unfair competition, unfair business practices, the unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets or confidential information, or the breach of covenants restricting the business activities of the Company or employees. The Court observed the claims enumerated as arbitrable are claims only the plaintiff would bring against the defendant, e.g., claims for unpaid wages, overtime, discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, employment-related tort claims, and claims applicable to the employment-relationship. Because the practical effect of the agreement only bound the plaintiff to arbitration, the Court found the defendant's promise to arbitrate was illusory and the agreement lacked mutuality of promise; thus, the agreement lacked consideration. In Jimenez v. Cintas Corp., the parties agreed to arbitrate certain disputes and exclude other claims from arbitration to wit, unemployment and workers compensation claims, and charges and complaints filed with administrative agencies.. Also excluded from arbitration were violations of a non-compete provision. However, only the defendant was permitted to seek a declaratory judgment or injunctive relief with a court to enforce the plaintiff's compliance with the non-compete provision. Because the agreement required the plaintiff to arbitrate all claims but allowed the defendant to seek redress from the courts for "claims it is most likely to bring against the plaintiff, the Court found the agreement lacked mutuality of promise and was devoid of consideration. Thus, no valid arbitration agreement existed. Based upon this, the Court finds the practical effect of the parties' agreement does not bind only Plaintiff to arbitration and does not exclude only Defendants from arbitrating certain claims. Therefore, there is mutuality of promise, and sufficient consideration exists. The Court finds a valid arbitration agreement exists. Whether Nonsignatories May Compel Arbitration In both agreements, the Plaintiff assented to arbitration of any and all claims and disputes between Associate and the Company, or the Company's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, and successor corporations and business entities. The two agreements were made between and signed by Plaintiff and H&R Block Eastern Enterprises. Defendants are nonsignatories to the arbitration agreements but they seek to enforce them. A nonsignatory may compel a signatory to arbitrate claims in limited circumstances. The parties agree that whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable by a nonsignatory is determined by traditional principles of state law. Nonsignatories are permitted to compel arbitration when the relationship between the signatory and nonsignatory defendants is sufficiently close that only by permitting the nonsignatory to invoke arbitration" would avoid evisceration of the underlying arbitration agreement. In an attempt to circumvent her agreement to arbitrate claims against H&R Eastern Enterprises's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, Plaintiff argues the agreements do not define what entities are parents, subsidiaries, affiliates and therefore, Defendants cannot compel arbitration. The agreements do not explicitly identify what entities are parents, subsidiaries, affiliates of H&R Block Eastern Enterprises. But the agreements recognize the affiliation between Defendants and H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, as well as a relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants. First, the Plaintiff agreed to abide by the rules and requirements H&R Block, Inc. She agreed to perform her job duties in compliance with H&R Block, Inc. Code of Business Ethics & Conduct. She acknowledged her employment could be terminated by violating H&R Block, Inc. Code of Business Ethics & Conduct and a material violation of H&R Block Inc. Code of Business Ethics & Conduct would constitute cause for termination of her employment. Second, the Plaintiff also agreed she would be given access to Trade Secrets and other Confidential Business Information which has commercial value to the Company and its affiliates hereinafter together referred to as H&R Block. The Confidential Business Information includes, but is not limited to H&R Block's client lists, information pertaining to H&R Block's clients, employee lists and information, and H&R Block's preparation software. Third, to opt-out of the arbitration agreement, Plaintiff was directed to mail her opt-out to H&R Block-Legal Department in Kansas City, Missouri. Finally, at the top of the first page of each agreement appears H&R Block?? next to a black square (likely the green square typically accompanying H&R Block). The Defendants may not have been specifically identified in the agreements as parents, subsidiaries, affiliates of H&R Block Eastern Enterprises. But the agreements establish an irrefutable affiliation between Defendants and H&R Block Eastern Enterprises. Interestingly, in her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges she worked as a seasonal tax preparer for H&R Block, specifically referring to Defendants as H&R Block. She also contends H&R Block's direct and indirect subsidiaries (and other entities and individuals) conspired with Defendants in the offenses alleged in this Complaint. Consequently, her Complaint reveals she was and is aware of H&R Block Eastern Enterprises's affiliation with Defendants. Thus, Defendants, although nonsignatories to the agreement, may compel arbitration. Whether the Agreement Encompasses the Dispute Having concluded a valid arbitration agreement exists, the Court must determine whether the claims in this lawsuit fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. As a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, including the construction of the contract language itself. When determining whether the scope of the arbitration agreement includes the claims at issue, the Court does not consider the fact that Defendants are not parties to the agreement containing the clause. Although the Plaintiff does not address this particular issue in her briefing, the agreements provide the necessary information for the Court's analysis. That is, in both agreements, the parties agreed to arbitrate claims arising under federal statute. Plaintiff's claims arise from the Sherman Act. The arbitration agreements encompass Plaintiff's Sherman Act claims. Additionally, Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate her claims on an individual basis, and waived her right to arbitrate her claims on a class-wide basis. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2am9a4g from Leagle.com. Janice Davidow, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda M. Williams, Gustafson Gluek pLLC, 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402, pro hac vice, Ashlea Schwarz Ashlea@PaulLLP.com -- Paul LLP, Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, pro hac vice,Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek pLLC, 120 South 6th Street,Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402 pro hac vice, Laura Catherine Fellows -- Laura@PaulLLP.com -- Paul LLP & Richard M. Paul, III -- rick@paulllp.com -- Paul LLP. H&R Block, Inc. & H&R Block Tax Services LLC, Defendants, represented by David J. Lender - david.lender@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Shaun Hochstadt - eric.hochstadt@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice & Stacey R. Gilman -- SGILMAN@BERKOWITZOLIVER.COM -- Berkowitz Oliver LLP. HANOVER INSURANCE: Nixed Durand Suit No Longer Subject to Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court's dismissal of the putative class action suit styled Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, is no longer subject to appeal effective April 24, 2019, according to the The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The named plaintiff, a former employee of the Company's former life insurance and annuity business who received a lump sum distribution from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the time of her separation from the Company, claims that she and others similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution because in computing the lump sum, the Company and the Plan understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The plaintiff claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and those of similarly situated participants by failing to pay an additional so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value of an estimate of future interest credits from the date of the lump sum distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65 ("whipsaw claim"). The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. Two of the three new claims set forth in the Amended Complaint were dismissed by the District Court, which action was upheld in November 2015 by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. The District Court, however, did allow to stand the new claim in the Amended Complaint for breach of fiduciary duty and failure to meet notice requirements arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") from the various interest crediting and lump sum distribution matters of which plaintiffs complain, but only as to plaintiffs' "whipsaw" claim that remained in the case. On December 17, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying a class to bring "whipsaw" and related breach of fiduciary duty claims consisting of all persons who received a lump sum distribution between March 1, 1997 and December 31, 2003. On February 16, 2018, the Court entered an order limiting the claims of those participants who received lump sum distributions prior to March 13, 2002 to alleged violations of ERISA's disclosure requirements and breaches of fiduciary duty. Subsequently, the parties entered into settlement discussions and reached a settlement. The Court approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice on March 22, 2019. Effective April 24, 2019, such dismissal is no longer subject to appeal. The Company said, "The resulting settlement amount to be paid by the Company is not material to the Company's financial position and will not have a material effect on its results of operations." The Hanover Insurance Company, Inc. offers personal and commercial property and casualty insurance services for individuals, families, and businesses. Its personal insurance coverage includes umbrella and personal liability, home, auto, insurance for valuables, and watercraft and toys insurance. The company is based in Worcester, Massachusetts. HCP INC: Still Defends Boynton Beach Pension Fund Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ HCP, Inc. continues to face the putative class action styled, Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc. ("HCRMC"), and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws. The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DoJ") in a suit against HCRMC arising from the False Claims Act that the DoJ voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiff in the class action suit demands compensatory damages (in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or other relief as the Court deems just and proper. On November 28, 2017, the Court appointed Societe Generale Securities GmbH (SGSS Germany) and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief Systems (Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the class action. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on May 21, 2018 and oral arguments were held on October 23, 2018. Subsequently, on December 6, 2018, HCRMC and its officers were voluntarily dismissed from the class action lawsuit without prejudice to such claims being refiled. HCP said, "The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it." HCP, Inc. is a fully integrated real estate investment trust (REIT) that invests in real estate serving the healthcare industry in the United States. The company is based in Irvine, California. HERTZ LOCAL: Court Remands T. Belton's Wage & Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs??? Motion to Remand in the case captioned TROY BELTON, Plaintiff, v. HERTZ LOCAL EDITION TRANSPORTING, INC., Defendant. Case No. 19-cv-00854-WHO. (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Troy Belton initially filed his complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda against Hertz Local Edition Transporting Inc. (Hertz) for a number of employment related claims under state law. Belton was employed by Hertz as a transporter. His duties consisted of driving customers to various locations after the customers purchased car rental and/or transportation services from Hertz. Belton alleges that he, and other aggrieved employees, should have been paid overtime because they were denied meal and rest breaks during mandatory staff meetings. Hertz removed the suit and asserts that this case is removable under CAFA jurisdiction because Belton's claim for restitution under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (1) satisfies CAFA's diversity requirement (2) the putative class would exceed the 100 class member requirement (3) Hertz is not a government entity and (4) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), gives federal courts original jurisdiction over class actions where there are at least 100 class members, at least one plaintiff is diverse in citizenship from any defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. A class action that meets CAFA standards may be removed to federal court. Unlike the general presumption against removal, no antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking CAFA. (2014). In fact, Congress intended CAFA jurisdiction to be interpreted expansively. Under CAFA, a defendant's notice of removal needs only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold and does not need evidentiary submissions. When testing the amount in controversy alleged, courts look first to the allegations of the complaint. If the damages are unstated or if the defendant views the damages as understated, the defendant must show by a preponderance of evidence that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds the $5,000,000 threshold. The defendant in a jurisdictional dispute has the burden to put forward evidence showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, to satisfy other requirements of CAFA, and to persuade the court that the estimate of damages in controversy is a reasonable one. DOES THE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT APPLY? Belton argues that because his ninth cause of action under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 is not brought as a class claim, it does not fall under CAFA. In support of his argument, Belton cites the Ninth Circuit's decision in Hawaii ex rel. Louie v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 761 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014), where the court considered whether a case brought by the Hawaii Attorney General under a statute similar to Section 17200 could constitute a class action when it was not styled as one, even where the relief sought might ultimately require class certification. In this case, Belton's Section 17200 claim is not styled as a class action. It does not assert class allegations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382. The civil cover sheet affirmatively checks the box stating that this case is not a class action suit. Civil Cover Sheet attached as Exhibit A to Notice of Removal (NOR). Belton does not seek class status, plead the existence of a class, define the limits of a class, or even reference the word class in his complaint. Thus, as master of his complaint, Belton's decision not to request class status or its equivalent is fatal to CAFA jurisdiction. In opposition, Hertz argues that the California Supreme Court has held that a private party may pursue a representative action under Section 17200 only if the party complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil procedure' and such an action must meet the requirements for a class action. If Hertz is correct that Belton may only prevail on his Section 17200 claim if it is brought as a class action, Belton has two choices: he could forfeit his damages under Section 17200, or he can amend his claim to state a class action. If he later amends to assert a class action, removal under CAFA would be possible, even if untimely, as long as the district court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action. The complaint, as it is currently styled, cannot support jurisdiction under CAFA. The Court do not reach the parties arguments related to CAFA's amount in controversy requirement. IS THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY FOR DIVERSITY JURISDICTION MET? Belton argues that Hertz has failed to establish that his individual damages will exceed the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). The parties do not dispute the following amount: (i) back pay of $20,000, (ii) premium pay of $10,000, (iii) $3,472 in waiting time penalties, (iv) $8,000 in overtime, (v) $5,000 in minimum wages and (vi) $4,000 for non-compliant wage statements. This leads to an undisputed amount of individual damages totaling $50,472. Id. The parties disagree on the amount of emotional distress damages, whether attorneys' fees are available, and if attorneys' fees are available, in what amount. Emotional Distress Damages In its notice of removal, Hertz represents that the value of Belton's emotional distress damages flowing from his constructive discharge claim would likely be $50,000. Hertz cites cases in its notice of removal and two cases in its opposition that it believes are comparable to conclude that $50,000 would constitute a conservative award. Belton offers no information about his emotional distress damages and counters that Hertz's valuation is speculative and that the cases it cited are distinguishable. In Davis v. Ayala, No. 09-cv-02629-SI, 2011 WL 7141949 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2011), a former nurse in a county jail sued a former lieutenant and sergeant for retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association. The nurse stated that after leading a successful campaign that involved its own instances of retaliation to no longer have her, or other nurses, answer to an abusive supervisor, the defendants threatened her with termination and transferred her to a unit of the jail that housed the most hostile and mentally unstable inmates. She contended that their conduct was malicious, oppressive, and in reckless disregard of her rights, and that due to stress, she had to take medical leave, and ultimately was forced to resign. The jury awarded the former nurse $320,157 in lost wages, $8,800 in past medical expenses and $200,000 for pain and suffering. Belton states that he was constructively discharged because Hertz violated the well-established public policy prohibiting employers from failing to pay employees all wages due and payable to them, and that Hertz's failed to pay overtime wages, premium pay, reimbursement, and minimum wages due to him. The facts in Davis are so clearly distinguishable from those in Belton's complaint that Davis is barely useful. But if they were, Belton argues that in Davis, the emotional distress damages were approximately 61% of compensatory damages, and using the undisputed compensatory damages figure here would lead to only $12,200 in emotional distress damages. An award of $12,200 would be insufficient to meet the amount in controversy requirement. In Keiffer v. Bechtel Corp., 65 Cal.App.4th 893, 895 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998), the plaintiff was terminated during a period of corporate downsizing. At trial, he prevailed on claims of age discrimination, breach of an implied contract to terminate only for cause, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Id. The jury awarded him $322,975 in compensatory damages, $225,000 in emotional distress damages and $800,000 in punitive damages. Id. Again, as Belton notes, the facts are dissimilar, and using the ratio of compensatory damages to emotional distress damages in Kieffer would only yield $14,000 here. Such an award would still be short of the amount in controversy requirement. In Silo v. CHW Medical Foundation, 86 Cal.App.4th 947, 955 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001), a case about religious discrimination, the jury awarded the plaintiff $6,305 in economic damages and $1 in noneconomic damages. Silo appears to be wholly inapplicable and it is unclear why Hertz believes it is helpful to its argument. In Satrap v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 42 Cal.App.4th 72, 75-76 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996), an employee of PG&E for at least 27 years, brought a whistleblower claim against PG&E. Satrap volunteered to cooperate with the California Public Utilities Commission's investigation of PG&E's gas purchasing. Before he met with the investigators, PG&E instructed him not to discuss the contents of an interim report on its internal investigation of plaintiff.. The report discussed, among other things, concerns he had expressed over a domestic contract negotiation he had participated in that he believed involved some improper political influences, and his suspicion that PG&E had been overpaying its Canadian gas suppliers. Nevertheless, he discussed some of these issues with the Utilities Commission and was allowed to return to work but was demoted and eventually quit under circumstances that were found by a jury to constitute constructive termination. The case ultimately went to trial for breach of contract, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and invasion of privacy. The jury rendered its verdict in Satrap's favor, awarding him economic damages of $48,750, noneconomic damages of $225,000, and punitive damages of $250,000. The jury specifically found that he had been terminated without cause, and in retaliation for his disclosures to the Utilities Commission. The jury also found that public disclosures by PG&E that he was being investigated for accepting kickbacks were false. Satrap is unhelpful to Hertz because the facts are too distinguishable, and it is impossible to tell from the opinion what part of the award can properly be attributed to his wrongful termination claim, as opposed to his breach of contract and invasion of privacy claims. Hertz has provided no probative evidence to justify its claim that Belton's emotional distress damages would amount to $50,000. Although Belton has not submitted any evidence to show what the likely emotional distress damages would be, there is effectively nothing from Hertz to counterbalance Belton's lack of evidence. From the parties' submissions, I am unable to find that the emotional distress damages would, taken together with the undisputed damages, meet the amount in controversy requirement because any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand. Such a finding would require pure speculation. Defendant cannot establish jurisdiction under either CAFA. CAFA is not applicable because the complaint is not styled as a class action. The amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction is not met. Belton's motion to remand is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxa9yggl from Leagle.com. Troy Belton, Plaintiff, represented by Jocelyn Burton -- jburton@burtonemploymentlaw.com -- Burton Employment Law & Scott S. Nakama -- snakama@burtonemploymentlaw.com -- Burton Employment Law. Hertz Local Edition Transporting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. Dyke -- cdyke@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody LLP & Robert A. Dolinko -- rdolinko@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody LLP. IMERYS TALC: Fong et al. Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case, PUI FONG and THAI WONG, Plaintiffs, v. IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. successor-in-interest to CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL MINERALS COMPANY); et al., Defendants, Case No. BC675449, was transferred from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The grounds for removal include the reason that district courts have original jurisdiction to hear all civil proceedings that are, among other things, "related to cases under title 11." 28 U.S.C. Section 1334(b). The removal of the aforementioned case is authorized by 28 U.S.C. Sections 1334 and 1452. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the exposure to the Imerys' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries -- specifically, mesothelioma. Imerys Talc America, Inc. supplies talc for products including Johnson & Johnson's baby powder. [BN] Attorneys for Defendants: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Amy P. Zumsteg, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: +1 (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: +1 (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com azumsteg@kslaw.com INTUIT INC: Sinohui et al Sue over TurboTax Deceptive Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Intuit Inc. for breach of contract and for violations of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the New York's General Business Law, and the Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The case is captioned BRIANNA SINOHUI, MICHELE ARENA, JOSEPH BROUGHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTUIT INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-02546 (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2019). Pursuant to an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Intuit's TurboTax and 11 other tax preparation providers are required to cumulatively offer 70% of U.S. taxpayers the option to file their taxes for free. For the 2018 tax season, any taxpayer whose adjusted gross income is $66,000 or less is eligible to use tax preparation software from one of these providers to prepare and file their tax returns for free. However, TurboTax violated its agreement with the IRS by intentionally diverting qualified taxpayers away from its "free filing" program in favor of its paid product offerings. It did this by segregating its "free file" webpage from its primary website and then altering the website's code in order to keep it hidden from search engines like Google so that it would not be easily accessible to qualified taxpayers. In addition, TurboTax also marketed its paid offerings as "Free Guaranteed" -- so that qualified taxpayers believed they were filing their taxes pursuant to the free-filing program, only to be hit with unexpected charges after they already spent hours entering information and were getting ready to file. As a result of this scheme, TurboTax breached its agreement with the government, took advantage of the U.S. public, and generated millions of dollars of ill-gotten gains from persons who least can afford it. Intuit Inc. is headquartered in Mountain View, California, and incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. Intuit markets, sells and operates TurboTax, a tax preparation and filing software product and service. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com J.P. MORGAN: Sept. 6 ERISA Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- If you were a participant or beneficiary in your employer's 401(k) retirement savings plan through which you were invested at relevant times in certain JPMorgan stable value funds, you may be eligible for a payment from this Class Action Settlement. What is this lawsuit and Settlement about? A proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action brought by certain individuals whose 401(k) plan accounts included investments in the JPMorgan stable value funds. The action is entitled In re: J.P. Morgan Stable Value Fund ERISA Litigation, Case No. 1:12-cv-02548-VSB (the "Action"), currently pending before the Honorable Vernon S. Broderick in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court has given its preliminary approval to the Settlement. The Plaintiffs brought the Action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") concerning the way Defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co. and other JPMorgan entities ("JPMorgan") managed the Class Members' 401(k) plan investments that were allocated to certain JPMorgan stable value funds. JPMorgan denies all claims and nothing in the Settlement is an admission or concession on JPMorgan's part of any fault or liability whatsoever. Who is included in the Settlement? The Court certified a class and three subclasses of individuals who were participants or beneficiaries in their employers' 401(k) plans and had some of their investments allocated to a stable value fund managed by JPMorgan during the class periods. If you believe you are a Class Member, you should read the applicable Settlement Notice carefully because your legal rights are affected whether you act or do not act. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS * ACTION DO NOTHING EXPLANATION If you are a Current Participant and you do nothing, you will be included in the Settlement. If you are a Former Participant or a Potential Participant and you do nothing, you will get no payment, and you give up rights to ever sue JPMorgan about the legal claims in this Action. DUE DATE ACTION SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM EXPLANATION (IF YOU ARE A FORMER PARTICIPANT OR POTENTIAL PARTICIPANT) Submitting a Valid Claim Form is the only way to get a payment from the Settlement. DUE DATE July 9, 2019 (Received) * ACTION EXCLUDE YOURSELF You will receive no payment from the Settlement. You will not be bound by the terms of the Settlement. This is the only option that allows you to ever be a part of any other lawsuit against JPMorgan about the legal claims in the Action. DUE DATE July 9, 2019 (Received) * ACTION OBJECT EXPLANATION Write to the Court about why you do not like the Settlement. DUE DATE July 9, 2019 (Received) * ACTION FILE A NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR AT THE FAIRNESS HEARING EXPLANATION You or your attorney may ask the court for permission to speak at the Fairness Hearing. DUE DATE July 9, 2019 (Filed By) * ACTION ATTEND THE FAIRNESS HEARING EXPLANATION You may attend the Fairness Hearing at your own expense but you are not required to do so. DUE DATE September 6, 2019 at 11:00 a.m., Eastern U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 518 New York, NY 10007 FOR MORE INFORMATION Visit this website often to get the most up-to-date information. Call: 1-844-877-5911 Email: info@jpmsvfclassaction.com Mail: JPM Stable Value Fund Litigation c/o JND Class Action Administration P.O. Box 91324 Seattle, WA 98111-9424 A copy of the Notice of Class Action Settlement and Fairness Hearing is available at: https://is.gd/tIPLVX JEFFERSON SESSIONS: Kolev Files Class Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Sessions. The case is styled as Emil Kolev, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, Petitioner v. Jefferson Sessions, Attorney General in his official capacity, Elaine C Duke, in her official capacity, Thomas D Homan, the senior official performing the duties of the Director of ICE, in his official capacity, Christopher Shanahan, the field office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, ICE, New York City, as the warden of the Hudson County Correctional Facility, in his official capacity and each of their respective successors and assigns, Does 1 through 5 and H.O. Thomas Decker, Respondents, Case No. 2:19-cv-10740 (D. N.J., April 23, 2019). The lawsuit is filed under the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Respondents are government representatives.[BN] The Respondents are represented by: Brandon Matthew Waterman, Esq. United States Attorney's Office, SDNY 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 637-2741 JESA 31: Delivery Personnel Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Juan De Dios Perez Mijangos and Salvador Pablo-Ortiz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JESA 31, Inc., Ekrem Oz, Farrukh Toshkhojaev, Bahovaddin Hakimov and Farrukh Tojiboev, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04244 (S.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for Defendants' failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control a Turkish restaurant, located at 1030 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10022 under the name "Zaytoon" where Plaintiffs worked as delivery personnel. They claim to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com JLING INC: Ji Appeals E.D.N.Y. Memorandum and Order to 2nd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Junjiang Ji filed an appeal from the District Court's memorandum and order issued on March 31, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled JUNJIANG JI and DECHENG LI on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. JLING INC. d/b/a Showa Hibachi, JANNEN OF AMERICA, INC. d/b/a Showa Hibachi, JOHN ZHONG E HU, JIA LING HU, and JIA WANG HU, Case No. 15-cv-4194, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs were employed as cooks in the kitchen of a restaurant, Showa Hibachi located in Wantagh, New York. The Corporate Defendants operated Showa Hibachi during the relevant time period. According to the Plaintiffs, the Individual Defendants are principals of the corporate the Defendants and are liable for all Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") violations. The appellate case is captioned as Ji v. Jling Inc., Case No. 19-1245, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Junjiang Ji is represented by: John Troy, Esq. JOHN TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com Defendants-Appellees Jling Inc., DBA Showa Hibachi, Jannen of America, Inc., DBA Showa Hibachi, John Zhong E. Hu, Jia Ling Hu and Jia Wang Hu are represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bailey Talc Injury Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit titled ROGER BAILEY, Individually and as Successor in Interest of the Estate of JOANNA OSWALD, Deceased; and DANIKA DAVIS, DAVID OSWALD, DAWN DAVIDSON and DEANNA SUTTON v. IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. successor-in-interest to CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL MINERALS COMPANY and WINDSOR MINERALS, INC. and METROPOLITAN TALC CO.); JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., a subsidiary of JOHNSON & JOHNSON; and DOES 1-450, Case No. SCV0040443, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Placer to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00318 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Decedent's injuries, specifically, death due to mesothelioma. J&J disputes these allegations. The Complaint and First Amended Complaint generally allege that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Decedent's personal injury and/or wrongful death. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Alexandra Kennedy-Breit, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com akennedy-breit@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Brannin Sues over Cancer-Causing Talcum Powder ----------------------------------------------------------------- A product liability-related class action complaint has been filed against Johnson & Johnson, Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., and Imerys Talc America, Inc. for several causes including failure to warn, negligence, breach of implied warranty and negligent representation. The case is captioned CARLY BRANNIN, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest for KATHRYN WILLS, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17CV318656 (Cal. Super., Cty. of Santa Clara, April 26, 2019). Plaintiff Carly Brannin is the daughter and successor-in-interest of Decedent, Kathryn Wills. As successor-in-interest, Brannin has standing in a representative capacity as the daughter to bring actions on behalf of the estate and the heirs for survival and wrongful death pursuant to the laws of the State of California. The claim in this action is a direct and proximate result of the negligent, willful, and wrongful acts and/or omissions of 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. Brannin seeks recovery for damages as a result of developing ovarian cancer in Decedent, KATHRYN WILLS, which was directly and proximately caused by such wrongful conduct by Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, and the attendant effects of developing ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson is a corporation doing business in and authorized to do business in the state of California and was incorporated in New Jersey in 1887. The company maintains an office located at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey, as well as several locations within the state of California, and has approximately 127,100 employees worldwide. Johnson & Johnson's family of companies includes more than 250 operating companies conducting business in 60 countries of the world and organized into three business segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices. Imerys Talc America, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in San Jose, California in the County of Santa Clara. Specifically, Imerys maintains its Head Office and Laboratory at 1732 North First Street, Suite 450, San Jose, California. The company has been in the business of mining and distributing talcum powder for use in talcum powder based products, including Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Helen Zukin, Esq. Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq. Cherisse H. Cleofe, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: zukin@kiesel.law palmer@kiesel.law cleofe@kiesel.law JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Callahan Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case, MARIA DEL CARMEN CALLAHAN, Plaintiff, v. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY (sued individually and as successor-in interest to NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION a/k/a NAPA), a Georgia Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Georgia, et al., Defendants, Case No. JCCP 4674 / BC695364, from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court Central District of California on May 1, 2019. On April 18, 2019, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (JJCI) filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys' Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The state court talc suit is among those personal injury and wrongful death claims that JJCI seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware. These claims center on allegations that exposure to the Imerys' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries -- specifically, death due to mesothelioma. However, JJCI disputes these allegations. Given the pendency of the Motion, JJCI believes that the United States District Court Central District of California cannot and, in any event, should not take any further action in this civil action until the District of Delaware has ruled on the Motion. Because the District of Delaware has the ultimate power to determine venue of the personal injury and wrongful death claims, the District of Delaware necessarily has authority to consider any procedural motions filed in this civil action if the resolution of such motions might have some bearing on the trial of the claims. Based in Skillman, New Jersey, JJCI operates as a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. The company manufactures products in the categories of baby's skin, bathtime, bedtime, playtime, and natural. [BN] Attorneys for Defendant: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Bryan L. King, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: +1 (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: +1 (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com bking@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Croft et al Sue over Harmful Talcum-Based Powder ------------------------------------------------------------------- A consumer fraud- and product liability-related class action complaint has been filed against Johnson & Johnson's family of companies and Imerys Talc America for several causes including negligence, failure to warn, breach of warranty of merchantability and fraud. The case is captioned GLENDA CROFT, an Individual; CLAIRE WILDSTEIN, an Individual; MELISSA ANDREWS, an Individual, ANDREW BENSON PERRY, Individually and as Heir At Law; DORIS MELISSA HAMILTON, Individually and as Heir At Law; CLAYBORN LEONARD PERRY JR., Individually and as Heir At Law, Plaintiffs, vs. 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03446 (Cal. Super., Cty. of Los Angeles, April 26, 2019). Plaintiffs bring this action to seek redress from the damages relating to the Defendant's design, manufacture, sale, marketing, advertising, promotion, and distribution of Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products. The use of such products allegedly can cause ovarian cancer and other serious health conditions. As a result of their use of these products, Plaintiffs reportedly suffered ovarian cancer and other injuries. Johnson & Johnson is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of New Jersey with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. was engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, testing, promoting, selling, and/or distributing Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products. Imerys Talc America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the state of California -- specifically its head office and laboratory are located at 1732 North First Street, Suite 450, San Jose, California. This company has been in the business of mining and distributing talcum powder for use in talcum powder based products, including Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products. [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 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cunnie Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 28, 2019, the lawsuit entitled KATHLEEN CUNNIE, 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, 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-03484 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries, specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes these allegations. On March 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, which generally alleges that the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or wrongful death. The Plaintiff's case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February 20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Michael C. Zellers, Esq. Amanda Villalobos, Esq. Nicholas Janizeh, Esq. Caroline Toole, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com - and - Michael F. Healy, Esq. Emily Weissenberger, Esq. Alexander Guney, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com eweissenberger@shb.com aguney@shb.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Diess Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuits styled LAWRENCE DIESS and CAROL DIESS v. BAYER CONSUMER CARE HOLDINGS LLC f/k/a BAYER CONSUMER CARE LLC f/k/a MSD CONSUMER CARE, INC; et al., and DARREN DIESS, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of LAWRENCE DIESS, Deceased; CAROL DIESS; and DEBBIE MEDRANO v. CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (sued individually, doing business as, and as successor to AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC. and CHARLES MATHIEU INC. and SIERRA TALC COMPANY and UNITED TALC COMPANY), et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC663139, 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. 5:19-cv-00788 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Decedent's injuries, specifically, death due to mesothelioma. J&J disputes these allegations. The Complaint and First Amended Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Decedent's personal injury and wrongful death. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Carter L. George, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com cgeorge@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Heard Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled ROSE A. HEARD, 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, inclusive, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03456 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries, specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes these allegations. On November 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, which generally alleges that the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or wrongful death. The Plaintiff's case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February 20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Michael C. Zellers, Esq. Amanda Villalobos, Esq. Nicholas Janizeh, Esq. Caroline Toole, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com - and - Michael F. Healy, Esq. Emily Weissenberger, Esq. Alexander Guney, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com eweissenberger@shb.com aguney@shb.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Lowe et al Suit Moved to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- THEODORE LOWE, Individually, and as Successor-In-Interest to the ESTATE OF LORENA LOWE, Deceased; MARY PEARSON, Individually, and as Successor-In-Interest to the ESTATE OF JOANN PEARSON, Deceased, Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. 16CV299025 (Aug. 8, 2016), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 2, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03842 to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Curtis G. Hoke, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Facsimile: (540) 672-3055 E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Luecker et al Suit Moved to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- LAURIE LUECKER individually and on Behalf of the Estate of KATHERINE LUECKER; LEANN CAMPBELL; LINDA DOS TER; BRUCE DOSTER; DIANE FEHER; MICHAEL FEHER; ROSEMARIE PETTI; and TRAVIS SALISBURY individually and on Behalf of the Estate of JANET SMYTH, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. 16CV303435 (Dec. 2, 2016), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 2, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03839 to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Rachel B. Abrams, Esq. Meghan McCormick, Esq. LEVIN SIMES LLP 44 Montgomeiy St., 32nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 426-3000 Facsimile: (415) 426-3001 E-mail: rabrams@levinsimes.com mmcconnick@levinsimes.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Luther Suit Moved to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- LISA LUTHER, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC700403 (March 29, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 2, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03833 to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate -Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: 949 720-1288 Facsimile: 949 720-1292 E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com - and - Michelle Partin., Esq. Patrick Lyons, Esq. ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP 4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650 Alexandria, VA 22311 Telephone: 703-931-5500 Facsimile: 703-820-1656 E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw,com plyons@ashcraftlaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: McNeal Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter entitled WILLIE MCNEAL, JR. v. AUTOZONE, INC., et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC698965, 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-03415 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries, specifically, mesothelioma. J&J disputes these allegations. The Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or wrongful death. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Carter L. George, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com cgeorge@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Dominguez Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter titled ROXANA DOMINGUEZ, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of FRANCISCO DOMINGUEZ, decedent v. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. and as successor-in-interest to WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC.; et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC650123, 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-03419 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Decedent's injuries, specifically, death due to mesothelioma. J&J disputes these allegations. The Complaint and First Amended Complaint generally allege that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of JJCI cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Decedent's personal injury and wrongful death. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. is represented by: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Carter L. George, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com cgeorge@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Packard Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter titled LESLIE PACKARD, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of KATHLEEN PACKARD, Deceased; PAM PACKARD, CONSTANCE ESPERUM and LESLIE BUTTRAM, individually v. AMERICAN TALC COMPANY (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to SUZORITE MINERAL PRODUCTS, INC. f/k/a PIONEER TALC CO., a wholly owned subsidiary of WOLD COMPANY, INC.), a Wyoming Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Texas, et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC716434, 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-03458 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against JJCI center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Decedent's injuries, specifically, death due to mesothelioma. JJCI disputes these allegations. The Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of JJCI cosmetic talcum powder products caused the Decedent's personal injury and wrongful death. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. is represented by: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Carter L. George, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com cgeorge@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Nicholson Suit Moved to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA NICHOLSON, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV331856 (July 25, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 2, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03793 to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Curtis G. Hoke, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Facsimile: (540) 672-3055 E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Noorda Suit Moved to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELA NOORDA, an Individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC690361 (Jan. 17, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 2, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03844 to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: James A. Morris, Esq. Shane E. Greenberg, Esq. MORRIS LAW FIRM 4111 W. Alameda Avenue, Suite 611 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (747) 283 1144 Facsimile: (747) 283 1143 E-mail: jrnorris@jamlawyers.com sgreenbergjamlowyers.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Owens Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit titled SHANTA OWENS v. CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY, et al., Case No. 18STCVO8280, 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-03393 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries, specifically, mesothelioma. J&J disputes these allegations. The Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or wrongful death. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Jennifer T. Stewart, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com jstewart@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Petas Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned FRANK GEORGE PETAS, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of VICTORIA PETAS, Deceased; SUSAN DOODY; LAURA MARIE LARA and ULISSA ANN AASPACIA LINDSEY v. AVON PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC701665, 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-03460 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Decedent's injuries, specifically, death due to mesothelioma. J&J disputes these allegations. The Complaint and First Amended Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Decedent's personal injury and wrongful death. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Jennifer T. Stewart, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com jstewart@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Crone Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter styled DENIS CRONE v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03449 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiffs' injuries, specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes these allegations. On August 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which generally alleges that the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or wrongful death. The Plaintiff's case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February 20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Michael C. Zellers, Esq. Amanda Villalobos, Esq. Nicholas Janizeh, Esq. Caroline Toole, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com - and - Michael F. Healy, Esq. Emily Weissenberger, Esq. Alexander Guney, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com eweissenberger@shb.com aguney@shb.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Crudge Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned GEORGE CRUDGE and SHARA CRUDGE v. AMCORD, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to RIVERSIDE CEMENT CO.), et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC685901, 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-03472 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiffs' injuries, specifically, mesothelioma. J&J disputes these allegations. The Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiffs' personal injury and/or wrongful death. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Carter L. George, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com cgeorge@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Diess Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter entitled LAWRENCE DIESS and CAROL DIESS v. BAYER CONSUMER CARE HOLDINGS LLC f/k/a BAYER CONSUMER CARE LLC f/k/a MSD CONSUMER CARE, INC; et al., and DARREN DIESS, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of LAWRENCE DIESS, Deceased; CAROL DIESS; and DEBBIE MEDRANO v. CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (sued individually, doing business as, and as successor to AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC. and CHARLES MATHIEU INC. and SIERRA TALC COMPANY and UNITED TALC COMPANY), et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC663139, 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-03474-JFW-RAO to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Decedent's injuries, specifically, death due to mesothelioma. J&J disputes these allegations. The Complaint and First Amended Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Decedent's personal injury and wrongful death. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Carter L. George, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com cgeorge@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Fong Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled PUI FONG and THAI WONG v. IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. successor-in-interest to CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL MINERALS COMPANY); et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC675449, 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-03435 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries, specifically, mesothelioma. J&J disputes these allegations. The Second Amended Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or wrongful death. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Amy P. Zumsteg, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com azumsteg@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Gagnon Talc Injury Suit to S.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled CHARLOTTE GAGNON v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Case No. 2019-09714, from the District Court, Harris County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-01543 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries, specifically, mesothelioma. J&J disputes these allegations. The Plaintiff commenced the State Court Talc Claims on or about February 7, 2019, by filing a Petition in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, bearing case number 2019-09714. The Plaintiffs' Petition generally alleges that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or wrongful death. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., are represented by: Heleina L. Formoso, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1100 Louisiana, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002-5219 Telephone: (713) 276-7441 Facsimile: (713) 751-3290 E-mail: hformoso@kslaw.com - and - Cori C. Steinman, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 500 W. 2nd St., Suite 1800 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 457-2008 E-mail: csteinmann@kslaw.com One of the Defendants' attorneys certifies that notice was sent to these attorneys of record: Darren McDowell, Esq. Jeffrey B. Simon, Esq. SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, PC 1201 Elm Street, Suite 3400 Dallas, TX 75270 Telephone: (214) 276-7680 Facsimile: (214) 276-7699 E-mail: dmcdowell@sgptrial.com jsimon@sgptrial.com - and - Michael Patronella, Esq. LUBEL VOYLES LLP 675 Bering Drive, Suite 850 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 284-5200 Facsimile: (713) 284-5250 E-mail: mpatronella@lubelvoyles.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Nott Talc Injury Suit to N.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Johnson & Johnson removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled ERNEST NOTT and JUDITH NOTT v. CUMMINS, INC., et al., Case No. SCV263871, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sonoma to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02293 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries, specifically, mesothelioma. J&J disputes these allegations. The Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON is represented by: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Amy P. Zumsteg, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com azumsteg@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes O'Dell Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson removed case, ROBERT H. O'DELL, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST FOR JOAN L. O'DELL, DECEASED, the Plaintiff, vs. 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., the Defendants, Case No. JCCP 4872 / SCV-261914, from the Superior Court of the State of California for County of Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 2, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03828 to the proceeding. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc., filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Since the Chapter 11 Case was commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors in possession under 11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights, powers, and duties set out in 11 U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108. At the time the Debtors commenced the Chapter 11 Case, the State Court Talc Claims were pending in the State Court. The State Court Talc Claims are not proceeding before the United States Tax Court and are not brought by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regulatory powers. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.: Michael F. Healy, Esq. Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq. Sandra L. Sheldon, Esq. Alexander Guney, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. One Montgomery, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415 544 1900 Facsimile: 415 391 0281 E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com eweissenberger@shb.com ssheldon@shb.com aguney@shb.com - and - Michael C. Zellers, Esq. Amanda Villalobos, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223 Telephone: 213 430 3400 Facsimile: 213 430 3409 E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Root Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson removed case, LINDA ROOT, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. 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., the Defendants, Case No. JCCP 4872 / CIVDS1811937, from the Superior Court of the State of California for County of Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 2, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03837 to the proceeding. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc., filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Since the Chapter 11 Case was commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors in possession under 11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights, powers, and duties set out in 11 U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108. At the time the Debtors commenced the Chapter 11 Case, the State Court Talc Claims were pending in the State Court. The State Court Talc Claims are not proceeding before the United States Tax Court and are not brought by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regulatory powers. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.: Michael F. Healy, Esq. Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq. Sandra L. Sheldon, Esq. Alexander Guney, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. One Montgomery, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415 544 1900 Facsimile: 415 391 0281 E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com eweissenberger@shb.com ssheldon@shb.com aguney@shb.com - and - Michael C. Zellers, Esq. Amanda Villalobos, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223 Telephone: 213 430 3400 Facsimile: 213 430 3409 E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Salamanca Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson & Johnson removed case, SILVIA FIGUEROA SALAMANCA, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of SILVIA D. SALAMANCA DE IGUEROA , the Plaintiff, vs. 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., the Defendants, Case No. JCCP 4872 / 18CV327582, from the Superior Court of the State of California for County of Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 2, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03826 to the proceeding. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc., filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Since the Chapter 11 Case was commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors in possession under 11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights, powers, and duties set out in 11 U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108. At the time the Debtors commenced the Chapter 11 Case, the State Court Talc Claims were pending in the State Court. The State Court Talc Claims are not proceeding before the United States Tax Court and are not brought by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regulatory powers. The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants' negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their talcum-based products. Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the products to Johnson & Johnson. Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.: Michael F. Healy, Esq. Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq. Sandra L. Sheldon, Esq. Alexander Guney, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. One Montgomery, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415 544 1900 Facsimile: 415 391 0281 E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com eweissenberger@shb.com ssheldon@shb.com aguney@shb.com - and - Michael C. Zellers, Esq. Amanda Villalobos, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223 Telephone: 213 430 3400 Facsimile: 213 430 3409 E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Valenzuela Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the matter captioned MARK ANTHONY VALENZUELA, individually and as successor-in-interest to VERONICA VALENZUELA, Deceased, ANNALISE ALEXIS VALENZUELA, a minor, by Mark Anthony Valenzuela, her guardian ad litem, JACOB ALEXANDER VALENZUELA, a minor, by Mark Anthony Valenzuela, his guardian ad litem, and NOAH ALEXANDER VALENZUELA, a minor, by Mark Anthony Valenzuela, his guardian ad litem, individually v. CALPORTLAND COMPANY f/k/a CALIFORNIA PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC682212, 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-03467 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against JJCI center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Decedent's injuries, specifically, death due to mesothelioma. JJCI disputes these allegations. The Summons and Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of JJCI cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Decedent's personal injury and wrongful death. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. is represented by: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Bryan L. King, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com bking@kslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Zimmerman Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned LINDA ZIMMERMAN v. AUTOZONE, INC, et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC720153, 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-03471 to the proceeding. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries, specifically, mesothelioma. J&J disputes these allegations. The Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or wrongful death. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. are represented by: Alexander G. Calfo, Esq. Julia E. Romano, Esq. Jennifer T. Stewart, Esq. Carter L. George, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com jromano@kslaw.com jstewart@kslaw.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Injunctive Relief Class Pending ----------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a class action seeking primarily injunctive relief continues separately in the Interchange Litigation. On the other hand, and as previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, an amended settlement agreement with the class seeking monetary relief has been preliminarily approved by the District Court in January 2019. A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of class action complaints alleging that Visa and Mastercard, as well as certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit card interchange fees and enacted respective rules in violation of antitrust laws. The parties settled the cases for a cash payment, a temporary reduction of credit card interchange, and modifications to certain credit card network rules. In December 2013, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement. A number of merchants appealed the settlement to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which, in June 2016, vacated the District Court's certification of the class action and reversed the approval of the class settlement. In March 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined petitions seeking review of the decision of the Court of Appeals. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision. The original class action was divided into two separate actions, one seeking primarily monetary relief and the other seeking primarily injunctive relief. In September 2018, the parties to the class action seeking monetary relief finalized an agreement which amends and supersedes the prior settlement agreement, and the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the modified settlement. Pursuant to this settlement, the defendants have collectively contributed an additional US$900 million to the approximately US$5.3 billion previously held in escrow from the original settlement. In January 2019, the amended agreement was preliminarily approved by the District Court, and formal notice of the class settlement is proceeding in accordance with the District Court's order. The class action seeking primarily injunctive relief continues separately. In addition, certain merchants have filed individual actions raising similar allegations against Visa and Mastercard, as well as against the Firm and other banks, and those actions are proceeding. JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase & Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New York. JPMORGAN CHASE: Lawsuits Related to Forex Trading Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that, with respect to litigation related to its foreign exchange ("FX") sales and trading activities, an indirect purchaser action, a consumer action and an opt-out action remain pending in district court. The Firm previously reported settlements with certain government authorities relating to its foreign exchange ("FX") sales and trading activities and controls related to those activities. FX-related investigations and inquiries by government authorities, including competition authorities, are ongoing, and the Firm is cooperating with and working to resolve those matters. In May 2015, the Firm pleaded guilty to a single violation of federal antitrust law. In January 2017, the Firm was sentenced, with judgment entered thereafter and a term of probation ending in January 2020. The Department of Labor has granted the Firm a five-year exemption of disqualification that allows the Firm and its affiliates to continue to rely on the Qualified Professional Asset Manager exemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") until January 2023. The Firm will need to reapply in due course for a further exemption to cover the remainder of the ten-year disqualification period. Separately, in February 2017 the South Africa Competition Commission referred its FX investigation of the Firm and other banks to the South Africa Competition Tribunal, which is conducting civil proceedings concerning that matter. The Firm is also one of a number of foreign exchange dealers named as defendants in a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by U.S.-based plaintiffs, principally alleging violations of federal antitrust laws based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates (the "U.S. class action"). In January 2015, the Firm entered into a settlement agreement in the U.S. class action. Following this settlement, a number of additional putative class actions were filed seeking damages for persons who transacted FX futures and options on futures (the "exchanged-based actions"), consumers who purchased foreign currencies at allegedly inflated rates (the "consumer action"), participants or beneficiaries of qualified ERISA plans (the "ERISA actions"), and purported indirect purchasers of FX instruments (the "indirect purchaser action"). Since then, the Firm has entered into a revised settlement agreement to resolve the consolidated U.S. class action, including the exchange-based actions. The Court granted final approval of that settlement agreement in August 2018. Certain members of the settlement class filed requests to the Court to be excluded from the class, and certain of them filed a complaint against the Firm and a number of other foreign exchange dealers in November 2018 (the "opt-out action"). The District Court has dismissed one of the ERISA actions, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that dismissal in July 2018. The second ERISA action was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in November 2018. The indirect purchaser action, the consumer action and the opt-out action remain pending in the District Court. JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase & Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New York. JPMORGAN CHASE: LIBOR and Benchmark Rate Litigation Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to face investigations and lawsuits related to LIBOR and Other Benchmark Rate matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. JPMorgan Chase has received subpoenas and requests for documents and, in some cases, interviews, from federal and state agencies and entities, including the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and various state attorneys general, as well as the European Commission ("EC"), the Swiss Competition Commission ("ComCo") and other regulatory authorities and banking associations around the world relating primarily to the process by which interest rates were submitted to the British Bankers Association ("BBA") in connection with the setting of the BBA's London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") for various currencies, principally in 2007 and 2008. Some of the inquiries also relate to similar processes by which information on rates was submitted to the European Banking Federation ("EBF") in connection with the setting of the EBF's Euro Interbank Offered Rate ("EURIBOR"). The Firm continues to cooperate with these investigations to the extent that they are ongoing. ComCo's investigation relating to EURIBOR, to which the Firm and other banks are subject, continues. In December 2016, the EC issued a decision against the Firm and other banks finding an infringement of European antitrust rules relating to EURIBOR. The Firm has filed an appeal of that decision with the European General Court, and that appeal is pending. In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in a series of individual and putative class actions related to benchmarks filed in various United States District Courts, including three putative class actions relating to U.S. dollar LIBOR during the period that it was administered by ICE Benchmark Administration. These actions have been filed, or consolidated for pre-trial purposes, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In these actions, plaintiffs make varying allegations that in various periods, starting in 2000 or later, defendants either individually or collectively manipulated various benchmark rates by submitting rates that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or other financial instruments whose values are affected by changes in these rates and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking treble damages. These matters are in various stages of litigation. The Firm has agreed to settle putative class actions related to exchange-traded Eurodollar futures contracts, Swiss franc LIBOR, EURIBOR, the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate, the Singapore Swap Offer Rate and the Australian Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate. Those settlements are all subject to further documentation and court approval. In actions related to U.S. dollar LIBOR during the period that it was administered by the BBA, the District Court dismissed certain claims, including antitrust claims brought by some plaintiffs whom the District Court found did not have standing to assert such claims, and permitted certain claims to proceed, including antitrust claims, claims under the Commodity Exchange Act, claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and common law claims. The plaintiffs whose antitrust claims were dismissed for lack of standing have filed an appeal. The District Court granted class certification of antitrust claims related to bonds and interest rate swaps sold directly by the defendants and denied class certification motions filed by other plaintiffs. JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase & Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New York. JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Faces Suits over Precious Metals Futures -------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend itself in lawsuits related to alleged manipulation of precious metals futures, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. Various authorities, including the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, are conducting investigations relating to trading practices in the metals markets and related conduct. The Firm is responding to and cooperating with these investigations. Several putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Firm and certain current and former employees, alleging a precious metals futures and options price manipulation scheme in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. Some of the complaints also allege unjust enrichment and deceptive acts or practices under the General Business Law of the State of New York. The Court consolidated these putative class actions in February 2019. The Firm is also a defendant in a consolidated action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging monopolization of silver futures in violation of the Sherman Act. JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase & Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New York. LEONARD LAW: Holdner Referred to Oregon District Bankruptcy Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILLIAM F. HOLDNER, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD A. KRIETZBERG, STEVEN KRIETZBERG, AMY E. MITCHELL, and JUSTIN D. LEONARD, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01054-AC (D. Or.), Judge Michael W. Mosman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, (i) granted Defendants Mitchell and Leonard's Motion to Refer to the Bankruptcy Court; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Krietzberg Defendants' Motion to Refer to the Bankruptcy Court and Motion to Label Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant. On March 14, 2019, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R"), recommending that Judge Mosman grants Defendants Mitchell and Leonard's Motion to Refer Matter to the Bankruptcy Court; and grant in part and deny in part the Krietzberg Defendants' Motion to Refer to Bankruptcy Court and Motion to Label Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant. Plaintiff Holdner filed Objections to the F&R. No responses were filed. The F&R finds that the Plaintiff's Claims One, Two, and Four bear a close nexus to ongoing matters in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon and therefore recommends that these claims be referred to that court. It also recommends that the Judge dismiss Claim Three without prejudice due to insufficient pleading and an underdeveloped record, preserving the Defendants' right to renew their motion to dismiss should the Plaintiff amend the pleading. Finally, the F&R recommends that the Judge not label the Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. In his Objections, Mr. Holdner asks the Judge to appoint an attorney to represent a class of minority shareholders, arguing that the Court has jurisdiction because the current suit is a class action. Because no class has been certified nor has Mr. Holdner moved to certify a class, Judge Mosman agrees with Magistrate Judge Acosta's findings. Upon review, he agrees with Magistrate Judge Acosta's recommendation and adopts the F&R in full. Defendants Mitchell and Leonard's Motion to Refer to the Bankruptcy Court is granted; and the Krietzberg Defendants' Motion to Refer to the Bankruptcy Court and Motion to Label Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff has 30 days in which to file an amended complaint, as to the third claim, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon. The Clerk will transfer the file to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon, the current action before the District Court is closed. A full-text copy of the Court's April 23, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/B19li3 from Leagle.com. William F. Holdner, Plaintiff, pro se. Richard A. Krietzberg & Steven Krietzberg, Defendants, represented by Sandra S. Gustitus, Chenoweth Law Group. Amy E. Mitchell, Trustee, Defendant, represented by Justin D. Leonard -- jleonard@LLG-LLC.com -- Leonard Law Group LLC & Holly C. Hayman -- hhayman@LLG-LLC.com -- RCO Legal, PS. Justin D. Leonard, Attorney, Defendant, represented by pro se. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Complaint Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action styled, Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint remains pending, according to Lincoln National Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, and was served on LNL on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which the Company has opposed. Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States. It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania. LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln National Corporation still defends itself against a consolidated class action in Pennsylvania styled, In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017. In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the order also covers any future cases filed in the same district related to the same subject matter. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek damages on their behalf. The Company said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States. It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit Against Unit, Voya Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action styled, Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York ("LLANY") and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("Voya"), is still pending, according to Lincoln National Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The class action (No. 1:16-cv-6399) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and was served on LLANY on August 12, 2016. Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna (now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf. The Company said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States. It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Action v. FPP Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the putative class action styled, Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, is still ongoing. Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company ("FPP"), No. 2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action that was filed on April 13, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on their behalf. Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted. Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States. It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Faces 2017 COI Rate Litigation ------------------------------------------------------ Lincoln National Corporation continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action suit styled, In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No. 2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order of the court in March 2018. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2017. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek damages on their behalf. Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States. It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Defends Class Action Suit by TVPX ARS ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company still defends itself against a putative class action suit initiated by TVPX ARS INC. TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that was filed on July 17, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. Lincoln National said, We are vigorously defending this matter." Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States. It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania. LOS ANGELES, CA: Oct. 9 Gas Users Tax Settlement Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC and the Law Offices of Paul G. Kerkorian on May 3 disclosed that a settlement has been reached with the City of Los Angeles (the "City" or "Defendant") in a class action lawsuit claiming City improperly included in its natural gas utility user tax calculation charges known as the Public Purpose Surcharge ("PPS") and the State Regulatory Fee ("SRF"). The lawsuit contends that the City may only calculate the Los Angeles City Users Tax on the amount of natural gas used, and not on the PPS and SRF. The City denies the allegations, and the Court did not issue a final decision in favor of either Plaintiffs or Defendant. Instead, the parties agreed to a settlement to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation. You are a "Class Member" if you are a Southern California Gas Company ("SCGC") natural gas customer who was charged the City of Los Angeles' natural gas utility user tax (described on the SCGC natural gas bill as the line item "Los Angeles City Users Tax") with a billing period that includes at least one day that falls on or after December 12, 2012 through April 12, 2019. As part of the Settlement, the City has agreed to stop imposing the Los Angeles City Users Tax on the PPS and the SRF, unless such a tax is approved by voters in the future, if ever. This change will result in estimated $6.18 million of tax savings per year. The City has also agreed to create a $32,500,000 Settlement Fund, that, after deducting settlement administrative expenses, court-approved service payments, a payment to a non-profit charitable organization known as the Alliance for Children's Rights, and court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses, will be distributed by applying a tax abatement (i.e., a reduced Los Angeles City Users Tax rate for SCGC customers who are subject to the Los Angeles Users Tax). If you are included in the Settlement, you may choose to do nothing, or object to the Settlement and notify the Court that you or your lawyer intend to appear at the Court's Final Fairness Hearing, or exclude yourself from the Settlement. The Court will hold a hearing in this case (Lavinsky v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. BC542245) at 10:00 a.m. on October 9, 2019 at Department 11 of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012. If you are a Class Member you may attend this hearing and request to be heard. For more information go to www.LAGasTaxSettlement.com or call 1-866-680-6140. LYFT INC: Carpenters Pension Fund Says IPO Documents Misleading ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Lyft Inc. et al for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act. The case is captioned, GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. 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. 19-CIV-02377 (Cal. Super., San Mateo Cty., April 29, 2019). Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against: (1) Lyft, Inc. (2) certain of the Company's senior executives and directors who signed the Registration Statement, effective as of March 28, 2019, in connection with the Lyft's initial public offering and (3) each of the investment banks that acted as underwriters for the offering. Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement and the Prospectus, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2019, contained materially incorrect or misleading statements and/or omitted material information that was required by law to be disclosed. Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Registration Statement's representations were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to disclose, inter alia, that: (1) approximately 3,000 of the bicycles in Lyft's rideshare program suffered from safety issues that would lead to their recall; and (2) Lyft's claimed ridesharing market position was overstated. Accordingly, the price of the Lyft's shares was artificially and materially inflated at the time of the offering. Lyft is a transportation network company based in San Francisco, California. Lyft was launched in the summer of 2012 by co-founders, Defendants Logan Green and John Zimmer, to provide an on???demand ridesharing software platform for their intercity carpooling company. Today, through its software platform, Lyft operates a scaled network of drivers, offering riders the ability to select the mode of transportation suited to their specific needs. Lyft currently operates in hundreds of cities in the United States and select cities in Canada. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Mark C. Molumphy, Esq. Tyson Redenbarger, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com - and ??? Chris Keller, Esq. Eric Belfi, Esq. Frank McConville, Esq. Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com afatale@labaton.com MASONITE INT'L: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Masonite International Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims in the consolidated purported class action direct purchaser and end-purchaser complaints filed against the Company and JELD-WEN, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company said, "With respect to the consolidated purported class action direct purchaser and end-purchaser complaints filed against us and JELD-WEN, Inc., the judge denied our motion to transfer the proceedings from the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. On March 1, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims in both of these complaints." Masonite International Corporation designs, manufactures, and distributes interior and exterior doors for the new construction and repair, renovation, and remodeling sectors of the residential and non-residential building construction markets worldwide. Masonite International Corporation was founded in 1925 and is headquartered in Tampa, Florida. MCMC LLC: Court Denies Summary Judgment in R. Mauthe TCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., a Pennsylvania corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. MCMC LLC, Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-1901. (E.D. Pa.). The plaintiff, a doctor and his medical practice of the same name, brought this class action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Act (TCPA), after receiving a fax from the defendant advertising a continuing medical education course. The defendant also claims that it is entitled to summary judgment on all the plaintiff's claims because (1) the plaintiff lacks both Article III and prudential standing and (2) applying the TCPA to the offending fax would violate the defendant's First Amendment rights. As to the plaintiff's claim for treble damages, the defendant argues that summary judgment is appropriate because there is no evidence that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA. The defendant further argues that, after granting judgment in its favor on the plaintiff's federal causes of action, the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's conversion claim. Article III Standing Article III standing is essential to federal subject matter jurisdiction and is thus a threshold issue that must be addressed before considering issues of prudential standing. There are two types of Article III standing challenges: facial attacks and factual attacks. A facial attack contests the sufficiency of the pleadings, whereas a factual attack concerns the actual failure of a plaintiff's claims to comport factually with the jurisdictional prerequisites. In evaluating a facial attack, the court must only consider the allegations of the complaint and documents referenced therein and attached thereto, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Although MCMC raises the Article III standing issue on a motion for summary judgment, its argument constitutes a facial attack, because it does not dispute Dr. Mauthe's allegation that the fax used his toner and paper and annoyed him. Instead, MCMC argues that, as a matter of law, a claim that the fax would have been permissible but for the absence of a valid opt-out notice does not establish constitutional standing, regardless of the lost paper and toner or annoyance. There are three elements a plaintiff must satisfy to demonstrate Article III standing: First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Although MCMC's standing argument focuses primarily on traceability, it also argues, Dr. Mauthe has not and cannot meet Article III's injury-in-fact requirement and has no standing to pursue his TCPA claim. The court will therefore address both elements. A plaintiff establishes that a legislatively-defined intangible harm constitutes a constitutional injury-in-fact where (1) the plaintiff sues under a statute alleging the very injury the statute is intended to prevent and (2) the injury has a close relationship to a harm traditionally providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts. Susinno v. Work Out World Inc., 862 F.3d 346, 351 (3d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks, omissions, and alterations omitted) (quoting In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625, 639-40 (3d Cir. 2017) (Horizon)). In Susinno, the Third Circuit applied the Horizon factors in the TCPA context to determine that the plaintiff suffered a concrete injury from a prerecorded call to her cell phone, even though she was not charged for the call. The court determined that the plaintiff satisfied both parts of the Horizontest: first, Congress squarely identified the alleged] injury because t]he TCPA addresses itself directly to single prerecorded calls from cell phones, and states that its prohibition acts in the interest of privacy rights, and second, Congress sought to protect the same interests implicated in the traditional common law cause of action, namely intrusion upon seclusion. In assessing whether a TCPA action satisfies the second part of the Horizon test, the Susinno court cited a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that TCPA claims closely relate to traditional claims for invasions of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, and nuisance which have long been heard by American courts. Here, like in Susinno, the complaint's allegations that an unsolicited fax interrupts the recipient's privacy and wastes the recipient's valuable time are precisely the types of nuisance and intrusion upon seclusion that parallel interests long recognized to be cognizable at common law. Therefore, Dr. Mauthe has satisfied the second factor of the Horizon test, and he has adequately alleged a concrete injury. Next, MCMC argues that Dr. Mauthe cannot satisfy Article III standing's traceability requirement, because his alleged harm lost use of his fax machine, paper, ink toner and annoyance would have occurred even if the fax contained an opt-out notice. As Dr. Mauthe articulated during his deposition, the harm the challenged fax imposed upon him was an annoyance and junk that he didn't need in the course of his day. MCMC argues Dr. Mauthe would have been just as annoyed had the fax contained a valid opt-out notice. But the court disagrees. The TCPA requires a valid opt-out notice on faxes sent in connection with an EBR because Congress determined it was necessary to provide recipients with the ability to stop future unwanted faxes sent pursuant to such relationships. That requirement reflects that a consumer very likely will be less annoyed and have his privacy less intruded upon by an unsolicited fax if he knows there is a cost-free mechanism to ensure he will not receive additional faxes in the future. A single fax with an explicit option to avoid all future communications certainly intrudes upon the seclusion of an individual less than a fax that, on its face, appears to be the first of a potential stream of unsolicited advertisements to come, without any mechanism to stop the annoyance. And if anything, MCMC's point that Dr. Mauthe did not know to check for an opt-out provision when he received the fax further supports the necessity of a valid opt-out notice. Without one, Dr. Mauthe, and presumably other fax recipients, would not know how to put a stop to unwelcome communications. Thus, Dr. Mauthe has adequately alleged constitutional standing. Prudential Standing The court next evaluates MCMC's claim that Dr. Mauthe lacks prudential standing. MCMC argues that Dr. Mauthe is analogous to the plaintiff who the Western District of Pennsylvania held lacked prudential standing in Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 197 F.Supp.3d 782 (2016). In that case, the plaintiff owned more than thirty-five cell phone numbers which she used as part of a business suing offenders of the TCPA. The court held that the plaintiff lacked prudential standing, because she lacked the sort of interest in privacy, peace, and quiet that Congress intended to protect. Although Dr. Mauthe has filed other TCPA lawsuits, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that he seeks out unsolicited communications the way the Stoops plaintiff did. Dr. Mauthe testified that he runs a small one-physician medical practice where he sees approximately 25 patients a day. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Dr. Mauthe runs his practice to receive unsolicited telecommunications, as the plaintiff did in Stoops. To the contrary, Dr. Mauthe testified, I consider unsolicited faxes an annoyance and junk that I don't need in the course of my day. It's not about the money. It's just the annoyance of it. That annoyance places Dr. Mauthe squarely within the zone of interest Congress meant to protect through the TCPA. The fact that Dr. Mauthe has been sufficiently annoyed by other faxes to sue before does not change that result. Whether the Fax was Solicited As discussed above, there is no dispute that the fax did not contain a valid opt-out notice, so the only question is whether it was solicited so that the TCPA does not apply at all. Whether a plaintiff expressly consented to receive fax advertisements must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and express permission requires that the consumer understand that by providing a fax number, he or she is agreeing to receive faxed advertisements. The defendant bears the burden of establishing that the plaintiff provided express permission. Here, MCMC argues that Dr. Mauthe consented to receive the fax by entering into the IME Agreement, providing MCMC his fax number several times in connection with that agreement, and regularly communicating with MCMC via fax throughout the parties' relationship. Dr. Mauthe responds that MCMC's argument depends on the idea that it inferred consent for the fax, but the TCPA requires that permission must be express. A fax is solicited under the TCPA if the recipient provided prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise to receive it. A recipient can provide express consent by providing the sender a contact number, but only for communications related to the reason why he provided his number in the first place. In cases, such as this, where the plaintiff provided his fax number to the defendant, the court will have to analyze whether any fax sent to that recipient relates to the reason the contact info was provided in the first place, because if it does, then express consent was provided for the fax, and it cannot be an unsolicited advertisement. In Physicians Healthsource, Judge Padova held that the plaintiff doctor had expressly consented to receive fax advertisements from the defendant where he provided his business card to its representatives following discussions about its products. 340 F. Supp. 3d at 452. MCMC discusses this case, but ignores the critical distinctions that separate it from the facts here. In that case, the doctor testified during his deposition that the plaintiff, his employer, encouraged its doctors to meet with drug company representatives to obtain information about the drug companies' products. Following discussions between the doctor and the defendant's representatives about those products, the representatives left product information with [him] and also obtained his permission to follow up by sending him additional information. The defendant obtained the fax numbers from business cards the plaintiff left on its receptionist's desk, which it did, in part, so that drug company representatives could use that number to contact its doctors. Judge Padova concluded that the doctor had consented to receive the challenged faxes, which advertised a dinner meeting program to discuss a drug and a luncheon program to discuss breakthrough pain for opioid-tolerant cancer patients, by discussing both that drug of which the defendant had sent him samples) and the topic of "narcotic drugs for chronic pain with the defendant's representatives. Here, there is no dispute that Dr. Mauthe voluntarily provided his fax number to MCMC. The question is whether the fax at issue was closely related enough to the reason he provided the number, i.e.., the IME Agreement, to render the fax solicited. MCMC argues that the fax was part and parcel of the IME Agreement between Mauthe and MCMC in which Mauthe specifically agreed to perform independent medical examinations of individuals referred by MCMC and maintain any and all applicable, pertinent licenses, permits or certifications required by law. Those certification requirements included obtaining 25 CME credits every two years. Unfortunately for MCMC, that connection is too tangential to warrant a ruling in its favor, at least at the summary judgment stage. Of course, MCMC is free to argue to a jury that all these circumstances, taken together, demonstrate that Dr. Mauthe's express consent was sufficiently connected to the subject of the fax to escape TCPA liability. The court simply cannot hold at this stage that no reasonable jury could reach a different conclusion. First Amendment Protections MCMC argues that a holding that the challenged fax ran afoul of the TCPA would violate its First Amendment right to free speech, because Dr. Mauthe denied during his deposition that the fax invaded his privacy, the sole congressionally recognized justification for requiring opt-out notices. Specifically, Dr. Mauthe testified that he considered the fax to be an annoyance and junk that he did not need in the course of his day. But MCMC's argument mischaracterizes the privacy interest that underlies the TCPA. As to MCMC's first argument, there is no denying that the TCPA has First Amendment implications. But as MCMC acknowledges, those implications do not rise to the level of a First Amendment violation if the Central Hudson standard is satisfied. Nothing about American Association alters the analysis above concerning the Central Hudson standard. Nor is MCMC's second argument availing, because, as discussed extensively above, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the scope of consent Dr. Mauthe provided. If the jury determines that Dr. Mauthe consented to receive the fax at issue, then MCMC's actions fall outside of the TCPA and it could not succeed on an as-applied constitutional challenge. Therefore, holding MCMC liable under the facts at issue here would not violate its First Amendment rights. MCMC has undoubtedly provided undisputed evidence that Dr. Mauthe provided his express permission to receive fax communications concerning the parties' IME Agreement. What is less clear is whether that permission was broad enough to cover the fax at issue here. The fact that the IME Agreement required Dr. Mauthe to maintain his medical certification, which in turn required him to earn CME credits, is certainly evidence that the subject of the fax was related to the parties' agreement, but that relationship is not direct enough to warrant a holding that the provided consent extends to the fax as a matter of law. Therefore, the court will deny MCMC's motion for summary judgment. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2sgosfo from Leagle.com. M.D., P.C. ROBERT W. MAUTHE, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY-SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL J. COHEN , BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC, MOLLY S. GANTMAN , BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC, 134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, Illinois 60602, RICHARD E. SHENKAN, SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS LLC, 6550 Lakeshore Street, West Bloomfield, MI, 48323 & PHILLIP A. BOCK, BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC, 134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, Illinois 60602 MCMC LLC, Defendant, represented by WILLIAM P. SHELLEY -- wshelley@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES LLP & ALEXANDER BROWN -- abrown@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP. MEDNAX INC: Bid to Nix Suit over Anesthesiology Business Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mednax, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit related to the Company's anesthesiology business remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company said, "On July 10, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against our company and certain of our officers and a director in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 0:18-cv-61572-WPD) that purports to state a claim for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on statements made by the defendants primarily concerning our anesthesiology business. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. We believe this lawsuit to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it. The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this time, no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to us. A lead plaintiff has been chosen and has filed an amended complaint, and we have filed a motion to dismiss, which is pending." Mednax, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides newborn, anesthesia, maternal-fetal, radiology and teleradiology, pediatric cardiology, and other pediatric subspecialty physician services in the United States and Puerto Rico. The company was founded in 1979 and is based in Sunrise, Florida. MELITTA USA: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Melitta USA, Inc. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Melitta USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04632 (S.D. N.Y., May 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Melitta USA, Inc. sells and markets Melitta coffee filters, coffee, and non-electric coffee systems in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. Shalom Law, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com MOMENTA PHARMA: Faces 2 Suits Related to M923 Biosimilar Candidate ------------------------------------------------------------------ Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that it has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits related M923, a biosimilar candidate of HUMIRA(R) (adalimumab). On March 19, 2019, UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, or UFCW, filed a class action suit against AbbVie Inc., AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd., Amgen Inc., Samsung Bioepsis Co., Ltd., Mylan, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the Company, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated for alleged violations of state and federal antitrust and consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, UFCW is seeking injunctive and other equitable relief and damages. A second complaint mirroring that filed by UFCW, was filed on April 19, 2019 in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by the Sheet Metal Workers' location Union No. 28 Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated also names AbbVie Inc., AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd., Amgen Inc., Samsung Bioepsis Co., Ltd., Mylan, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the Company as defendants. The Company said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company believes both of these suits are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in these litigations." Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on the discovery and development of novel biologic therapies for the treatment of rare immune-mediated diseases in the United States. The company was formerly known as Mimeon, Inc. and changed its name to Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in September 2002. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. MOMENTA PHARMA: Still Defends Remaining Claims in LOVENOX Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to defend itself against the surviving portions of the amended complaint in a class action lawsuit filed by The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, related to the drug LOVENOX, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection. The complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the September 2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the Company and Sandoz sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and thereby exclude competition for generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection in violation of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and unspecified damages and fees. In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On March 21, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed NGH's claim for damages against the Company and Sandoz, but allowed the case to move forward, in part, for NGH's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. In the same opinion, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied the Company's motion to transfer. On June 9, 2017, NGH filed a motion to amend its complaint to add a new named plaintiff, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, or DC37. NGH and DC37 seek to assert claims for damages under the laws of more than 30 different states, on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin. On June 30, 2017, the Company and Sandoz filed a brief opposing the motion to amend the complaint. On December 14, 2017, the District Court granted NGH's motion to amend. In January 2018, the Company and Sandoz filed three motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 6, 2018 the District Court granted one of the motions, granted one in part and denied one. The Company said, "As a result, the suit will continue pursuant to the surviving portions of the amended complaint. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company believes this suit is without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation." Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on the discovery and development of novel biologic therapies for the treatment of rare immune-mediated diseases in the United States. The company was formerly known as Mimeon, Inc. and changed its name to Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in September 2002. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Zamarripa Class Settlement Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a Judgment granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned MARIO ZAMARRIPA, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. MONDEL??Z GLOBAL, LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant. Case No. 8:16-cv-02193. (C.D. Cal.). Plaintiff MARIO ZAMARRIPA (Plaintiff) and Defendant MONDELEZ GLOBAL, LLC have reached terms of settlement of this putative class action. This Court approves the terms set forth in the Settlement, including the requested settlement award, Released Claims and all other terms therein, and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate to the Parties and Class Members and directs the Parties to effectuate the settlement according to its terms. The Court makes this finding based on a weighing of the strength of Plaintiff's claims and Defendant's defenses with the risk, expense, complexity, and duration of further litigation. The Court also finds that the Settlement is the result of non-collusive, arms-length negotiations between experienced counsel representing the interests of the Class and Defendant, after thorough legal and factual investigation. In granting final approval of the Settlement, the Court considered the nature of the claims, the overall amount of the Settlement and the allocation of settlement proceeds among the Class Members, and the fact that the Settlement represents a compromise of the Parties' respective positions rather than the result of a finding of liability at trial. This Final Judgment applies to all Class Members as defined by the Settlement. The Settlement is not an admission by Defendant nor is this Final Judgment a finding of the validity of any claims in the Class Action or of any wrongdoing by Defendant. Furthermore, the Settlement is not a concession by Defendant and shall not be used as an admission of any fault, omission or wrongdoing by Defendant. Neither Final Judgment, the Settlement, nor any document referred to herein, nor any action taken to carry out the Settlement is, may be construed as, or may be used as an admission by or against Defendant of any fault, wrongdoing or liability whatsoever. The Court finds and determines that the Settlement Payments to be paid to the Class Members as provided for by the Settlement are fair and reasonable. The Court hereby gives final approval to and orders the payment of those amounts to be made to the Class Members in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. The Court further approves and directs Phoenix, the appointed Settlement Administrator, to disburse the settlement funds in the manner set forth in the Settlement. The Court awards reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) to Class Counsel. All fees are paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. The Court awards costs in the amount of seventeen thousand nine hundred forty-one dollars and seventy-seven cents ($17,941.77) to Class Counsel. All costs are paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. The Court awards service enhancement payment of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) collectively to the Named Plaintiff. The Court finds and determines that the ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) amount to be paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount to the LWDA for civil penalties under PAGA, as provided for in the Settlement, is fair and reasonable. Of the ten thousand ($10,000.00), seventy five percent or seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) shall go the LWDA and two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) shall be paid to the Class. The Court hereby gives final approval to and orders said payment to the LWDA in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. The Court awards costs in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) to Phoenix Settlement Administrators for the administration of the settlement. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4l9os3g from Leagle.com. Mario Zamarripa, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Mahoney -- kmahoney@mahoney-law.net -- Mahoney Law Group APC. Mondelez Global LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel Francisco De La Cruz -- ddelacruz@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP & Samantha D. Hardy -- shardy@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP. MONOLITH PROPERTIES: Carradine Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monolith Properties Corp. The case is styled as Jennifer Carradine on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monolith Properties Corp. doing business as: Park Hotel of Hot Springs, Joann Privitello, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-06056-SOH (W.D. Ark., May 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Park Hotel is a seven-story hotel in downtown Hot Springs, Arkansas near Bathhouse Row within Hot Springs National Park.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Cowan, Esq. Bailey Peavy Bailey Cowan Heckaman PLLC Houston, TX 77002, Suite 2100 Phone: (713) 425-7100 Fax: (713) 425-7101 Email: rcowan@bpblaw.com MONSANTO CO: Faces Ross Suit Over Roundup(R)-related Injuries ------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Ross v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01008 (E.D. Mo., April 28, 2019), arises from injuries 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: Faces Wiley Suit Over Roundup-Related Death & Injuries ------------------------------------------------------------------- ESTATE OF STANLEY WILEY, by and through his personal representative Janice Wiley; and JANICE WILEY, surviving spouse of Stanley Wiley on behalf of all legal heirs of Stanley Wiley v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 4:19-cv-01001 (E.D. Mo., April 26, 2019), is brought for wrongful death damages and personal injuries sustained over exposure to Roundup(R) containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Decedent developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and died as a result thereof on April 30, 2017, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. 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: E. Elliot Adler, Esq. Brittany S. Zummer, Esq. ADLER LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 531-8700 Facsimile: (619) 342-9600 E-mail: EAdler@TheAdlerFirm.com bzummer@theadlerfirm.com MONSANTO CO: Ferkel Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries --------------------------------------------------------- Randy Ferkel v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01009 (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: Harrison Suit Seeks Damages for Roundup(R) Injuries ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Harrison v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01013 (E.D. Mo., April 28, 2019), seeks damages for injuries 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: McMillan Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries ----------------------------------------------------------- Gwendolyn McMillan v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01017 (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: Reid Files Suit Over Sale of Dangerous Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Reid v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01006 (E.D. Mo., April 28, 2019), accuses the Defendant of designing, developing, manufacturing, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or selling a defective product, the herbicide Roundup(R), which contains 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: Stohler Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries ---------------------------------------------------------- Floyd Stohler v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01012 (E.D. Mo., April 28, 2019), seeks damages for injuries 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: Sued by Short for Damages Over Roundup(R) Injuries --------------------------------------------------------------- Stan Short v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01004 (E.D. Mo., April 28, 2019), is brought for damages from injuries 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: Chatman Suit Moved to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled JANIEL CHATMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02293, 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-02170-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: Erb Suit Moved to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled JAMES ERB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02282, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern Disctrict 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-02166-VC to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. 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: Lazenbys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES W. LAZENBY and KATHRYN E. LAZENBY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01065-CAS (E.D. Mo., April 30, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Charles W. Lazenby's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the 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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Perales Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ LINDA J. PERALES and PETE PERALES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01071 (E.D. Mo., April 30, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Linda J. Perales's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the 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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Ruff Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD J. RUFF SR., the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01073 (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: Wright et al. Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN M. WRIGHT and STACY CULVER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01074 (E.D. Mo., April 30, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. John M. Wright's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the 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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONTMORENCY, MI: Morris Seeks Review of Circuit Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Stephen Morris and Robin Morris filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit titled STEPHEN MORRIS, et al. v. COUNTY OF MONTMORENCY, et al., Case No. 18-724294-CZ, in the Roscommon Circuit Court. The appellate case is captioned as STEPHEN MORRIS, et al. v. COUNTY OF MONTMORENCY, et al., Case No. 348537, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants STEPHEN MORRIS and ROBIN MORRIS AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED are represented by: Philip L. Ellison, Esq. OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC PO Box 107 Hemlock, MI 48626 Telephone: (989) 642-0055 Facsimile: (888) 398-7003 E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com Defendants-Appellee COUNTY OF MONTMORENCY and JEAN M. KLEIN are represented by: Allan C. Vander Laan, Esq. CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO P.L.C. 2851 Charlevoix Drive, S.E., Suite 327 Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Telephone: (616) 975-7470 Facsimile: (616) 975-7471 E-mail: avanderlaan@cmda-law.com MOWI ASA: Prime Steakhouse Alleges Price-Fixing of Salmon --------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against several producers of farm-raised salmon, including Mowi ASA and Marine Harvest USA, LLC, for violations of federal antitrust law and various state antitrust and unfair competition, consumer protection and unfair trade practices, and unjust enrichment laws. The case is captioned Prime Steakhouse, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA), Marine Harvest USA, LLC, Marine Harvest Canada, Inc., Ducktrap River of Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd., Bremnes Seashore AS, Ocean Quality AS, Ocean Quality North America Inc., Ocean Quality USA Inc., Ocean Quality Premium Brands, Inc., SalMar ASA, Leroy Seafood Group ASA, Leroy Seafood USA Inc., and Scottish Sea Farms Ltd., Case No. 2:19-cv-00207-JAW (D. Me., May 9, 2019). Plaintiff Prime Steakhouse alleges that the Defendants are engaged in an unlawful coordination of the price of farm-raised salmon and salmon products. Plaintiff also accuses the Defendants of participating in anti-competitive agreements and/or concerted practices related to different ways of price coordination in order to sustain and possibly increase the prices for Norwegian salmon. Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA) is a Norwegian seafood company with operations in several countries around the world. The company engages in the production, processing, and sale of farmed salmon, the operations of which are focused on Norway, Scotland, British Columbia, Canada, the Faroe Islands, Ireland, and Chile. Mowi has a share of between 25% and 30% of the global salmon and trout market, making it the world's largest company in the sector. The company is headquartered at Sandviksboder, 77AB, 5035, Bergen, Norway. Marine Harvest USA, LLC is Florida limited liability company that maintains its principal place of business at 8550 N.W. 17th Street #105, Miami, Florida 33126. Marine Harvest USA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mowi, processes salmon in Florida and Texas and distributes it to wholesalers, retailers, and others in Florida and elsewhere in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor A. Asen, Esq. BERMAN & SIMMONS, P.A. P.O. Box 961 Lewiston, ME 04243-0961 Telephone: (207) 784-3576 E-mail: tasen@bermansimmons.com - and ??? Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. Jennifer Kelly, Esq. Blaine Finley, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com jkelly@cuneolaw.com bfinley@cuneolaw.com NANTKWEST INC: $12MM Settlement in Sudunagunta Suit Has Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a Judgment granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned SUNIL SUDUNAGUNTA, v. NANTKWEST, INC., PATRICK SOON-SHIONG, RICHARD GOMBERG, BARRY J. SIMON, STEVE GORLIN, MICHAEL D. BLASZYK, HENRY JI, RICHARD KUSSEROW, JOHN T. POTTS, JR., ROBERT ROSEN, JOHN C. THOMAS JR., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., JEFFERIES LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., and MLV & CO., LLC., Case No. 16-cv-01947-MWF-JEM, Consolidated with No. 2:16-cv-3438-MWF-JEM. (C.D. Cal.). The Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plan Allocation (Settlement Motion) and the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Plaintiffs' Awards (Fee Motion), filed by Plaintiffs Donald Hu and Brayton Li (Plaintiffs), came regularly for hearing before this Court. The Settlement set forth in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Settlement was vigorously negotiated at arm's length by Class Plaintiffs on behalf of the Class and by Defendants, all of whom were represented by highly experienced and skilled counsel. The case settled only after: (a) a mediation conducted by an experienced mediator who was thoroughly familiar with this litigation; (b) the exchange of detailed mediation statements prior to the mediation which highlighted the factual and legal issues in dispute; (c) extensive paper and deposition discovery; and (d) class certification. Accordingly, both Class Plaintiffs and Defendants were well-positioned to evaluate the Settlement value of this Action. The Stipulation has been entered into in good faith and is not collusive. If the Settlement had not been achieved, both Class Plaintiffs and Defendants faced the expense, risk, and uncertainty of extended litigation. The Court takes no position on the merits of either Class Plaintiffs' or Defendants' arguments, but notes these arguments as evidence in support of the reasonableness of the Settlement. Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the interest of the Class Members in connection with the Settlement. All Class Members who have not made their objections to the Settlement, or any aspect thereof (including Plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and for reimbursement of their out-of-pocket costs incurred in the prosecution of the Action (the "Fee Request")), in the manner provided in the Notice are deemed to have waived any objections by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise. All Class Members who have failed to properly file requests for exclusion (requests to opt out) from the Class are bound by the terms and conditions of the Stipulation and this Final Judgment. The Plaintiffs are barred and enjoined from instituting, commencing, maintaining, or prosecuting in any court or tribunal any of the Released Claims against any of the Released Parties. The Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of 25% of the Gross Settlement Fund (which is equal to the Settlement Amount, plus interest earned thereon from the date the Settlement Fund was funded to the date of payment), and $177,408.07 in reimbursement of Class Counsel's litigation expenses (which fees and expenses shall be paid from the Settlement Fund), which sums the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. The Settlement has created a fund of $12,000,000 in cash, plus interest, that has been funded into escrow pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, and that numerous Class Members who or which submit acceptable Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement that occurred because of the efforts of Class Counsel. Approximately 25,375 copies of the Notice were mailed to potential Class Members and nominees stating that Class Counsel would apply for attorneys' fees in an amount not exceed 25% of the Settlement Amount and reimbursement of Lead Counsel's litigation expenses in an amount not to exceed $250,000. Class Counsel devoted over 5,000 hours of professional time, with a lodestar value of approximately $3,123,720, to achieve the Settlement. The two Court-appointed Class Plaintiffs (Donald Hu and Brayton Li) are awarded $7,500 each, to be paid from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for the reasonable costs and expenses, including time spent, directly related to his representation of the Settlement Class. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Judgment and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y52zwttm from Leagle.com. Sunil Sudunagunta, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Schall -- brian@schallfirm.com -- Goldberg Law PC, J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua B. Silverman -- jbsilverman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC, 31 E 32nd St Fl 4, New York, NY, 10016-5509, Omar Jafri -- ojafri@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Nantkwest, Inc., Patrick Soon-Shiong & Richard Gomberg, Defendants, represented by Boris Feldman -- Boris.Feldman@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Cynthia Ann Dy -- CDy@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Michael R. Petrocelli -- mpetrocelli@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsin Goodrich and Rosati, Cali D. Tran, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati LLP, 650 Page Mill Road. Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Gideon A. Schor -- gschor@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati PC, pro hac vice, Olivia M. Kim -- okim@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati PC & Sheryl S. Bassin -- sbassin@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati PC, pro hac vice. NCAA: Ruiz Sues over Football Injuries -------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for its negligence, breach of express warranty and fraudulent concealment. The case is captioned LEJANDRO RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01882-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind., May 9, 2019). Plaintiff Lejandro Ruiz alleges that the NCAA has breached its duties to its student-athletes, including him, by ignoring the dangers of concussions and failing to implement adequate concussion management protocols. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of the student-athletes of the University of Texas at El Paso. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. It is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal Revenue Service. NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees 23 college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-9099 Facsimile: (713) 554-9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com NCAA: Scott Sues over Negligence in Collegiate Football ------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for negligence, breach of express warranty and fraudulent concealment. The case is captioned, CEPHUS SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01885-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., May 9, 2019). Plaintiff Cephus Scott alleges that the NCAA breached its contractual agreement by failing to ensure him and other Kansas State University (KSU) student-athletes were provided a safe environment in which to participate in collegiate football. The NCAA further breached its contractual agreement by concealing and/or failing to properly educate and warn Plaintiff Scott and other KSU football players about the symptoms and long-term risks of concussions and concussion-related traumatic injury. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result of NCAA's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of KSU student-athletes. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. It is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal Revenue Service. NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-9099 Facsimile: (713) 554-9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and ??? Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and ??? Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com NETGEAR INC: Hearing Today on Motion to Stay State Court Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- NETGEAR, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that in the case styled, John Pham v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., NETGEAR Inc., et al., and other related cases, a May 31, 2019 hearing has been scheduled to consider the defendants' motions to stay these state court cases. On January 9, 2019 and January 10, 2019, February 1, 2019 and February 8, 2019, the Company was sued in four separate securities class action suits in Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, along with Arlo Technologies, individuals, and underwriters involved in the spin-off of Arlo. Two more similar state actions have been filed against Arlo Technologies Inc. et al. In total, six putative class action complaints have now been filed in California state court in Santa Clara County. The Company is named as a defendant in five of the six lawsuits. The complaints generally allege that Arlo's IPO materials contained false and misleading statements, hiding problems with Arlo's Ultra product. These claims are styled as violations of Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. There is also a putative class action pending in federal court in the Northern District of California, on behalf of the same class of plaintiffs, making very similar claims. The Company is not presently named in the federal action. Defendants are planning to file motions to stay the state court actions in deference to the federal court action. A hearing in state court was scheduled on April 26, 2019, where the court would consider whether to consolidate the six lawsuits and appoint a "lead plaintiff." The Company is opposing the appointment of a lead plaintiff in the state court actions. There will be another hearing on May 31, 2019 to consider defendants' motions to stay the state court cases. The Company said, "It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter." NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops and markets networking products for home users and small businesses worldwide. The Company, based in Santa Clara, Calif., was founded in 1996. NEW YORK, NY: Allen et al. Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- The case, Clarence Bowen Allen, et al. v. City of New York, et al., Index No. 161679/2018 (Filed on April 8, 2019), was transferred from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the United States District Court, Southern District of New York on April 29, 2019. In this complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants discriminated against them in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The New York City government employs more than 300,000 civil servants who work to ensure the city promotes public safety, public health and opportunity. NYC Health + Hospitals is the largest public health care system in the United States. It provides essential inpatient, outpatient, and home-based services to more than one million New Yorkers every year in more than 70 locations across the city's five boroughs. Operated by NYC Health + Hospitals, Jacobi Medical Center is located in the Morris Park neighborhood of The Bronx in New York City. [BN] Attorneys for Defendants: Zachary W. Carter, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212)356-1104 E-mail: abalog@law.nyc.gov NRA GROUP: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Isaac FDCPA Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Aldean Issac and Julissa Ortiz filed an appeal from the District Court's memorandum and order dated March 29, 2019, and judgment dated April 1, 2019, entered in their lawsuit titled Issac, et al. v. NRA Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-cv-5210, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 29, 2019, Judge Joseph F. Bianco (i) granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Count 1; and (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' request to dismiss Count II. Isaac and Ortiz brought the putative class action against NRA and NRA's CEO, Steven C. Kusic, for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). They filed the complaint on Sept. 19, 2016. The Plaintiffs assert one cause of action ("Count I") against both NRA and Kusic, alleging that debt collection letters sent by NRA to the Plaintiffs in September 2015 misrepresented the amount of debt that they owed in violation of FDCPA Sections 1692g and 1692e. The second cause of action ("Count II") alleges that both the Defendants violated Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA because the September 2015 letters falsely implied that NRA had the legal right to collect interest and fees from plaintiffs. The appellate case is captioned as Issac, et al. v. NRA Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-1227, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Aldean Issac and Julissa Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David Michael Barshay, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-4799 E-mail: dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com Defendants-Appellees NRA Group, LLC, DBA National Recovery Agency, Inc., and Steven C. Kusic are represented by: Hilary Korman, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 885-5118 E-mail: hkorman@blankrome.com OLIN CORP: 6 Class Suits over Caustic Soda Sales Underway in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olin Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company and a subsidiary are defending themselves in six purported class action suits in New York related to the caustic soda market. Olin, K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly owned subsidiary of Olin) and other caustic soda producers were named as defendants in six purported class action civil lawsuits filed March 22, 25 and 26, 2019 and April 12, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic (U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers. The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation d/b/a OxyChem, Westlake Chemical Corporation, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated, Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. The lawsuits are filed on behalf of the respective named plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of all persons and entities who purchased caustic soda in the U.S. directly from one or more of the defendants, their parents, predecessors, subsidiaries or affiliates at any time between October 1, 2015 and the present. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive relief. The Company said, "We believe we have meritorious legal positions and will continue to represent our interests vigorously in this matter. Any losses related to this matter are not currently estimable because of unresolved questions of fact and law which, if resolved unfavorably to Olin, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations." PANDA RESTAURANT: Block Sues over Non-Accessible Facilities ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Panda Restaurant Group, Panda Express, Inc., and Does 1-5 for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, in connection with accessibility barriers in the parking lots and paths of travel at various public accommodations owned, operated, controlled, and/or leased by these restaurants. The case is captioned CHRISTOPHER BLOCK, an individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP; PANDA EXPRESS, INC., DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00625-LA (E.D. Wis., April 30, 2019). Plaintiff asserts that he was denied full and equal access as a result of Defendants' inaccessible parking lots and paths of travel. Panda Restaurant Group parent company of Panda Inn, Panda Express and Hibachi-San, was founded by Andrew and Peggy Tsiang Cherng and Andrew's father, Master Chef Ming-Tsai Cherng, the family originating in the Yangzhou region of China's Jiangsu province. They started their first Panda Inn restaurant in 1973 in Pasadena, California. The group has its headquarters in Rosemead, California. Panda Express, Inc. operates a chain of fast casual Chinese restaurants in California. The company's menu includes entrees, side dishes, appetizers, and desserts. It also provides catering services for meetings, events, or gatherings. Panda Express operates in 43 U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Guri Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com - and - Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. THE SWEET LAW FIRM, PC 186 Mohawk Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15228 Telephone: (412) 742-0631 E-mail: ben@sweetlawpc.com - and - Jonathan Miller, Esq. Holly Blackwell, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER LLP 33 West Mission St., #201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 963-2345 E-mail: jonathan@nshmlaw.com PAYCRON INC: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Jackson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification in the case captioned JEREMY JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PAYCRON INC., a Florida company, Defendant. Case No. 8:19-CV-00609-WFJ-AAS. (M.D. Fla.). The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendant, asserting two claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. One claim was for violation of the TCPA's prohibition against making autodialed solicitations to cellular telephone numbers. The second claim was for violation of the TCPA's prohibition against making two or more solicitation calls in a 12-month period to telephone numbers registered on the national Do Not Call registry for more than 30 days. There are four prerequisites for class certification under Federal Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. In addition, the Plaintiff must establish that one or more of the grounds for maintaining the suit as a class action are met under Rule 23(b). The Plaintiff seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires (1) predominance of the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class over any questions affecting only individual members; and (2) superiority of a class action for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Based on the Plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact, which are deemed admitted as a result of Defendant's default, and the Court finds that each of the prerequisites for class certification is satisfied and conditionally certifies the following class pursuant to Federal Rule 23(b)(3): Autodialed Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action: (1) Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant) called (2) using the same dialing equipment used to call Plaintiff (3) for substantially the same reason Defendant called Plaintiff and (4) for whom Defendant claims (a) it obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express written consent to call Plaintiff or (b) Defendant does not claim to have obtained prior express written consent. Numerosity Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The Court finds that there are likely hundreds of class members. This evidenced by the fact that telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers, the many online complaints regarding Defendant's unsolicited calls, the fact that Defendant ignored Plaintiffs request to stop calling him, and that Defendant used an autodialer, which is used precisely because of its capacity to call consumers en masse. Commonality The commonality requirement ensures that class certification is predicated on questions of law or fact common to the class. The commonality element is generally satisfied when a plaintiff alleges that defendants have engaged in a standardized course of conduct that affects all class members. The Court finds that the entire case revolves around an alleged common course of telemarketing that resulted in the same injury to Plaintiff and Class members. The common questions for the Class therefore include: whether Defendant utilized an automatic telephone dialing system to make its calls to Plaintiff and the members of the Classes; whether Defendant made calls to Plaintiff and members of the Classes without first obtaining prior express written consent to make the calls; whether Defendant made autodialed telephone calls to Plaintiff and members of the Classes despite being asked to stop calling; whether Defendant's conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA; and whether members of the Classes are entitled to treble damages based on the willfulness of Defendant's conduct. Typicality Typicality requires that the claims or defenses of the representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Representative claims are typical if they are reasonably coextensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical. Moreover, if "the same unlawful conduct was directed at or affected both the class representatives and the class itself, the typicality requirement is usually met irrespective of varying fact patterns which underlie the individual claims. The Court finds that Plaintiff satisfies the typicality requirement because he received the same unsolicited, autodialed calls made by or on behalf of Defendant as the other members of the Class. Adequacy The adequacy element of Rule 23(a)(4) requires that Plaintiff and his counsel be able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. This means Plaintiff must have no interests antagonistic to the class, and his counsel must be qualified to represent the class. The Court finds that Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his counsel have demonstrated that they are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Class, and have the financial resources to do so. Predominance The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry test whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. Predominance focuses on the relationship between the common and individual issues. When common questions present a significant aspect of the case and they can be resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication, there is clear justification for handling the dispute on a representative rather than on an individual basis. The Court finds that the predominance requirement is satisfied because the common questions of law and fact relevant to the Class's TCPA claim have common answers for the Class, including specifically the question of whether the calls made by or on behalf Defendant were made using an autodialer. Superiority A class action is superior if separate actions by each of the class members would be repetitive, wasteful, and an extraordinary burden on the courts. The Court finds that class treatment is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class. Defendant's business practices apply to and affect the members of the Class uniformly, and Plaintiffs challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant's conduct with respect to the Class as whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff. Additionally, the damages suffered by individual members of the Class will likely be small relative to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the litigation necessitated by Defendant's actions. The Court conditionally certifies the Autodialed Class. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y29bce4l from Leagle.com. Jeremy Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Avi Robert Kaufman, Kaufman P.A., Avi R. Kaufman, 31 Samana Dr, Miami, FL, 33133-2609 PDC ENERGY: Dufresne Suit Stayed Due to Partnerships' Chapter 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- PDC Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the action entitled Dufresne, et al. v. PDC Energy, et al., is stayed as a result of the bankruptcy proceedings of the Company's two affiliated partnerships, Rockies Region 2006 LP and Rockies Region 2007 LP (collectively, the "Partnerships") On October 30, 2018, the Partnerships filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Chapter 11 Proceedings") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (the "Bankruptcy Court"). In December 2017, the Company received an action entitled Dufresne, et al. v. PDC Energy, et al., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Dufresne Case"). The original complaint stated that it was a derivative action brought by a number of limited partner investors seeking to assert claims on behalf of the Company's two affiliated partnerships, Rockies Region 2006 LP and Rockies Region 2007 LP (collectively, the "Partnerships"), against PDC and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. The plaintiffs also included claims against two of the Company's senior officers and three independent members of the Company's Board of Directors for allegedly aiding and abetting PDC's breach of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit accuses PDC, as the managing general partner of the Partnerships, of, among other things, failing to maximize the productivity of the Partnerships' crude oil and natural gas wells and improperly assigning the Partnerships only interests in the wells, as opposed to leasehold interests in surrounding acreage. In late April 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint, which alleges additional facts and purports to add direct class action claims in addition to the original derivative claims. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this amended complaint and the claims against the individuals named as defendants on July 31, 2018. On February 19, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss, in part. It dismissed all claims against the individuals named as defendants. It also held that that the plaintiffs were time-barred from using the failure to assign acreage assignments to support their claims for breach of fiduciary duty against PDC. The Company filed an answer to the remaining claims on March 5, 2019. The Company said, "We understand that this action is stayed as a result of the partnership bankruptcy proceedings. We are currently unable to estimate any potential damages resulting from this lawsuit." PDC Energy, Inc., an independent exploration and production company, acquires, explores for, develops, and produces crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids in the United States. The company's operations are primarily located in the Wattenberg Field in Colorado and the Delaware Basin in Texas. The company was formerly known as Petroleum Development Corporation and changed its name to PDC Energy, Inc. in June 2012. PDC Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Grower Class Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Pilgrim's Pride Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that plaintiffs have not amended the consolidated complaint to comply with a Bankruptcy Court's injunction order or confirmation order. On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against PPC and four other producers in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition for grower services and depress the price paid to growers. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages. The complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed consolidated amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS (the "Grower Litigation"). The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017. The Court initially held oral argument on January 19, 2018, during which it considered and granted only motions from certain other defendants who were challenging jurisdiction. Oral argument on the remaining pending motions in the Oklahoma court occurred on April 20, 2018. Rulings on the motion are pending. In addition, on March 12, 2018, the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division ("Bankruptcy Court") enjoined plaintiffs from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against the Company because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate the confirmation order relating to the Company's 2008-2009 bankruptcy proceedings. Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order bars any claims against the Company based on conduct occurring before December 28, 2009. On March 13, 2018, Pilgrim's notified the trial court of the Bankruptcy Court's injunction. To date, plaintiffs have not amended the consolidated complaint to comply with the Bankruptcy Court's injunction order or the confirmation order. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Adamov Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Yury Adamov filed an appeal from a Court ruling in his lawsuit titled Yury Adamov v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Case No. 2:13-cv-01222-TLN-AC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action against PwC alleging violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide itemized employee wage statements, failure to provide meal periods, and failure to provide rest periods. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting the same causes of action. The Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) asserting only the following causes of action: (1) Violations of California Labor Code Sections 510 & 1194 for failure to pay overtime wages and (2) Violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. The appellate case is captioned as Yury Adamov v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Case No. 19-15915, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript was to be ordered by May 29, 2019; -- Transcript is due on June 28, 2019; -- Appellant Yury Adamov's opening brief is due on August 7, 2019; -- Appellee PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP's answering brief is due on September 9, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant YURY ADAMOV, individually, and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, is represented by: Lyle W. Cook, Esq. William A. Kershaw, Esq. Stuart Talley, Esq. KERSHAW COOK & TALLEY PC 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 448-9800 E-mail: lyle@kctlegal.com bill@kctlegal.com stuart@kctlegal.com Defendant-Appellee PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, is represented by: Norman C. Hile, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 Telephone: (916) 329-7900 E-mail: nhile@orrick.com - and - Daniel J. Thomasch, Esq. Julie A. Totten, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 E-mail: dthomasch@gibsondunn.com jatotten@orrick.com PURDUE PHARMA: Schneider Sues over Deceptive Marketing of Opioids ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against several manufacturers of prescription opioids, including Purdue Pharma L.P. and Endo Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., for several causes of action including violations of Wisconsin's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The case is captioned ZACHARY R. SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; and AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00611-DEJ (E.D. Wis., April 26, 2019). Plaintiff Zachary R. Schneider alleges that the Manufacturer Defendants have engaged in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors and patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. Purdue Pharma L.P. is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Connecticut. Defendant Purdue Pharma Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut. Defendant Purdue Frederick Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut. Purdue manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla ER, and Targiniq ER in the United States and Wisconsin. OxyContin is Purdue's best-selling opioid, and it accounts for nearly one-third of the national painkiller market. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Endo Health Solutions Inc. Defendant Endo Health Solutions Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Endo develops, markets, and sells prescription drugs, including the opioids Opana/Opana ER, Percodan, Percocet, and Zydone, in the United States and Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven G. Kluender, Esq. Casey P. Shorts, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRMS, S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 E-mail: sgk@previant.com cps@previant.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. David I. Mindell, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com dmindell@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Todd Logan, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com - and ??? William S. Consovoy, Esq. Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq. CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 243-9423 E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com tom@consovoymccarthy.com - and - Michael H. Park, Esq. CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 247-8006 E-mail: park@consovoymccarthy.com - and ??? Ashley Keller, Esq. Travis Lenkner, Esq. Seth Meyer, Esq. KELLER LENKNER LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-5220 E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com tdl@kellerlenkner.com sam@kellerlenkner.com QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Quantenna Communications, Inc. and its board of directors for an alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned EARL M. WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., SAM HEIDARI, GLENDA DORCHAK, NED HOOPER, HAROLD HUGHES, JACK LAZAR, JOHN SCULL, and MARK A. STEVENS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00877-UNA (D. Del., May 9, 2019). Plaintiff Earl M. Wheby, Jr. alleges that the Defendants have filed a false and misleading proxy statement that omits material information with respect to the proposed transaction announced on March 27, 2019, pursuant to which Quantenna will be acquired by ON Semiconductor Corporation and Raptor Operations Sub, Inc. Specifically, the proxy statement omits material information regarding the Quantenna's financial projections and the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the proposed transaction, Qatalyst Partners LP. With respect to Qatalyst's Selected Transactions Analysis, the proxy statement fails to disclose the equity values of the transactions observed by Qatalyst. Quantenna is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices at 1704 Automation Parkway, San Jose, California. Quantenna's common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol QTNA. 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 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and ??? Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Remer Sues over False Financial Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc., Robert V. Lapenta, Charles J. Schafer, and James A. Depalma for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned FRED REMER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. REVOLUTION LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ROBERT V. LAPENTA, CHARLES J. SCHAFER, and JAMES A. DEPALMA, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04252 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2019). Plaintiff Fred Remer alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the company was improperly recognizing revenue for certain transactions; (2) that, as a result, the company's financial statements were misstated; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; (4) that, as a result, company would be subject to regulatory scrutiny and incur substantial costs; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Revolution Lighting is incorporated in Delaware with its principal executive offices located in Stamford, Connecticut. Revolution Lighting's common stock trades on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol RVLT. The company purports to design and manufacture light-emitting diode ("LED") lighting solutions for industrial, commercial, and government markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard W. Gonnello, Esq. Megan M. Sullivan, Esq. Sherief Morsy, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-983-9330 Facsimile: 212-983-9331 E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com msullivan@faruqilaw.com smorsy@faruqilaw.com SCORES HOLDING: Santos de Oliveira Suit in Discovery Phase ---------------------------------------------------------- Scores Holding Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the lawsuit by Luisa Santos de Oliveira is currently in the discovery phase. The Company was served with a Summons and Complaint in the action entitled Luisa Santos de Oliveira v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.; Club Azure, LLC; Robert Gans; Mark S. Yackow; Howard Rosenbluth, Docket No. 1:18-cv-06769-GBD, in the United States District Court of the Southern District. Plaintiff claims that the Defendants violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); violated the New York Minimum Wage Act and the overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL"); violated the Spread of Hours Wage Order of the New York Commissioner of Labor; violated the Notice and Recordkeeping requirements of the NYLL; violated the wage statement provisions of the NYLL; recovery of equipment costs in violation of the FLSA and NYLL; and unlawful deductions from tips in violation of the NYLL. Plaintiff brought this action as a class action and seeks certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees and former employees of Defendants. The Company has submitted an Answer to Plaintiff's claims and the case is currently in the discovery phase. The Company, along with the Co-defendants, intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims asserted against it in this lawsuit. Scores Holding said, "The likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is remote because the Company's records show, inter alia, that the Plaintiff never worked more than 25 hours per week." Scores Holding Company, Inc. is an adult entertainment company. SEE'S CANDY: Ping Claims Uniform Cost Reimbursement --------------------------------------------------- Laci Ping, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. See's Candy Shops, Inc., See's Candies, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, inclusive, Case No. 19-cv-02504 (N.D. Cal., May 9, 2019), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to reimburse necessary business expenditures, failure to pay for required work uniforms, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to pay all wages due at termination of employment. The complaint further seeks damages, restitution and penalties, as well as interest, attorney's fees, costs and injunctive relief, all under California law. Defendants own and operate retail candy stores in California, throughout the United States, and internationally with more than 100 stores in California. Laci Ping worked as a non-exempt store employee from approximately October 2010 until approximately December 2018. See's requires its employees to purchase and wear nude pantyhose, black shoes of a specific design, white or nude slips yet did not reimburse Plaintiffs for the expense of obtaining these clothing items, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq. Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq. Hallie Von Rock, Esq. Carey A. James, Esq. Brent A. Robinson, Esq. 7677 Oakport St. Suite 1150 Oakland, CA 94621 Tel: (510) 817-2711 Fax: (510) 562-6830 Email: ras@asmlawyers.com rwlm@asmlawyers.com hvr@asmlawyers.com caj@asmlawyers.com bar@asmlawyers.com SOURCE CONSTRUCTION: Sastre Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Source Construction Contracting, Inc. and Gerald V. Clancy for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The case is captioned GABRIEL SASTRE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- SOURCE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING, INC, and GERALD V CLANCY, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02508-PKC-VMS (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2019). Defendants allegedly did not pay Plaintiff Gabriel Sastre time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. In addition, Defendants has also violated the spread of hours provisions of NYLL by not paying Plaintiff an extra hour at the legally prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours. Source Construction Contracting, Inc, is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office at 67 West Street, Suite 608, Brooklyn, New York. Gerald V. Clancy is the Chief Executive Officer of Source Construction Contracting, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 SPIRITUAL GANGSTER: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spiritual Gangster Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Spiritual Gangster Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04593 (S.D. N.Y., May 20, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Spiritual Gangster Holdings, Inc. retails Yoga inspired clothing online. It sells men's, women's, and children's clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com STERICYCLE INC: Contract Class Accord Opt-Out Members File Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that certain class members who have opted out of the Final Settlement in the Contract Class Action Lawsuits have filed lawsuits against the Company. Beginning on March 12, 2013, the Company was served with several class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted, among other things, that the Company had imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on the Company's customers in breach of its contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaints sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief. These related actions were ultimately transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action"). On February 16, 2017, the Court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certified a class of "[a]ll persons and entities that, between March 8, 2003 through the date of trial resided in the United States (except Washington and Alaska), were identified by Stericycle as ???Small Quantity' or ???SQ' customer, and were charged and paid more than their contractually-agreed price for Stericycle's medical waste disposal goods and services pursuant to Stericycle's automated price increase policy. Governmental entities whose claims were asserted in United States ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle Inc. shall be excluded from the class." The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached an agreement in principle for settlement in July 2017, which was subsequently documented in a definitive settlement agreement (the "Settlement") on October 17, 2017. The Settlement provided a global resolution of all cases and claims against the Company in the MDL Action. It also provided that the Company would establish a common fund of US$295.0 million from which would be paid all compensation to members of the settlement class, attorneys' fees to class counsel, incentive awards to the named class representatives and all costs of notice and administration. It also provided that the Company's existing contracts with customers would remain in force, while the Company would also establish as part of the Settlement guidelines for future price increases and provide customers additional transparency regarding such increases. Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. The Settlement provided that, upon final approval by the Court following a fairness hearing, it would fully and finally resolve all claims against the Company alleged in the MDL Action. The court held a fairness hearing on March 8, 2018 and granted approval of the Proposed MDL Settlement that same day. The Proposed MDL Settlement became finally effective on June 7, 2018 (the "Final Settlement"), and the Company funded the Final Settlement on July 6, 2018. Certain class members who have opted out of the Final Settlement have filed lawsuits against the Company, and the Company will defend and resolve those actions. The Company has accrued its estimate of the probable loss for these collective matters, which is not material. Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and commercial businesses in the United States and internationally. Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest, Illinois. STERICYCLE INC: July 22 Fairness Hearing for Securities Class Pact ------------------------------------------------------------------ A fairness hearing has been scheduled for July 22, 2019 with regards to Stericycle, Inc.'s settlement agreement for the securities class action lawsuit in Illinois, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs purported to sue for themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016, inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in the Company's public offering of depositary shares, each representing a 1/10th interest in a share of the Company's mandatory convertible preferred stock, on or around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as defendants the Company, its directors and certain of its current and former officers, and certain of the underwriters in the public offering. The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose those alleged practices in public filings and other statements issued during the proposed class period beginning February 7, 2013 and ending April 28, 2016. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on August 4, 2016 and a Corrected Amended Complaint on October 21, 2016. On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead Counsel. On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint with additional purported factual material supporting the same legal claims from the prior complaints for a class period from February 7, 2013 through September 18, 2016. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 1, 2017. On May 19, 2017, plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss and on June 19, 2017, Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion. On March 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed a further Amended Complaint, alleging additional corrective disclosures and extending the purported class period through February 21, 2018. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on May 25, 2018. The Motion was fully briefed on July 13, 2018, and awaited a ruling by the Court. The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached an agreement in principle for settlement in December 2018 (the "Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement"). As the Company disclosed on December 20, 2018, the terms of the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement provided that the Company would establish a common fund of US$45 million, from which would be paid all compensation to members of the settlement class, attorneys' fees to class counsel, incentive awards to the named class representatives and all costs of notice and administration. In the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever. The Company entered into the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement in order to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. On February 14, 2019, the Company executed a definitive written settlement agreement (the "Settlement"), which incorporated the terms of the agreement in principle announced in December 2018. The Settlement incorporated the terms of the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement. Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. The Settlement provided that, upon final approval by the Court following a fairness hearing, it would fully and finally resolve all claims against the Company alleged in the Securities Class Action. On February 25, 2019, plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action filed Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Order Preliminarily Approving Class Settlement and Authorizing Dissemination of Notice of Settlement (the "Preliminary Approval Motion"). The Preliminary Approval Motion asked the Court to preliminarily approve the Settlement, to approve the manner and content of the notice to be given to potential class members, and to set a schedule for, among other things, deadlines for potential class members to file claims, object to the Settlement, or seek exclusion from the Settlement class. The Court approved the Preliminary Approval Motion on March 12, 2019, and the Company funded the settlement on March 25, 2019. The large majority of the US$45 million common fund has been funded by the Company's insurers. The Court has scheduled a fairness hearing for July 22, 2019. Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and commercial businesses in the United States and internationally. Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest, Illinois. STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Faces Wright Labor Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Sterling Infosystems, Inc. The case is captioned Reid Isaac Wright vs. Sterling Infosystems Inc, Case No. 34-2019-00255349-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., April 29, 2019). Sterling Infosystems, Inc. offers employment screening and background check services. The company provides services in several areas, including criminal background checks and drug and health screening. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B Kingsley, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (888) 500-8469 SUNRUN INC: Saunders Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case, CURTIS SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, vs. SUNRUN, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04252 (Filed on April 2, 2019), was transferred from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 9, 2019. In the complaint, Plaintiff Curtis Saunders alleges that Sunrun violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by purportedly sending unauthorized text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system to Plaintiff and members of the putative class. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03127 to the proceeding. The district court has the original jurisdiction over this complaint because Plaintiffs' claim arises under the laws of the United States, namely the TCPA. Headquartered in San Francisco, California, Sunrun, Inc. provides residential solar electricity. It offers design, development, installation, and maintenance services of residential solar energy systems in the United States. [BN] Attorneys for Defendant: Givonna S. Long, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, 26th Fl. Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 857-7070 Facsimile: (312) 857-7095 TACO MIX: Sanchez-Torres Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Filadelfo Sanchez aka Jorge Sanchez, Alejo Sanchez, Joanna Sanchez and Taco Mix LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The case is captioned JESSICA SANCHEZ-TORRES, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FILADELFO SANCHEZ aka JORGE SANCHEZ, ALEJO SANCHEZ, JOANNA SANCHEZ, Individually and TACO MIX LLC, TACO MIX II LLC, TACO MIX III LLC, TACO MIX OF INDUSTRY CITY LLC, TACO MIX DELANCEY LLC, TACO MIX OF QUEENS LLC d/b/a TACO MIX, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04222 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2019). Plaintiff Jessica Sanchez-Torres alleges that the Defendants unlawfully failed to pay her one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants also did not pay Plaintiff a spread of hours premium pursuant to New York state law when her workdays lasted ten or more hours. In addition, Defendants allegedly failed to provide Plaintiff with a written notice of her rate of pay and failed to keep proper payroll records as required under New York law. Taco Mix is a Mexican restaurant that currently has three locations in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq. THE KLEIN LAW GROUP 39 Broadway Suite 1530 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 344-9022 Facsimile: (212) 344-0301 TD AMERITRADE: Court Dismisses T. Gray's FINRA Suit --------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned THACKERY S. GRAY, and YELENA F. GRAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., and SHEAFF BROCK INVESTMENT ADVISORS, LLC, Defendants. No. 18 C 00419. (N.D. Ill.). Before the Court is Defendant TD Ameritrade, Inc. (TD Ameritrade) and Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors, LLC's (Sheaff Brock) (Defendants) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Thackery and Yelena Gray's (Plaintiffs) Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the FINRA rules by casting the put options income strategy as conservative, when it was actually an aggressive and speculative strategy that augmented risks, as it sought to make money through speculative bets about the future price of the underlying asset. Due to the significant exposure the seller faces and the volatility of the investment, Plaintiffs allege that the put options income strategy resulted in "staggering losses" to themselves and the putative classes. The Defendants urge the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint because the allegations are barred by the Securities Litigation and Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA). This statute prohibits state-law class-action claims relating to misrepresentations, omissions, or manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with the purchase or sale of covered securities. However, PSLRA had the unintended consequence of displacing federal securities fraud class action litigation to state courts under the guise of common law actions, such as breach of contract. To successfully claim SLUSA preclusion, Defendants must show that Plaintiffs' claim is: (1) a covered class action (2) based on state law (3) that alleges a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact, or the use of any manipulative or deceptive decide or contrivance (4) in connection with the purchase or sale of (5) a covered security. Plaintiffs concede that the first three elements are met. Therefore, the Court will only consider the disputed fourth and fifth elements. Misrepresentations Were Made "In Connection With" a Purchase or Sale The Plaintiffs dispute the fourth element of SLUSA preclusion, namely whether the misrepresentations at issue were made in connection with a purchase or sale of a covered security. Plaintiffs claim that the misrepresentations were not made in connection with a purchase or sale, but rather in connection with the decision to hire Sheaff Brock as their investment advisor. Moreover, Plaintiffs emphasize that because they gave Defendants complete discretion over investment decisions, Plaintiffs were not in the position to make a decision in connection with a purchase or sale. The Supreme Court and courts in this Circuit have affirmed that a plaintiff need not personally make the investment decision to satisfy the in connection with requirement; rather, the fraud has to coincide with the covered securities transaction. Given the weight of the authority rejecting Plaintiffs' argument, the Court cannot find that Plaintiffs decision to give investment discretion to Sheaff Brock bars their misrepresentations from being "in connection with" the purchase or sale of a covered security. Instead, as the Supreme Court instructs, the fraud has to coincide with the securities transaction. Defendants' alleged misrepresentations about the conservative nature of the put options income strategy and the expected returns certainly coincide with a securities transaction because such a transaction is the foundation for their claim. Indeed, these misrepresentations were the catalyst for Plaintiffs to hire Sheaff Brock to engage in securities transactions on their behalf. Any other conclusion would put too fine a point on the in connection with requirement. Accordingly, the Court finds that the fourth element of SLUSA preclusion is satisfied. Misrepresentations Involved a "Covered Security" The Plaintiffs next dispute whether the alleged misrepresentations involved the purchase or sale of a covered security. SLUSA incorporates the definition of covered security from Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Plaintiffs maintain that the complaint does not accuse Defendants of making any misrepresentations about the underlying stocks or options that caused Plaintiffs' losses, but rather about the Defendants' services and put options income strategy. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' services and strategy cannot be considered a "covered security, so SLUSA cannot preclude their claims. However, that is far too narrow a reading of the statute. According to the Supreme Court, a narrow reading of the statute would undercut the effectiveness of [PSLRA] and thus run contrary to SLUSA's stated purpose. Therefore, considering the practical implications of the Plaintiffs' argument, the Court finds that any misrepresentation regarding the success or failure of a particular securities trading strategy necessarily involves the underlying securities. Given that the underlying securities are subject to the rules of the Options Clearing Corporation, traded on national exchanges, and regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, they are "covered securities" for purposes of SLUSA preclusion. Consequently, all five preclusion elements are satisfied, and SLUSA bars Plaintiffs' state-law class-action claims. Implications of SLUSA Bar Because SLUSA preclusion applies, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs' state-law class-action claims, which make up the entirety of the complaint. Plaintiffs maintain that the Court's dismissal should be without prejudice. However, the dismissal does not mean that the Plaintiffs are left with no recourse. SLUSA does not prevent Plaintiffs from bringing claims against Defendants to recover for their losses, it simply denies plaintiffs the right to use the class-action device to vindicate certain claims. If Plaintiffs want to pursue their state law claims, they have to proceed in the usual way: one litigant against another. Further, the parties agreed to arbitrate their individual disputes, so Plaintiffs should direct their claims to the proper forum. The Court grants Defendants' motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y52zwttm from Leagle.com. Thackery S. Gray & Yelena F. Gray, On Behalf Of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Sean M. Sweeney -- sms@hallingcayo.com -- Halling & Cayo, S.c., Andrew Douglas Welker -- adw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace Llp, Benjamin Aaron Kaplan -- bak@cruegerdickinson.com -- Crueger Dickinson LLC, Charles J. Crueger -- cjc@cruegerdickinson.com -- Crueger Dickinson LLC, Patrick T. O'Neill -- pto@hallingcayo.com -- Halling & Cayo, S.C. & Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lauren Jennifer Caisman -- lauren.caisman@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Dana Sirkis Gloor, Miles & Stockbridge, P.C., 54011, Red Wing MN 55066, Saint Paul MN 55125, pro hac vice & John Michael Clear -- jmclear@bclplaw.com -- pro hac vice. Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric L. Samore -- esamore@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen LLC, Kenneth L. Cunniff, Kenneth L. Cunniff Ltd., 30 N. La Salle St.Chicago, IL 60603, Ronald P. Kane, Kane & Fischer, Ltd., 208 S. La Salle St. Ste. 1800Chicago, IL 60604- 1157& Kathryn Victoria Long -- klong@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen LLC. TEVA PHARMA: Bids to Dismiss Ontario Teachers' Fund Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Motions to dismiss the second amended complaint in the securities class actions led the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board are still pending, according to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors. After those two lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the court appointed the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board as lead plaintiff (the "Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation"). The lead plaintiff then filed a consolidated amended complaint. On April 3, 2018, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. Lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 22, 2018, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities between February 6, 2014 and August 3, 2017. The second complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated federal securities laws in connection with Teva's alleged failure to disclose pricing strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio and by making allegedly false or misleading statements in certain offering materials issued during the class period. The second complaint seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. Teva and the current and former officer and director defendants filed motions to dismiss the second complaint on September 14, 2018. Those motions are pending before the court. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. The Company was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Actions Pending in Israel ---------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that it is facing legal actions, including class-related complaints, in Israel. Motions to approve derivative actions against certain past and present directors and officers have been filed in Israel alleging negligence and recklessness with respect to the acquisition of the Rimsa business and the acquisition of Actavis Generics. Motions for document disclosure prior to initiating derivative actions were filed with respect to dividend distribution, executive compensation, several patent settlement agreements, opioids and the U.S. price-fixing investigations. Motions to approve securities class actions against Teva and certain of its current and former directors and officers were filed in Israel based on allegations of improper disclosure of the above-mentioned pricing investigation, as well as lack of disclosure of negative developments in the generic sector, including price erosion with respect to Teva's products. Other motions were filed in Israel to approve a derivative action, discovery and a class action related to claims regarding Teva's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act resolution with the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. The Company was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Still Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the class suit related to the Teva Employee Stock Purchase Plan remains stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation. On July 17, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio derivatively on behalf of the Teva Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and alternatively as a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of individuals who purchased Teva stock through that plan. That lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest and costs. The complaint alleges that Teva failed to maintain adequate financial controls based on the facts underpinning Teva's U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act three-year deferred prosecution agreement (FCPA DPA) and also based on allegations substantially similar to those in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation. On November 29, 2017, the court granted Teva's motion to transfer the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut where the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation is pending. On February 12, 2018, the district court stayed the case pending resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. The Company was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Grodko/Baker Securities Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the consolidated putative securities class complaints initiated by Elliot Grodko and Barry Baker are still pending. The consolidated action was previously transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the District of Connecticut in 2018. On August 21 and 30, 2017, Elliot Grodko and Barry Baker filed putative securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities between November 15, 2016 and August 2, 2017 seeking unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. The complaints allege that Teva and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal securities laws and Israeli securities laws by making false and misleading statements in connection with Teva's acquisition and integration of Actavis Generics. On November 1, 2017, the court consolidated the Baker and Grodko cases. On April 10, 2018, the court granted Teva's motion to transfer the consolidated action to the District of Connecticut where the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation is currently pending. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. The Company was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Suits over Sales of Generics Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Teva and Actavis deny having engaged in any conduct that would give rise to liability with respect to complaints over alleged conspiracies to fix prices and/or allocate market share of generic products. Beginning on March 2, 2016, numerous complaints have been filed in the United States on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of several generic drug products, as well as several individual direct purchaser opt-out plaintiffs. These complaints, which allege that the defendants engaged in conspiracies to fix prices and/or allocate market share of generic products have been brought against various manufacturer defendants, including Teva and Actavis. The plaintiffs generally seek injunctive relief and damages under federal antitrust law, and damages under various state laws. On April 6, 2017, these cases were transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. Additional cases were transferred to that court and the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints on August 15, 2017. On October 16, 2018, the court denied certain of the defendants' motions to dismiss as to certain federal claims, and on February 15, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss as to certain state law claims. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. The Company was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TRENTON, NJ: Court Dismisses A. Guille's Prisoner's Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a Memorandum and Order dismissing the action for failure to state a claim in the case captioned ADRIAN GUILLE, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN JOHNSON, et al, Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-1472 (PGS-TJB). (D.N.J.). Plaintiff is proceeding, in forma pauperis, with an amended civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Court must review the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit. Having completed this screening, the Court will permit the complaint to proceed in part. The Plaintiff raises a variety of claims against prison officials at New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) in Trenton, New Jersey including excessive force, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, retaliation, and denial of medical care. The Plaintiff attempts to bring certain claims on behalf of all prisoners at NJSP. Plaintiff lacks standing to assert claims on behalf of other prisoners. The Plaintiff's first claim alleges that Officers Martini, Piazza, and Sgt. Smith used excessive force against him in his cell. Accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true for screening purposes only, the Court will permit this claim to proceed. The Plaintiff next alleges Sgt. Smith and unknown officers used excessive force against him in an elevator. The Court will permit this claim to proceed as well. The Court will also permit the Plaintiff's allegations that Sgt. Smith and others violated the Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights when they refused to permit him to decontaminate from the pepper-spray and forced him to remain in the dirty clothing. The Plaintiff also alleges various conditions of confinement claims against various defendants, but the Court will only permit the claim to proceed against Mr. Johnson, Sgt. Patterson, Sgt. Smith, Officer Martini, Officer Piazza, Officer Brodzinski, Officer Pedre, and Officer Jenkins. Plaintiff has not stated how the other named defendants participated in the alleged wrongdoings. The Court will permit the Plaintiff's claims against Sgt. Smith and Steven Johnson arising out of the allegedly contaminated drinking water to proceed. The Court will dismiss the Plaintiff's claims regarding the lighting, volume of announcements, and being housed with psychotics. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The Court will permit the Plaintiff's conditions of confinement claim alleging failure to remedy the vermin situation to proceed against Steven Johnson, David Richards, Raymond Royce, and Amy Emrich. The Court dismisses the Plaintiff's claim for failure to implement a confidential hotline in accordance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). The Plaintiff's claims brought on behalf of the class are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Memorandum Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2pm27js from Leagle.com. ADRIAN GUILLE, Plaintiff, pro se. TYSON FOODS: Sevy Alleges Price-Fixing of Fed Cattle ---------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., JBS S.A., JBS USA Food Company, Swift Beef Company, JBS Packerland, Inc., Cargill, Incorporated, Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, Marfrig Global Foods S.A., and National Beef Packing Company, LLC for violations of Sherman Act and Commodity Exchange Act, and for unjust enrichment in violation of common law. These companies allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the price of fed cattle that they purchased in the United States. The case is captioned MICHAEL SEVY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC.; JBS S.A.; JBS USA FOOD COMPANY; SWIFT BEEF COMPANY; JBS PACKERLAND, INC.; CARGILL, INCORPORATED; CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION; MARFRIG GLOBAL FOODS S.A.; NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-10; Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01243 (D. Minn., May 9, 2019). Plaintiff Michael Sevy alleges that the Defendants coordinated conduct, including slashing their respective slaughter volumes and curtailing their purchases of fed cattle in the cash cattle market, precipitated an unprecedented collapse in fed cattle prices in 2015. In addition, the Defendants then continued to suppress the price of fed cattle through coordinated procurement practices and periodic slaughter restraint. The conspiracy directly impacted the market for live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Tyson Foods, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 2200 Don Tyson Parkway, Springdale, Arkansas. Located at 800 Stevens Port Drive, Dakota Dunes, South Dakota, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods. JBS S.A. is a Brazilian corporation with its principal place of business located at Av. Marginal Direta do Tiete, 500 Bloco 3-3o. andar, Vila Jaguara, Sao Paulo 05.118-100, Brazil. JBS USA Food Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 1770 Promontory Circle, Greeley, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com jbourne@pswlaw.com - and - Bruce L. Simon, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-9000 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Matthew A. Pearson, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com bpouya@pswlaw.com mapearson@pswlaw.com - and ??? David E. Kovel, Esq. Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. Karen Lerner, Esq. Anthony E. Maneiro, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 250 Park Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com telrod@kmllp.com klerner@kmllp.com amaneiro@kmllp.com - and ??? Brian Levin, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2B Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 539-0593 E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Ward Labor Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against United Airlines, Inc. The case is captioned CHARLES E WARD ET AL VS. UNITED AIRLINES, INC. ET AL, Case No. CGC19575737 (Cal. Super., April 26, 2019). Plaintiff Charles E. Ward alleges that United Airlines has violated the California Labor Code. Headquartered at the Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois, United Airlines is a major American airline that operates a large domestic and international route network. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk D. Hanson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KIRK D. HANSON 2790 Truxtun Road, Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92106 Telephone: (619) 523-1992 Facsimile: (619) 523-9002 E-mail: Hansonlaw@cox.net US SECURITY ASSOCIATES: Faces Scott Labor Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against U.S. Security Associates, Inc. d/b/a Andrews International, LLC for violations of the New York Labor Law (NYLL), the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. The case is captioned NICHELLE SCOTT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a ANDREWS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. Case 7:19-cv-03817 (N.Y. Sup., April 29, 2019). Plaintiff Nichelle Scott alleges that the Defendant failed to pay her overtime pay for those hours worked in excess of 40. Further, she asserts that the Defendant never provided accurate wage statements accompanying each payment of wages and never paid any uniform maintenance pay or reimbursement for the cost of maintaining the uniform. U.S. Security Associates is a wholly-owned American security company, with locally-responsive offices providing premier national security services and global consulting and investigations. The company conducts business throughout the state of New York. Andrews International, LLC is an affiliate company of U.S. Security Associates. Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Andrews International is an industry-leading full service provider of security and risk mitigation services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Gaylord, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (516) 742-4949 Facsimile: (516) 742-1977 US STEEL: Facing Class Action over 2018 Clairton Fire ----------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation has been named as a defendant in a class action complaint related to a December 2018 fire at Clairton, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019 On April 24, 2019, U.S. Steel was served with a class action complaint that was filed in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas related to the December 24, 2018 fire at its Clairton Coke Works Plant in Pennsylvania. The complaint asserts common law nuisance and negligence claims and seeks compensatory and punitive damages that allegedly were the result of U.S. Steel's conduct that resulted in the fire and U.S. Steel's operations subsequent to the fire. The Company said, "We are actively defending this matter; however, it is too early to predict the ultimate outcome or estimate potential damages." United States Steel produces and sells flat-rolled and tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled (Flat-Rolled), U. S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products (Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. US STEEL: Underwriters Dropped as Defendants in Shareholder Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Plaintiffs in a consolidated shareholder class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has withdrawn the claims against the Defendants related to the Company's 2016 secondary public offering, which means that the underwriter defendants are no longer parties to the case. On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint was filed in Federal Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania consolidating previously-filed actions. Separately, four related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in State and Federal courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The underlying consolidated class action lawsuit alleges that U.S. Steel, certain current and former officers, an upper level manager of the Company and the financial underwriters who participated in the August 2016 secondary public offering of the Company's common stock (collectively, Defendants) violated federal securities laws in making false statements and/or failing to discover and disclose material information regarding the financial condition of the Company. The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27, 2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock dropped. The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against the same officers and also allege that certain current and former members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate control and oversight over the Company and were unjustly compensated. The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were allegedly sustained. The class action Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. On September 29, 2018 the Court ruled on those motions granting them in part and denying them in part. On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs withdrew the claims against the Defendants related to the 2016 secondary offering. Therefore, the underwriters are no longer parties to the case. The Company and the individual defendants are vigorously defending the remaining claims. United States Steel produces and sells flat-rolled and tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled (Flat-Rolled), U. S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products (Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. VACATIONS INTERNATIONAL CLUB: Williams Sues over Autodialed Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against the Vacations International Club, LLC (VCI) for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The case is captioned CLAYTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. VACATIONS INTERNATIONAL CLUB, LLC AND DOES 1 THRU 25 INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-1364-RMG (D.S.C., May 9, 2019). Plaintiff Clayton Williams alleges that VCI has repeatedly harassed him by telephone calls to their residential or cellular telephone lines using an automated dialing system to deliver messages concerning VCI vacation packages. Plaintiff Clayton Williams is one of the millions of consumers who have listed telephone numbers, including the number assigned to his cellular telephone, on the Do Not Call Registry. Nonetheless, he has received numerous telemarketing sales calls from one or more telephone call centers VCI. These calls were made to his cellular telephone without prior express consent. VCI is a South Carolina limited liability company, which at all relevant times to this action was engaged in conducting extensive business in the state of South Carolina. VCI sells its vacation timeshare packages through one or more telemarking service call centers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian M. Knowles, Esq. KNOWLES LAW FIRM, PC 768 St. Andrews Blvd., Charleston, SC 29407 P.O. Box 50201, Summerville, SC 29485 Telephone: 1 (843) 810-7596 Facsimile: 1 (877) 408-1078 E-mail: brian@knowlesinternational.com Website: www.knowlesinternational.com - and - Robert M. Turkewitz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. TURKEWITZ, LLC 768 St. Andrews Blvd., Charleston, SC 29412 Telephone: 1 (843) 628-7868 Facsimile: 1 (843) 277-1438 E-mail: rob@rmtlegal.com Website: www.rmtlegal.com - and - Steven M. Abrams, Esq. ABRAMS CYBER LAW & FORENSICS, LLC P.O. Box 305, Sullivans Island, SC 29482 Telephone: 1 (843) 216-1100 Facsimile: 1 (843) 278-5107 WAITR HOLDINGS: Bobbys Country Cookin' Sues over Service Fee ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Waitr Holdings, Inc. for breach of contract, a violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The case is captioned BOBBY'S COUNTRY COOKIN', LLC Plaintiff, v. WAITR HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00552-UDJ-KK (W.D. La., April 30, 2019). Plaintiff brings this action to challenge Waitr's breach of the form agreements it enters with its restaurant customers by charging more for its services than agreed. Waitr made a deal with Plaintiff and thousands of other restaurants: it would include them in its online ordering platform in exchange for a Service Transaction Fee of 10% of the order amounts placed on that platform. However, Waitr broke that agreement by unilaterally, unlawfully imposing a Service Transaction Fee of 15% of the order amounts. Bobby's Country Cookin', LLC is a small business that owns and operates a restaurant in Little Rock, Arkansas. Waitr is a large, publicly traded company which allows more than a million users to order food from thousands of restaurants across the United States in exchange for a delivery fee and driver tip that it charges users on each order.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adras Paul LaBorde, III, Esq. DUDLEY DEBOISER, PC 1075 Government Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 478-4122 Facsimile: (225) 478-4172 E-mail: PLaborde@dudleydebosier.com - and - Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq. Garrett Owens, Esq. PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC 2226 First Avenue South, Suite 105 Birmingham, AL 35223 Telephone: (205) 208-9588 Facsimile: (205) 208-9598 E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com garrett@pricearmstrong.com - and - John Rainwater, Esq. RAINWATER, HOLT & SEXTON, P.A. P.O. Box 17250 Little Rock, AR 72222 Telephone: (501) 868-2500 Facsimile: (501) 868-2508 E-mail: john@rainfirm.com WASHINGTON GAS: Still Defends Silver Spring Incident Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Washington Gas Light Company and majority-owned subsidiary WGL Holdings, Inc. (WGL) continue to defend themselves against lawsuits related to the August 2016 explosion and fire at an apartment complex on Arliss Street in Silver Spring, Maryland, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On April 23, 2019, the National Transportation Safety Board held a hearing during which it found, among other things, that the probable cause of the August 10, 2016, explosion and fire at an apartment complex on Arliss Street in Silver Spring, Maryland "was the failure of an indoor mercury service regulator with an unconnected vent line that allowed natural gas into the meter room where it accumulated and ignited from an unknown ignition source. Contributing to the accident was the location of the mercury service regulators where leak detection by odor was not readily available." Washington Gas disagrees with the NTSB's probable cause findings. A total of 40 civil actions related to the incident have been filed against WGL and Washington Gas in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. All cases have been consolidated for discovery purposes. All of these suits seek unspecified damages for personal injury and/or property damage. The one action seeking class action status has been amended to assert property damage and loss of use claims and is no longer seeking class status. The trial date for the civil actions has been scheduled for December 2, 2019. Washington Gas maintains excess liability insurance coverage from highly-rated insurers, subject to a nominal self-insured retention. Washington Gas believes that this coverage will be sufficient to cover any significant liability that may result from this incident. Given the early stage of the litigation, the outcome is not yet determinable and management is unable to make an estimate of any potential loss or range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring. As a result, management has not recorded a reserve associated with this incident. Washington Gas Light Company, a regulated public utility, sells and delivers natural gas to retail customers in the United States. As of November 3, 2018, it served approximately 1.1 million customers in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. The company was incorporated in 1848 and is based in Washington, the District of Columbia. Washington Gas Light Company is a subsidiary of WGL Holdings, Inc. WEIGHT WATCHERS: Securities Class Action Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Weight Watchers International, Inc. continues to face securities class action matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2019. In March 2019, two substantially identical class action complaints alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the Company's current officers and the Company's former controlling shareholder, Artal Group S.A., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. One complaint was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock and the other on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities, between May 4, 2018 and February 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaints allege that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed or recklessly disregarded material adverse facts. The complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the class members. The Company believes that the suits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them. On March 26, 2019, the Company received a shareholder litigation demand letter alleging breaches of fiduciary duties by certain current and former Company directors and executive officers, to the alleged injury of the Company. The allegations in the letter relate to those contained in the ongoing securities class action litigation. In response to the letter, pursuant to Virginia law, the Board of Directors is creating a special committee to review and evaluate the facts and circumstances surrounding the claims made in the demand letter. Weight Watchers International, Inc. (NYSE: WTW), provides weight management services worldwide. The Company was founded in 1961 and is headquartered in New York, New York. WELLCARE HEALTH: Merger Documents Misleading, Clarke Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against WellCare Health Plans, Inc and the members of the company's board of directors for their their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between WellCare and Centene Corporation. The case is captioned PATRICK CLARKE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC., CHRISTIAN P. MICHALIK, KENNETH A. BURDICK, WILLIAM L. TRUBECK, KEVIN F. HICKEY, PIYUSH JINDAL, DR. GLENN D. STEELE JR., H. JAMES DALLAS, PAUL E. WEAVER, KATHLEEN E. WALSH, RICHARD C. BREON, and AMY COMPTON-PHILLIPS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00873-UNA (D. Del., May 9, 2019). On May 3, 2019, in order to convince WellCare shareholders to vote in favor of the proposed merger, the company's board of directors authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The S-4 contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the financial projections for the WellCare. The materially incomplete and misleading financial projections undervalue the Company on a standalone basis. Indeed, even Centene appears to believe the WellCare is worth more than the merger consideration, as earlier in the bidding process Centene submitted an offer valued at $380 per share comprised of 55% cash and 45% Centene stock. WellCare is a managed care company that primarily focuses 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. The company also provides services to individuals in the Health Insurance Marketplace. As of Dec. 31, 2018, the company operated Medicaid health plans in 13 states, Medicare Advantage coordinated plans in 21 states, and stand-alone Medicare Prescription Drug Plans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com - and - Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com WELLS FARGO: Aug. 1 Derivative Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- IN RE WELLS FARGO & COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Lead Case No. 3:16-cv-05541-JST (N.D. Cal.) TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF WELLS FARGO & COMPANY COMMON STOCK AS OF FEBRUARY 26, 2019 (THE "RECORD DATE"), WHO CONTINUE TO OWN SUCH SHARES ("WELLS FARGO SHAREHOLDERS") YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, that pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, a hearing will be held on August 1, 2019, at 2 p.m., before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, for the purpose of determining whether the proposed settlement of the above captioned derivative action (the "Derivative Action"), with a total settlement value of $320 million (as described below), should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, and whether a judgment dismissing the Defendants (as identified in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")) from the Derivative Action with prejudice should be entered. As part of the hearing, the Court will consider an application by Co-Lead Counsel in the Derivative Action for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed $68 million and reimbursement awards for Co-Lead Plaintiffs to be paid from Co-Lead Counsel's attorneys' fees not to exceed $25,000. Because this is a shareholder derivative action brought for the benefit of Wells Fargo, no individual Wells Fargo shareholder has the right to receive any individual compensation as a result of the settlement of this action. The benefits to the Company of the proposed Settlement, which is subject to Court approval, include Monetary Consideration of $240 million in value. Wells Fargo also agrees and acknowledges that facts alleged in the Derivative Action were a significant factor in causing (i) certain corporate governance changes undertaken by Wells Fargo during the pendency of the Derivative Action (the "Corporate Governance Reforms") (see Stipulation Ex. A), which include improvement to Wells Fargo's internal controls, internal reporting, and expanded and enhanced oversight of risk management by Wells Fargo's Board of Directors; and (ii) certain remedial steps with respect to compensation reductions and forfeitures undertaken by Wells Fargo during the pendency of the Derivative Action (the "Clawbacks") (see Stipulation Ex. B). The Parties agreed that the Corporate Governance Reforms and the Clawbacks set forth in Exhibits A and B to the Stipulation have a value to Wells Fargo of $80 million, for a total Settlement value to Wells Fargo of $320 million, not including the Co-Lead Plaintiffs' counsel's fee award. IF YOU ARE AN OWNER OF WELLS FARGO COMMON STOCK, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT. A more detailed form of notice describing the Settlement has been published as a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, has been published on Wells Fargo's company website, and is also available, as is the Stipulation and other relevant documents, at wellsfargoderivativesettlement.com. More information is also available by calling 1-888-334-6164. Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed form of notice, may be made to a representative of Co-Lead Counsel. Should you have any other questions regarding the proposed Settlement or the Derivative Action, please contact Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs: LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Richard M. Heimann Katherine C. Lubin Michael K. Sheen 415-956-1000 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 rheimann@lchb.com SAXENA WHITE P.A. Maya Saxena Joseph E. White, III Lester R. Hooker 561-394-3399 150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600 Boca Raton, FL 33432 jwhite@saxenawhite.com Wells Fargo shareholders who have no objection to the Settlement do not need to appear at the final approval hearing or take any action. If you wish to object to any aspect of the Settlement, the Fee Application, the Reimbursement Awards, or the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal (as defined in the Stipulation), you must provide in writing your full name, appropriate proof of your Wells Fargo stock ownership as of the Record Date, the basis for your objection, and your signature. You may not ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the Settlement. You may also appear at the Settlement Hearing on August 1, 2019, either in person or through your own attorney. If you appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney. All written objections and supporting papers must: (a) clearly identify the case name and number (In re Wells Fargo & Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation, 3:16-cv-05541-JST (N.D. Cal.)); (b) be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36060, San Francisco, CA 94102, or by filing them in person at any location of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; and (c) be filed or postmarked on or before twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing. PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: May 14, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIS TOWERS: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that with regards to the motions to dismiss the amended complaint filed by City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund ('Fort Myers') and Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust ('Alaska') in a consolidated action, the Delaware Court of Chancery heard argument on the motions on April 11, 2019 and reserved judgment. On February 27, 2018 and March 8, 2018, two purported former stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson, City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund ('Fort Myers') and Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust ('Alaska'), filed putative class action complaints on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders against the former members of the Legacy Towers Watson board of directors, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy Willis and ValueAct, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132, and Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155, respectively. Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia action, the complaints assert claims against the former directors of Legacy Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary duty and against Legacy Willis and ValueAct for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. On March 9, 2018, Regents filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders against the Company, Legacy Willis, ValueAct, and Messrs. Haley, Casserley, and Ubben, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned The Regents of the University of California v. John J. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0166. Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia action, the complaint asserts claims against Mr. Haley for breach of fiduciary duty and against all other defendants for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Also on March 9, 2018, Regents filed a motion for consolidation of all pending and subsequently filed Delaware Court of Chancery actions, and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for the appointment of Bernstein as Lead Counsel for the putative class. On March 29, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska responded to Regents' motion and cross-moved for appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and for the appointment of their counsel, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel. On April 2, 2018, the court consolidated the Delaware Court of Chancery actions and all related actions subsequently filed in or transferred to the Delaware Court of Chancery. On June 5, 2018, the court denied Regents' motion for appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel and granted Fort Myers' and Alaska's cross-motion. On June 20, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska designated the complaint previously filed by Alaska (the 'Alaska Complaint') as the operative complaint in the consolidated action. On September 14, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Alaska Complaint. On October 31, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska filed an amended complaint, which, based on similar allegations, asserts claims against the former directors of legacy Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary duty and against ValueAct and Mr. Ubben for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. On January 11, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 29, 2019, the parties completed briefing on the motions. The court heard argument on the motions on April 11, 2019 and reserved judgment. Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan design, and administrative services for traditional pension and retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and administration services for health and group benefit programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London, England. WILLIS TOWERS: Awaits Ruling on Appeals from Stanford Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that with regards to the appeals from the approval of an agreement to settle lawsuits related to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group, the briefing is now completed and oral argument on the appeals was heard on December 3, 2018. The Company said that there is no date certain for when the appeals will be decided and that it will not make the US$120 million settlement payment unless and until the appeals are decided in its favor and the settlement is not subject to any further appeal. The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group ('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these actions generally allege that the defendants actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors. The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit. The 15 actions are as follows: * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeking damages in excess of US$1 billion, punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA'). On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green, Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland'). On August 31, 2011, the court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with prejudice under SLUSA. On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i) dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set forth in the Roland and (ii) dismissing without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment in the action. On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice, et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N, which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the Company's petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision. On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order. On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs' request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order; (b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20, 2015. On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle. * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085, was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML'). The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni. On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of US$1 billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice. * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than US$300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action, and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert. * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of US$5 million, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in the Troice action and the Janvey action. Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion. * Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors, individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than US$37 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court and denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague. * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately US$4 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague), which stipulation was 'so ordered' by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur. * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County), alleging violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of US$30 million; (2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of US$83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of US$3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of US$6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of US$12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward. On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria. On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015 and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or Barbar. On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by the court. * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of US$1 billion, punitive damages and costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford certificates of deposit is approximately US$4.6 billion. On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5 order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the December 5 order. On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20, 2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey scheduling order. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle. * Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages of less than US$100,000, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks damages in excess of US$1 million. The defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint in Martin. * Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:16-cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of US$135 million, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which, among other things, added several more Stanford investors as plaintiffs. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Abel. The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a US$70 million litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of factors as required by accounting standards. On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle for US$120 million relating to this litigation, and increased its provisions by US$50 million during that quarter. The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford, which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of these matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Settlement. On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to the Stanford litigation matter. The Company agreed to the Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense and uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, the settlement and the related bar orders, if upheld through any appeals, would enable the Company (a newly-combined firm) to conduct itself with the bar orders' protection from the continued overhang of matters alleged to have occurred approximately a decade ago. Further, the Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties understood and agreed that there is no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company. The Company expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford litigation. On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed a formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet. The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Ralph S. Janvey (in his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Receiver') for The Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively, 'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the Willis associate (collectively, 'Defendants'), on the other hand. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the 'Actions') and all current or future claims arising from or related to Stanford in exchange for a one-time cash payment to the Receiver by the Company of US$120 million to be distributed to all Stanford investors who have claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to the distribution plan in place at the time the payment is made. The Settlement Agreement also provides the parties' agreement to seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not. The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all Stanford-related litigation, and not just the Actions, but including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders is a condition of the settlement. On September 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion to approve the settlement. On October 19, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. Several of the plaintiffs in the other actions objected to the settlement, and a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement was held on January 20, 2017, after which the Court reserved decision. On August 23, 2017, the Court approved the settlement, including the bar orders. Several of the objectors appealed the settlement approval and bar orders to the Fifth Circuit. The briefing related to the appeals is now completed and oral argument on the appeals was heard on December 3, 2018. There is no date certain for when the appeals will be decided. The Company will not make the US$120 million settlement payment unless and until the appeals are decided in its favor and the settlement is not subject to any further appeal. Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan design, and administrative services for traditional pension and retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and administration services for health and group benefit programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London, England. WILLIS TOWERS: UC Regents' Appeal in Securities Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ An appeal taken by Lead Plaintiff Regents of the University of California from a court order dismissing a merger-related securities class action lawsuit remains pending, according to Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management ('ValueAct'), and certain current and former directors and officers of Legacy Towers Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley, Dominic Casserley, and Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint asserted claims against certain defendants under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 'Exchange Act') for allegedly false and misleading statements in the proxy statement for the Merger; and against other defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged 'control person' liability with respect to such allegedly false and misleading statements. The complaint further contended that the allegedly false and misleading statements caused stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson to accept inadequate Merger consideration. The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount. On February 20, 2018, the court appointed the Regents of the University of California ('Regents') as Lead Plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP ('Bernstein') as Lead Counsel for the putative class, consolidated all subsequently filed, removed, or transferred actions, and captioned the consolidated action 'In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy Litigation,' Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA. On March 9, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On April 13, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and, on July 11, 2018, following briefing and argument, the court granted the motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety. On July 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the court's July 11, 2018 dismissal order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and, on December 6, 2018, the parties completed briefing on the appeal. The appeal was scheduled to be argued on May 8, 2019. Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan design, and administrative services for traditional pension and retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and administration services for health and group benefit programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London, England. WISCONSIN: ACLU's Class Action Seeks Parole Opportunities --------------------------------------------------------- Ed Treleven, writing for Lacrosse Tribune, reports that Wisconsin's parole system violates the U.S. Constitution by effectively creating life-without-parole sentences for people who committed heinous crimes as juveniles, and they should instead be offered meaningful opportunities for release by demonstrating maturity and rehabilitation, according to a federal class-action lawsuit filed on April 30 by the American Civil Liberties Union. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Madison, contends that the state parole system "fails to provide this meaningful opportunity; thus, by ostensibly creating a life-without-parole sentence, it violates the U.S. Constitution." The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU Foundation of Wisconsin and lawyers from Quarles & Brady and Foley & Lardner, along with two other lawyers, on behalf of five men who were all convicted as teen-agers of first-degree intentional homicide or attempted first-degree intentional homicide and have been denied parole multiple times. The lawsuit does not ask that their convictions be overturned or invalidated. Instead, plaintiffs are asking that the state Parole Commission give the men "a meaningful opportunity to obtain release as of their parole eligibility date, based on the constitutionally mandated standard of demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." Only a "minuscule" number of parole-eligible juvenile lifers -- fewer than six out of more than 120 -- have been paroled during the past 15 years, the lawsuit states. "Wisconsin's parole system unnecessarily keeps people behind bars who are no longer the impulsive children who committed serious crimes, but are mature, reformed adults with real contributions to make to their families and their communities," Larry Dupuis, legal director for the ACLU of Wisconsin, said in a statement. "The constitution requires that they be given a chance at redemption in the free world." The U.S. Supreme Court, the lawsuit contends, "has held that it is unconstitutional to sentence juveniles, even those who commit heinous crimes, to life without parole, except for the 'rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.'" Absent that finding, states must offer those who committed crimes as juveniles a "meaningful opportunity" to seek release "based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." Members of the Wisconsin Parole Commission and the state Department of Corrections, the lawsuit states, "consistently deny release on parole to juvenile lifers who demonstrate unmistakable maturity, rehabilitation and reform, and a low risk to public safety, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." According to the lawsuit, the state Parole Commission also violates the Sixth Amendment by relying on facts that were not vetted by a jury or admitted by the defendants at the time of their convictions. Two of the plaintiffs committed first-degree intentional homicide at age 14. One of them, Thaddeus Karow, who was convicted in Winnebago County, was at the time of his trial in 1988 the youngest person to be tried as an adult in Wisconsin history. He has been denied parole six times. Defendants in the case include the three-member state Parole Commission, along with Kevin Carr, secretary-designee of the DOC, and Mark Heise, director of DOC's Bureau of Classification and Movement. A DOC spokeswoman said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. The lawsuit cites scientific studies noting differences between children and adults and showing children's culpability is diminished. Lack of maturity, studies show, "often results in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions" leading to reckless behavior. The U.S. Supreme Court, recognizing those differences, the lawsuit argues, have set limits on the punishment that can be imposed on children, even for very serious crimes, because they have "diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform." Sentencing a child to life without parole is unconstitutionally excessive, the court's rulings have concluded. In Wisconsin, children as young as 10 are required to be tried as adults for first-degree intentional homicide. And while the Wisconsin courts are required to impose life sentences for first-degree intentional homicide, the lawsuit states, those sentenced prior to the start of the state's "truth in sentencing" law in 2000 are eligible for parole consideration by the Parole Commission. For those convicted after 2000, circuit court judges are supposed to decide whether to release them on extended supervision. For those who face the Parole Commission, the lawsuit charges that the commission doesn't base its release decisions on whether those convicted have matured and been rehabilitated and present a low risk to society. "Instead, the Commission denies parole despite clear records and explicit findings of rehabilitation and maturation on the grounds that, in their subjective judgment, release would 'depreciate the seriousness of the crime' or simply that, often in the view of a single commissioner, parole applicant needs to serve 'more time' in prison," the lawsuit states. [GN] WYNDHAM HOTEL GROUP: Kang Says Website Not Accessible ----------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Wyndham Hotel Group, LLC for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is captioned JACK KANG, an individual, Plaintiff v. WYNDHAM HOTEL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-11753 (D.N.J., April 29, 2019). Plaintiff Jack Kang alleges that Wyndham Hotel failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by him and other blind or visually-impaired people. He further claims that the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the website is a violation of his civil rights under the ADA. Wyndham Hotel is a corporation, incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. The company operates hotel and resort destinations and online reservations locations. It maintains its commercial website, https://www.wyndhamhotel.com, to the public. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stamatios Stamoulis, Esq. STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC 800 N. West Street, Third Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 999-1540 E-mail: stamoulis@swdelaw.com - and - Yvette J. Harrell, Esq. LEGAL JUSTICE ADVOCATES, LLP 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 290-6671 E-mail: yh@legaljusticeadvocates.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 347 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- AK Steel Holding Corporation had 347 asbestos-related cases pending at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "...[S]ince 1990 we have been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of one of our current or former facilities. The majority of asbestos cases pending in which we are a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for damages. In the cases that do include specific dollar claims for damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal amount for punitive damages, but does not attempt to allocate the total monetary claim among the various defendants. "Since the onset of asbestos claims against us in 1990, five asbestos claims against us have proceeded to trial in four separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in our favor. We continue to vigorously defend the asbestos claims. Based upon present knowledge, and the factors, we believe it is unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against us will have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. However, predictions about the outcome of pending litigation, particularly claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial uncertainties. These uncertainties include (1) the significantly variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically defending asbestos claims, (3) the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, (4) the type and severity of the disease each claimant is alleged to suffer, and (5) the potential for enactment of legislation affecting asbestos litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/NDJZkY ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 59 Cases at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. still faces 59 asbestos cases pending as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended: March 31, 2019. Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are pending in Illinois state courts. There were 59 asbestos cases pending as of March 31, 2019. "Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. As of March 31, 2019, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount related to pending claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/8fQKyY ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankruptcy Court Confirms Maremont Plan -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kevin Carey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on May 17 issued a findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order confirming the joint prepackaged Chapter 11 plan of reorganization of Maremont Corp. and its debtor affiliates. Prior to the plan confirmation hearing, Judge Carey said he will sign off on the former auto parts' Chapter 11 plan once some final details are in place to protect an asbestos claims trust from potentially fraudulent claims, according to Law360. During a brief hearing in Wilmington, Judge Carey, who had raised concerns in March about whether an asbestos claims trust set up as part of the bankruptcy had enough fraud safeguards in place, said that revisions to the trust's fund distribution procedures have addressed the red flags, Law360 reported. A copy of Judge Carey's Plan Confirmation Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxaan3o3 from Donlin Recano at no charge. A blacklined version of the Modified Plan is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyrh7dsc from Donlin Recano at no charge. A blacklined version of the PI Trust Distribution Procedure is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx9l529r from Donlin Recano at no charge. The Debtors are represented by James F. Conlan, Esq., Andrew F. O'Neill, Esq., Allison Ross Stromberg, Esq., and Blair M. Warner, Esq., at Sidley Austin LLP, in Chicago, Illinois; and Norman L. Pernick, Esq., and J. Kate Stickles, Esq., at Cole Schotz P.C., in Wilmington, Delaware. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Busch Case to Impact Maryland Product ID Standard ------------------------------------------------------------------ Taylor M. McAuliffe, Esq. -- tmcauliffe@milesstockbridge.com -- at Miles & Stockbridge, wrote that on March 4, 2019, the Court of Appeals of Maryland heard oral argument on an appeal from a $7.28 million jury verdict in favor of Plaintiffs William Busch and his wife Kathleen against the asbestos settlement trust established by Wallace & Gale (W&G). Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Tr. v. Busch, 238 Md. App. 695, cert. granted, 462 Md. 84 (2018). In the absence of any direct evidence that W&G used asbestos-containing products at the construction site at issue, the Baltimore County Circuit Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient for the case to go to the jury. Mr. Busch brought suit against seven different defendants claiming exposure to their asbestos-containing products caused his mesothelioma. With respect to W&G, Mr. Busch alleged that he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials installed by W&G at Loch Raven High School in Baltimore County. In 1972, for a total of three to four months, Mr. Busch worked on the construction of Loch Raven -- mostly in the boiler room. Mr. Busch introduced evidence that the sawing of magnesia insulation blocks in the boiler room contributed to his mesothelioma. W&G sold and installed insulation products, and at trial, evidence was presented that W&G performed a significant amount of construction work at Loch Raven, including insulation work. The only evidence connecting W&G to the boiler room was a partial billing statement for work performed to insulate fire lines with "foamglass" insulation, which does not contain asbestos. While W&G acknowledged that it performed insulation work at Loch Raven, it contended that there was no evidence that W&G insulators worked with any asbestos-containing products at the high school. Indeed, no direct evidence was ever produced at trial connecting W&G to any asbestos-containing insulation installed at the high school. In fact, Mr. Busch testified that he had no recollection of which company installed the insulation in the boiler room, and two of Mr. Busch's fact-witnesses testified that a company other than W&G installed the insulation in the boiler room. Despite the lack of any direct evidence that W&G installed the asbestos-containing insulation blocks in the boiler room, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Busch. On appeal, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals considered whether the Circuit Court erred by denying W&G's motion and renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law based on insufficient evidence to support a rational inference of causation. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed and saw this as a product identification issue -- whether the evidence was sufficient to support an inference that W&G installed asbestos containing magnesia block in the boiler room at Loch Raven. The Court held that although the evidence was "slight," it was "sufficient to allow the case to go to the jury." The Court determined that a reasonable fact finder could have found that, more likely than not, W&G was the primary or only insulator at Loch Raven at the time, and therefore W&G installed the asbestos-containing magnesia block in the boiler room. This case is now pending in the Maryland Court of Appeals. A decision in this case will impact the product identification standard in Maryland asbestos cases. If the Court of Appeals affirms, a plaintiff could get his or her case to a jury with only the slightest evidence connecting the plaintiff's asbestos exposure to the defendant's product. Alternatively, a reversal would protect manufacturers from the risk of a multi-million-dollar jury verdict based on circumstantial evidence and merely an inference of product identification. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Not Obligated to Contribute to Asbestos Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reported that Chubb Ltd. is not obligated to contribute to a $1.5 million asbestos settlement on Anheuser-Busch LLC's behalf because of a pollution exclusion in its coverage, said a federal court, in ruling against a Zurich Insurance Group Ltd. unit. Zurich American Insurance Co. provided coverage to St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch for personal injury liability and excess liability coverage from July 1972 until July 1980, when Insurance Co. of North America, now part of Chubb, began insuring the company for bodily injury liability for the next 17 consecutive years, according to Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. District Court in St. Louis in Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, et al. In 2008, the estate of the wife of a former Anheuser-Busch employee filed a wrongful death suit against the company, contending her husband allegedly carried asbestos and asbestos dust from the company brewery where he worked, and she "inhaled and ingested" these asbestos dust particles and fibers when she came into contact with her husband and while laundering his work clothes, according to the ruling. Zurich agreed to defend Anheuser-Busch in the case subject to a reservation of rights to seek contribution for the periods insured after 1980. The case was settled in 2014 for $1.5 million. Zurich filed suit against INA seeking a contribution to the settlement in district court, and both insurers filed motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether INA was obligated to contribute to the $1.5 million settlement as well as $79,298 in defense costs. The court ruled in INA's favor, based on its policy's pollution exclusion even though Zurich contended the exclusion does not "expressly or clearly include asbestos." INA contends its pollution exclusion bars coverage because it involved "an irritant, contaminant, and/or pollution which 'discharge(d), dispers(ed), release(d) or escape(d) into 'the atmosphere' thereby injuring the underlying decedent," said the ruling. The court agreed. "There is no ambiguity in the terms of the policy, which plainly bars coverage for the types of asbestos claims" raised in the case, said the ruling. Zurich's attorney had no comment while Chubb's attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A federal appeals court upheld dismissal of litigation filed against Liberty Mutual Insurance Group based on a policy pollution exclusion, after agreeing with the lower court that the testimony of the plaintiff's expert witness should be excluded. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Has $113MM Unfavorable Development ----------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corporation recognized a net unfavorable prior year development of US$113 million before consideration of cessions to the Loss Portfolio Transfer (LPT) for the three months ended March 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "Based upon the Company's 2018 first quarter A&EP reserve review, net unfavorable prior year development of US$113 million was recognized before consideration of cessions to the LPT for the three months ended March 31, 2018. The 2018 unfavorable development was driven by higher than anticipated defense costs on direct asbestos and environmental accounts and paid losses on assumed reinsurance exposures. Additionally, in 2018, the Company released a portion of its provision for uncollectible third-party reinsurance. "As of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the cumulative amounts ceded under the LPT were US$3.1 billion. The unrecognized deferred retroactive reinsurance benefit was US$352 million and US$374 million as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018 and is included within Other liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. "NICO established a collateral trust account as security for its obligations to the Company. The fair value of the collateral trust account was US$3.0 billion and US$2.7 billion as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018. In addition, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. guaranteed the payment obligations of NICO up to the aggregate reinsurance limit as well as certain of NICO's performance obligations under the trust agreement. NICO is responsible for claims handling and billing and collection from third-party reinsurers related to the majority of the Company's A&EP claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/ewzjEs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $292MM Accrual at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had an accrual of US$292 million for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is included in the Company's estimated liability as of March 31, 2019. "As of March 31, 2019, the Company's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$292 million, including US$244 million for unasserted claims. The Company determines its accrual without limitation to a specific time period. "It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess of the Company's accrual. However, the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was not specified for approximately 81% of the claims outstanding at the end of 2018), the Company and claimant's willingness to negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions, where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are filed)." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/7FzvSl ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. remains a defendant in asbestos-related lawsuits pending in Louisiana state courts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "We are one of several unrelated defendants in lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard our drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits. We believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in the lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation. We are unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time but do not believe that our ultimate liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/TIYdnD ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Upholds $33MM Award for Widow ------------------------------------------------------------- Mesothelioma.net reported that Ann Finch lost her husband Franklin to malignant mesothelioma in January of 2017, just months after he had been diagnosed with the rare and fatal form of cancer. In October a North Carolina federal jury awarded her $32.7 million in damages, assigning blame to Covil Corporation, a pipe insulation company that had sold all of the insulation used in the construction of the tire plant where Finch worked for years. Though Covil filed a motion for a new trial on damages in the case, a district court ruled against the manufacturer, telling them that they owed the amount that the jury awarded the widow. Covil Corporation argued that they should not be held responsible for Mr. Finch's malignant mesothelioma during the jury trial, then after they lost at that point they argued that the jury's verdict was excessive and that the widow had not presented enough evidence to support the verdict. Upon reviewing the case, the U.S. District Court disagreed, making note of the asbestos victim's significant suffering in the months before his death: Mr. Finch endured months of being hospitalized, underwent numerous surgeries and experienced multiple painful complications. The court also pointed out that Civil had ample opportunity to make counterpoints during the original trial, and that the widow had presented a good deal of evidence that Covil was well aware of the dangers of asbestos prior to starting to sell it to the tire factory, but sold it anyway, without warnings. According to testimony provided at trial, Franklin Finch's mesothelioma diagnosis came after twenty years working at the tire plant as a mold changer. In the course of his duties he worked in close proximity to insulated steam pipes supplied by Covil that fed the tire presses. Despite knowing that the pipes were insulated with asbestos and exposed Mr. Fitch and countless others to potential harm, the company failed to provide any warning or protection to those at risk of exposure. Upon review of the original case, the court determined that extensive direct and circumstantial evidence had shown that Covil sold the products to the tire factory at a time when it either knew or should have known of its dangers. They also determined that asbestos from the pipes was the cause of Mr. Fitch???s death, remarking on his close proximity to the pipes, the fact that whenever he bumped into them a cloud of asbestos dust would rise, and that the factory had high concentrations of airborne asbestos fibers. It is unfortunate that profit motive was behind so many mesothelioma deaths. If you or someone you love has been affected by this tragic disease and you need information about the resources available to you, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net today at 1-800-692-8608. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- Eaton Corporation plc said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that it remains subject to claims from historic products which may have contained asbestos. The Company states, "Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims, administrative and legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement, personal injuries, antitrust matters, and employment-related matters. Eaton is also subject to asbestos claims from historic products which may have contained asbestos. Insurance may cover some of the costs associated with these claims and proceedings. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/pzMVUR ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Can't Escape Mechanic's Claims Under La. Law ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reported that a Louisiana federal judge denied Ford Motor Co.'s motion to dismiss all wrongful death claims by the family of a former mechanic who say the auto giant caused his fatal mesothelioma, finding that, with just one exception, the claims are not barred by the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act. U.S. District Judge Sarah S. Vance found that the family of mechanic Victor Michel is barred only from making claims of wrongful death under the theory of employer liability, as the LWCA prevents in that instance. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Saw Doctor Dies from Asbestos Exposure -------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Pridding, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a Burton granddad who once worked as a 'saw doctor' repairing and servicing saws which were used to cut asbestos died from being exposed to the dust, a coroner has ruled. Horace Orton was 83 when he died at his home in Central Way, Burton, on March 16, 2019. An inquest held into the death held on Wednesday, May 15, heard that Mr Orton had got an apprenticeship working as a saw doctor as a teenager. In this job, he would repair and sharpen industrial saws from various factories across the area. Some of these saws had been used to cut asbestos and many still had dust on them when Mr Orton was given them to repair. This is believed to have caused a cancer called mesothelioma, a condition that can take decades for symptoms to develop. According to the NHS, mesothelioma is "almost always" caused by exposure to asbestos, a substance made of microscopic fibres that used to be widely used in construction. These tiny fibres can easily get in the lungs, where they get stuck and gradually damage the lungs over time. The use of asbestos was banned in the UK in 1999, so the risk of exposure is much lower nowadays. However, materials containing asbestos can still be found in many older buildings. In Mr Orton's case, it was said at the the hearing that he had begun to feel unwell towards the end of last year, and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January. He received palliative care at home, as the condition itself is untreatable. South Staffordshire Coroner Andrew Haigh said: "Mr Orton did an unusual job as a saw doctor, in which, he came into contact with asbestos dust after working with saws that had been used to cut asbestos. "In later years, he went on to perform another role and there is no evidence of him coming into contact at any other point in his working life, or outside of work. "I am confident that his death has occurred due to him being exposed to asbestos during his working life." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler On Hook for $2.25MM Asbestos Award ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reported that a Louisiana appellate panel upheld a $2.25 million award in a suit accusing engineering firm Foster Wheeler and others of subjecting a woman to secondhand asbestos exposure that caused her cancer, saying the verdict was supported by the evidence. A three-judge Court of Appeal panel affirmed a jury verdict in favor of Lynda Berry in a suit accusing Foster Wheeler LLC, asbestos supplier J. Graves Insulation Co., and several other companies of causing her mesothelioma, which resulted from decades of inhaling asbestos fibers her paper mill worker husband brought home on his clothes, which she handled and washed daily. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $105.2MM Reserve at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. had total litigation reserve of US$105.2 million as of March 31, 2019, with regards to potential liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. Gardner Denver states, "The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the Company is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants. "Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and silica-related lawsuits (the "Products"). However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if any, were enclosed within the subject Products. "Although the Company has never mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand nor sold products that could result in a direct asbestos or silica exposure, many of the companies that did engage in such activities or produced such products are no longer in operation. This has led to law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name in lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related injury. "The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from the Products; the Company's experience that the vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the Products or for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility; various potential defenses available to the Company with respect to such matters; and the Company's prior disposition of comparable matters. However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future developments, including, without limitation, potential insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants, an adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability to collect from the Company's historical insurers or indemnitors, could cause a different outcome. While the outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that the amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. "Accrued liabilities" and "Other liabilities" of the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets include a total litigation reserve of US$105.2 million and US$105.8 million as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively, with regards to potential liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation. Asbestos related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos claims liability and are recorded separately as services are incurred. In the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operation or liquidity. "The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits filed against the Company. The Company has also pursued litigation against certain insurers or indemnitors, where necessary. The Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$102.9 million and US$103.0 million as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively, which was included in "Other assets" of the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. "The largest such recent action, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9, 2010, in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as case number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case"). In the lawsuit, the Company seeks, among other things, to require certain excess insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Company. In October 2011, the Company reached a settlement with one of the insurer defendants, which had issued both primary and excess policies, for approximately the amount of such defendant's policies that were subject to the lawsuit. Since then, the case has been proceeding through the discovery and motions process with the remaining insurer defendants. On January 29, 2016, the Company prevailed on the first phase of that discovery and motions process ("Phase I"). Specifically, the Court in the Adams County Case ruled that the Company has rights under all of the policies in the case, subject to their terms and conditions, even though the policies were sold to the Company's former owners rather than to the Company itself. On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by several of the insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I ruling immediately rather than waiting until the end of the whole case as is normally required. The case is now proceeding through the discovery process regarding the remaining issues in dispute ("Phase II"). "A majority of the Company's expected future recoveries of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject of the Adams County Case. "The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently available information and assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. The actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the assumptions. There are a number of key variables and assumptions including the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the resolution or outcome of these claims, the average cost of resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available, allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom the Company has reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom the Company has not yet achieved settlements, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect the future liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal legislation. The Company makes the necessary adjustments for the asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries on an annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant assessment as of an interim date." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/jGTfhN ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Faces Pushback in Bid for Victims' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reported that an asbestos settlement trust and three insurance claims processors are asking a New York bankruptcy court to limit discovery demands from Rapid-American Corp. insurance carrier National Union, saying its demands are excessive by orders of magnitude. The Western Asbestos Settlement Trust and the three claims processors said in a motion that National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh only needs files on no more than a few thousand of the more than 242,000 asbestos claimants they are seeking information on in their dispute over whether Rapid exhausted their coverage on asbestos claims. The adversary proceeding is captioned RAPID-AMERICAN CORPORATION, THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS, AND LAWRENCE FITZPATRICK, THE FUTURE CLAIMANTS' REPRESENTATIVE, Plaintiffs, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Defendants, Adv. No. 15-01095 (SMB) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) Rapid-American Corporation, The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, and Lawrence Fitzpatrick, The Future Claimant's Representative, Plaintiff, represented by Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith LLP, Michael B. Rush -- rushm@gotofirm.com -- Gilbert LLP & Paul M. Singer -- psinger@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Plaintiff, represented by Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith LLP, Elihu Inselbuch -- einselbuch@capdale.com -- Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered & Michael B. Rush, Gilbert LLP. Lawrence Fitzpatrick, Future Claimants' Representative, Plaintiff, represented by Michael B. Rush, Gilbert LLP. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company & The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Defendants, represented by Barbara M. Almeida --barbara.almeida@clydeco.us -- Clyde & Co US LLP & Daren S. McNally -- daren.mcnally@clydeco.us -- Clyde & Co US LLP. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Defendant, represented by Barbara M. Almeida, Clyde & Co US LLP, James R. Bradford -- james.braford@mendes.com -- Mendes & Mount, LLP, David Christian -- dchristian@dca.law -- David Christian Attorneys LLC & Britt A. Eilhardt, Mendes & Mount, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Win for Pep Boys Upheld in Exposure Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reported that Pep Boys successfully defended its trial win in a case alleging it negligently sold asbestos-containing auto parts to a California couple who died of mesothelioma. A jury verdict in favor of the auto parts retailer, the full name of which is Pep Boys -- Manny, Moe & Jack, will stand in a wrongful death action brought by the children of Philip and Febi Mettias, the California Court of Appeals said in an unpublished May 14 ruling. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Jury Awards $25MM Verdict in J&J Talc Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reported that a New York jury found Johnson & Johnson responsible for a woman's mesothelioma and awarded $25 million plus punitive damages on the same day a South Carolina jury found no talc in J&J's cosmetic talc-based products. The Richland County verdict came on the same day a New York City jury ordered J&J to pay $25 million in compensatory damages in another cosmetic talc case, leaving the door open for potential additional punitive damages pending further deliberations. That case is believed to be the first involving J&J's cosmetic talc products to go to trial in New York, David Siegel, writing for Courtroom View Network, reported. CNV further reported that J&J spokesperson Kim Montagnino attributed the trial outcomes to the South Carolina jury hearing evidence related to the viability of testing methods employed by a key plaintiff expert in both cases, Dr. William Longo. J&J argued Longo failed to disclose that samples of talc he tested were not randomly collected, but instead were provided by a relative of an attorney representing plaintiffs in talc litigation. "Unlike a similar case in New York where the jury did not hear critical information regarding false testimony by the plaintiff's central testing expert, this South Carolina jury heard that information and unanimously concluded that Johnson's Baby Powder does not contain asbestos and was not the cause of the plaintiff's disease," Montagnino said in an email. "This is the fifth verdict in favor of Johnson & Johnson in recent months, and the two cases finding in favor of the plaintiff this year have suffered significant evidentiary errors which we believe will warrant reversal on appeal." John O'Brien at Legal Newsline said lawyers at Levy Konigsberg successfully fended off this strategy in the NYC case, claiming Longo did not know of the connection until March of this year. "Not only has J&J thoroughly examined Dr. Longo about these samples and his testing of them, J&J has had a full and fair opportunity to examine the samples. Despite ample opportunity to produce new evidence that the samples were compromised, J&J has not done so," they wrote. Longo has admitted that he has made more than $30 million through the years by offering mostly pro-plaintiff testimony. Longo also testified he hadn't tested for asbestos in cosmetic talc before 2017 when he had actually tested some earlier this century and found it didn't contain asbestos, J&J claims. HarrisMartin reported that the New York Supreme Court for New York County jury reached the verdict just moments ago after three days of deliberations, sources told HarrisMartin. The jury's "yes" answer as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to punitive damages has triggered a second phase of trial, sources added. ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites Kansas Contractors for Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Construction & Demolition Rcycling reported that an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has found that Belfor Property Restoration and subcontractor Custom Crushing & Company -- both based in Kansas City, Missouri -- failed to comply with OSHA's asbestos removal standards while performing rehabilitation work at Kansas State University's Hale Library in Manhattan, Kansas. Custom Crushing & Company faces $193,596 in proposed penalties, and Belfor Property Restoration faces proposed penalties totaling $39,780. OSHA cited Custom Crushing & Company for 23 serious health violations, including exposing employees to asbestos and failing to: provide respiratory protection and personal protective clothing; develop a written hazard communication program; train workers on asbestos hazards; properly dispose of material and waste containing asbestos; and conduct medical surveillance for employees exposed to health hazards. OSHA cited Belfor Property Restoration for three serious violations after determining asbestos abatement on the project did not comply with OSHA standards. Inspectors also determined that the company failed to inform the building's owner and other employees of the location and quantity of presumed asbestos-containing material. "Asbestos is a well-known health hazard that can cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and other life-threatening illnesses," says OSHA Wichita Area Director Ryan Hodge. "Employers working in the restoration industry are required to remediate asbestos hazards to ensure workers are adequately protected." Both companies have 15 business days from receipt of the citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. See citations issued to Custom Crushing here and Belfor here. ASBESTOS UPDATE: San Diego Firefighters File Asbestos Exposure Docs ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Garrick, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reported that hundreds of San Diego firefighters are filing documents establishing their right to financial compensation for cancer caused by asbestos, a potentially dangerous building material discovered last year throughout the city's fire training facility. Firefighters unwittingly exposed themselves to asbestos for nearly two decades at the training facility near San Diego International Airport, leaders of the city's firefighters union said. While no active or retired firefighters have been diagnosed with asbestos-related cancer, the documents establish -- in case anyone does get sick -- that firefighters spent hundreds of hours training in a facility with exposed asbestos. "It's not a lawsuit or a claim, it's just simply a form that all employees can submit to risk management saying that they had some type of minor injury or exposure," said Jesse Connor, union president. "It basically preserves their right, so if anything happens in the future, they can point back to this minor injury report and say, ???It's because I had 20-plus years of exposure,'" he said by phone this week. "But unless they come down with something, it essentially just lives in a file. There's no monetary exchange." Connor said he believes nearly all of the city's 908 firefighters have filed such reports since the exposed asbestos was discovered last summer in the training facility, which the city acquired from the U.S. Navy. Because the problem stretches back to when the city established the training facility in the late 1990s, Connor said union officials have also encouraged retired firefighters who trained there to file the same documents. "If you had an exposure in that 20-plus years, then you could potentially be eligible for some type of recovery if you come down with symptoms," he said. "We've done the best that we can to notice the retired folks who are in touch with other firefighters. But when people retire, you kind of lose touch with them because they sometimes move away and become hard to get a hold of." Connor said the problem stems from the training activities conducted at the facility, which spans four buildings constructed between 1954 and 1967 just south of the airport as part of the Naval Training Center. The asbestos was undisturbed within walls, floor tiles and insulation during the years the Navy controlled the buildings, but the firefighter training activities began disturbing the dangerous, fibrous material. "The problem started when firefighters began doing destructive training in those buildings," Connor said. "Obviously we have an inherently dangerous job and have to participate in training where we breach walls and breach doors, and it wasn't well known which areas had the asbestos." Asbestos has been linked to lung cancer and mesothelioma, a cancer occurring in tissue surrounding internal organs. The federal government banned new construction using asbestos in 1989. Complaints from firefighters prompted the city to cease training exercises in the affected buildings last summer, Connor said. The city recently completed $210,000 in asbestos abatement and clean-up work on buildings the Fire-Rescue Department plans to continue using for firefighter training, department spokeswoman Monica Munoz said by email on Thursday. Some other buildings where no future training is planned have been closed and permanently secured, she said. The closures and abatement work didn't force the city to relocate training away from the site next to the airport, but a few training activities were relocated to different areas of the property, she said. "The health and safety of our employees remains a top priority," Fire-Rescue Chief Colin Stowell said in an emailed statement. "The city of San Diego has completed the required abatement work at NTC in the areas we occupy and use for training, and we will continue to restrict all access to areas not abated or cleaned." City Councilman Chris Cate of Mira Mesa said by phone on Thursday that the problems at the site should accelerate city efforts to establish a modern training facility, possibly for both firefighters and police officers. "As a city we've been making the best of what we have," Cate said. "I don't think it was ever meant to be a long-term training facility for fire given the conditions there and long-term neighborhood development that was going to be occurring." Cate said the city has handled facilities for public safety training in the same shortsighted way it's handled other infrastructure challenges in recent decades, that is, instead of focusing on long-term solutions that might be more expensive, city officials have opted for cheaper fixes that come with problems. "My hope is the city can begin a serious conversation about a long-term option for a training site," he said, suggesting available land on Copley Drive in Kearny Mesa could be an option. Councilman Chris Ward of University Heights agreed that proper facilities for firefighter training should be a priority. "The city of San Diego has a responsibility to ensure first responders have access to the equipment, training and facilities they need to protect our communities," Ward said in a statement. "We depend on the men and women of Fire-Rescue to run into danger every day. They need to be able to depend on us as well." The city acquired the NTC land as part of a federal Base Realignment and Closure effort that led to several military bases being decommissioned. In addition to the site near the airport where firefighters now train, the NTC site also included the land where the Liberty Station mixed-use development is located. ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Jury Finds No Asbestos in J&J Baby Powder ------------------------------------------------------------- A jury in a South Carolina state court unanimously rejected claims that asbestos is present in Johnson & Johnson's cosmetic talc products causing a woman to develop a rare and fatal form of cancer, David Siegel, writing for Courtroom View Network, reported. Jurors deliberated for less than two hours before returning a verdict in favor of J&J. The case marks the third cosmetic talc-related lawsuit to go to trial in South Carolina. The previous two trials, both stemming from the same lawsuit, ended in mistrials. Attorneys for plaintiff Beth-Anee Johnson claimed that inhalation and ingestion of asbestos allegedly present in Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder going as far back as the 1960's caused her to develop peritoneal mesothelioma. However J&J successfully argued that Johnson's form of mesothelioma is naturally occurring. They relied on medical tests showing no asbestos present in Johnson's lungs, which the company maintained would be impossible if the asbestos also made it to her peritoneum, which lines the abdominal cavity. J&J spokesperson Kim Montagnino attributed the trial outcomes to the South Carolina jury hearing evidence related to the viability of testing methods employed by a key plaintiff expert in both cases, Dr. William Longo. J&J argued Longo failed to disclose that samples of talc he tested were not randomly collected, but instead were provided by a relative of an attorney representing plaintiffs in talc litigation. "Unlike a similar case in New York where the jury did not hear critical information regarding false testimony by the plaintiff's central testing expert, this South Carolina jury heard that information and unanimously concluded that Johnson's Baby Powder does not contain asbestos and was not the cause of the plaintiff's disease," Montagnino said in an email. "This is the fifth verdict in favor of Johnson & Johnson in recent months, and the two cases finding in favor of the plaintiff this year have suffered significant evidentiary errors which we believe will warrant reversal on appeal." Johnson's attorneys Nate Finch and Christopher Swett of Motley Rice LLC said in a statement that they would continue to push talc cases to trial, noting that the jury initially claimed to be deadlocked before rendering their final decision. "We continue to believe that the daily use of talcum powder on Beth-Anee from birth led to her mesothelioma diagnosis. She ultimately wanted to share her story with others through her suit, which I think she accomplished, so that more people are aware of the potential dangers of seemingly harmless baby powder," they wrote. The other plaintiff verdict referenced in Montagnino's statement took place in March and was also covered by CVN, when a jury in Alameda County, California hit J&J with a $29.5 million verdict in another cosmetic talc case. The firm which secured that verdict, Kazan McClain Satterley and Greenwood, also represents the plaintiff in another ongoing talc trial in Alameda County involving both J&J and Colgate that CVN is also webcasting. Johnson's case in South Carolina was among the thousands removed to federal court by J&J in recent weeks, citing the pending bankruptcy proceedings involving their main talc supplier Imerys. J&J argued that state court talc cases from throughout the country should be grouped together in Delaware due to insurance indemnification agreements with Imerys. The result would be consolidation of cases in federal district court, generally viewed as a venue less favorable to plaintiff personal injury claims. However numerous federal judges have rejected that argument, remanding large swaths of talc cases back to state court. "Imerys is not a party to this claim; as such, Plaintiffs do not seek relief from Imerys or its bankruptcy estate," wrote South Carolina Senior United States District Judge Margaret B. Seymour in her remand order. "Additionally, the court notes that this and related cases are close to trial in state court, with the instant action set for trial on May 13, 2019. Recommencing these cases in federal court would result in injustice to plaintiffs." J&J was represented at trial by Michael Brown from Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough's Baltimore office, Allison Brown out of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP's New York City office, and local South Carolina counsel Louis P. Herns with Milligan Herns LLC. The case is captioned Beth-Anee F. Johnson and John W. Greenley, Jr. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., case number 2018CP4001781, in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,490 Fibro Cases at March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 1,490 cases were outstanding at March 31, 2019, for which Standard Motor Products, Inc. may be responsible for any related liabilities in connection to its former brake business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued operation in the accompanying statement of operations. When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on or after September 2001, and the amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages, and defense of such claims. "At March 31, 2019, approximately 1,490 cases were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through March 31, 2019, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately US$27 million. We do not have insurance coverage for the indemnity and defense costs associated with the claims we face." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/tqjPvY ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swiss Billionaire Convicted Over Asbestos Deaths ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Dawkins, writing for Forbes, reported that Swiss billionaire Stephan Schmidheiny, 71, the former majority shareholder in Italian asbestos company Eternit Genova, has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to four years in prison after the death of two people in Turin. The ruling marks the latest twist in a decade-long battle between Schmidheiny, the Turin prosecution, former Eternit workers and residents of towns near the company's asbestos plants. Prosecutor Gianfranco Colace said the ruling was the "first step" in setting a precedent on deaths from cancer and pulmonary diseases, which can take years to develop after contact with asbestos fibers. Although Stephan Schmidheiny was not present at court, he has spent much of the last decade fighting to clear his name in Italy. After charges were dropped in Switzerland, Schmidheiny was sentenced to 16 years??? imprisonment in 2012 by a Turin court over the deaths of 3,000 people allegedly exposed to asbestos from Eternit building materials in Italy. However, in 2014 the Italian Supreme Court quashed the sentence, saying that the case was invalid as the statute of limitations had passed. Schmidheiny faces further hearings over asbestos-related deaths in Vercelli (in Piedmont) and Naples. Lisa Meyerhans Sarasin, representing the Schmidheiny Family told Forbes: "We are confident to win the case before the Supreme Court." Schmidheiny???s lawyers indicated they will appeal the ruling, which means the legal battle could continue for several years and the billionaire is unlikely to face time in prison until Italy???s highest court rules on the case. Who is Stephan Schmidheiny? Stephan Schmidheiny is a Swiss entrepreneur, philanthropist and advocate of sustainable development with a net worth of $2.3 billion. The Schmidheiny family fortune dates back to 1912 when his grand-uncle founded a business that eventually became a giant in building materials. Schmidheiny became board president of Swiss Eternit Group, his father's construction materials company, in 1976 at age 29. Schmidheiny sold his holdings in the late 1980s. In 2003 he placed $1 billion in business assets into a charitable trust that helps entrepreneurs in Central and South America. Schmidheiny told Swiss newspaper Neuen Z??rcher Zeitung in 2014 that the case against him had become absurd after the presiding Italian judge compared him to Adolf Hitler. Schmidheiny has long argued that he ended his involvement with the Eternit group long before the health risks of asbestos were understood, and long before the fire-retardant material was banned in Italy in 1992. Schmidheiny's legal team has responded to a request for comment from Forbes, describing the conviction as lacking "legal foundation". The statement says: "Stephan Schmidheiny is responsible for neither the asbestos tragedy nor the deaths of the two individuals concerned. The restaging of a trial lost by the prosecution is a violation of the double jeopardy principle that is also enshrined in the Italian constitution." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 184 PI Suits at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. still defends itself against approximately 184 asbestos-related lawsuits as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. "As of March 31, 2019, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 184 lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989. "In September 2018, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that leaves the subsidiary with funding, including cash, annuities and coverage in place settlement, that we believe will be sufficient to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar nature. "While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/gm0Zor ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 370 Pending Cases at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- TriMas Corporation has 370 pending asbestos-related personal injury cases as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019. The Company states, "As of March 31, 2019, the Company was a party to 370 pending cases involving an aggregate of 4,811 claims primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of its subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical, refining and exploration industries. "In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used. "The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which product identification can be made may increase, and the Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things, claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought. "Of the 4,811 claims pending at March 31, 2019, 54 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At March 31, 2019, of the 54 claims that set forth specific amounts, there were no claims seeking specific amounts for punitive damages. "In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. "Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of which were filed over 25 years ago, have been approximately US$9.0 million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately 40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity insurance coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration of such expenses. The Company's primary insurance exhausted in November 2018, and the Company will be solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement, the duration of which would be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid. "Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other available information (including the availability of excess insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/HHaAXw ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Social Housing Firm Launches Asbestos Probe --------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News reported that a social housing tenant claims workmen have potentially exposed his family to asbestos. Jerome Sorroll, from Dormanstown on Teesside, said men working for Beyond Housing had scattered debris while repairing a ceiling vent. Separate engineers later warned him the ceiling contained asbestos, he said. Beyond Housing said it could neither confirm nor deny the presence of asbestos until it had investigated but the house was safe. "Independent tests show there is no airborne asbestos within the house meaning it is safe for the customer to remain there," a spokeswoman said. Mr Sorroll, 23, said holes were drilled in his ceiling to deal with a damp problem but a later set of workmen raised concerns, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said. "They said the work should never have been carried because the ceiling had asbestos in it," he said. "They said they should not have touched the ceiling unless it was done properly." Safe if not disturbed Mr Sorroll said he was told the ceiling contained asbestos and was waiting to hear if it was also in the loft. "I would have liked some warning about the asbestos before moving into the property so we'd know where it was," he said. White asbestos was a popular building material before it was banned in the UK in 1999 and can still be found in many structures. It is responsible for more than 5,000 UK deaths a year from conditions such as mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis. Health and Safety Executive advice is that it poses little risk if in good condition and left alone but is a danger to health if disturbed or damaged. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Pleas to Luton Workers Over Asbestos Death ----------------------------------------------------------------- Luton Today reported that the widow of a former electrician who worked in Luton and died of asbestos-related disease last year is calling on his old workmates to help them gain answers regarding how he came to develop the illness. Royston Pothan, from Lowestoft, died aged 80 on 2 March 2018 after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a cancer most commonly associated with exposure to asbestos-related materials. Royston's wife Edna, instructed specialist asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell's Cambridge office to investigate Royston's illness and whether it could be related to asbestos exposure which is thought to have occurred during his working life. They are looking to gather more information on whether Royston came into contact with the material during his time while he was involved in projects related to Scrivens of Luton, Hearsons of London and A C Delco between 1950 and 1960. Rosemary Giles, at Irwin Mitchell, said: "This case is sadly like so many we are involved in, with Royston developing mesothelioma many years after his contact with asbestos is thought to have taken place. We would be hugely grateful to anyone who may be able to shed light on the work conditions Royston may have faced during this specific time period, as such information could be key to getting Edna the answers and justice she deserves." Royston met Edna while they were both working at A C Delco, which manufactured car parts, in Dunstable and married in April 1956. Royston was employed by Scrivens of Luton which was contracted by Hearsons of London to undertake work on the site. Edna recalled: "Royston used to talk to me about how he worked in boiler houses doing rewiring work and how sometimes his job meant going into roof spaces too. It is only as time has gone by that I've realised that asbestos could well have been present. "It was very hard seeing how his health deteriorated in the final months of his life. "I miss him so much every day and would hugely appreciate any help in getting some answers regarding the illness which ultimately took his life." Contact Rosemary Giles on 01223 791 810 or email rosemary.giles@irwinmitchell.com ********* 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 ***