/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190614.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 14, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 119 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Faces Motiani Suit in Florida Over Defective Earplugs 3M COMPANY: Sold Defective Earplugs, Porginski Suit Says ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Faces Zaklow Suit in New Jersey Court ACCURATE BACKGROUND: Shekar Moves to Certify Class Under FCRA ACORN STAIRLIFTS: Flores FCRA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ADP LLC: Rohde Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Sabatini Files Suit Over Waste Mgmt. Merger Deal AIR CANADA: Court Rules in Favor of Passengers in Class Action AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Bid for Class Cert. in Karth Suit Underway ALIBABA GROUP: Oct. 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ALTERATION GROUP: Denied Pay Slips, Overtime Pay, Thermidor Says AMAZON.COM.KSDC LLC: Engineers Class Certified in Christeson Suit AMERICAN FRUIT: Martinez Suit Alleges FLSA Violation AMERICAN RECEIVABLES: Vice Sues Over Vague Collection Letter AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Contreras Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime AMN SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Woehrle Suit Alleges APEX ASSET MANAGEMENT: Varela Sues over Unfair Collection Practices APPLE INC: Faces Another Securities Class Action ARCIMOTO INC: Settlement of Consolidated Suit Awaits Court OK BELL CANADA: Court Allows Privacy Class Action to Proceed BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Seeks to Certify Class Under TCPA CA VENTURES: Cortazar Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages CARBEL USA: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Pay, Minimum Wage CASINO RAMA: Judge Dismisses Cyber-Attack Class Action CBL & ASSOCIATES: Paskowitz Sues Over Share Price Drop CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Class Certification in Naylor Farms' Suit Upheld COCA-COLA CO: Soler-Somohano Appeals Order in Sales Practices MDL COFIROUTE USA: Faces Class Action Over Toll Service Ads CONTRACT CALLERS: Tabiti Sues over FDCA Violations CRANE CARTAGE: Vasquez Seeks Minimum Wage CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Arbitration Ruling in Smith Suit Affirmed CV SCIENCES: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Smith Class Suit Pending CV SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Sallustro Securities Class Suit DIAL SOAP: DOJ Files Statement of Interest in Class Action DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Aug. 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set DON VITO OZUNA: Camilo's Bid for Prelim. OK of $375K Deal Denied DONALD TRUMP: Faces Class Action Over Gender Pay Bias EL POLLO: Aug. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set EPICENTER FESTIVAL: Disgruntled Attendees Mull Class Action EQUIFAX INC: Reaches Data Breach Settlement Agreements EQUITY BANCSHARES: July 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set EXPRESS SCRIPTS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Action Dismissal FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Court Allows Class Action to Expand FEDERAL EXPRESS: Freem Moves for Certification of FLSA Class FIAT CHRYSLER: 2nd Partial Consent Decree in State Suit Entered FIRST AMERICAN: Brent and Teri Files Class Suit in California FISHING LINE: Accused by Fishing Line of Salmon Price-fixing FLIK TOKEN: Investors File Class Action in Atlanta FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Coffie Files Tort Class Suit in S.D. Florida FLOWERS FOODS: Court Won't Decertify FLSA Class in Neff Suit FORD MOTOR: Appeal Pending in Transmission Settlement FORD MOTOR: Canadian Court Approves Transmission Settlement FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Can Compel Arbitration in Gutierrez Suit FTS INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Glock Class Suit over IPO GENERAL MOTORS: Car Owners Sue Over Defective Transmission GOGO INC: Bid to Dismiss Pierrelouis Class Action Still Pending GOOGLE INC: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Cy Pres Ruling GOOGLE INC: Settles Pixel Phone Microphone Defect Class Action GREATCALL INC: Barnes Sues over Defective Medical Alert Device GRUMA CORP: Citywide Sues over Independent Distributor Model HALLEN CONSTRUCTION: Bid to Certify Lewis Class Held in Abeyance HONEYWELL SAFETY: McKnight Renews Bid to Certify Class Under FLSA JABIL, INC: Walker Seeks Unpaid Overtime & Minimum Wages JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Leavitt Sues over Talcum-Based Products JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action JWS CONSTRUCTIONS: Class Action Among Options if Faults Proven KEYW HOLDING CORP: Wheby Sues Over Jacobs Merger Deal KNOXVILLE, TN: Recode May Spur De-Annexation Class Action L'OREAL USA: Removes Conti Case to Eastern District of California LAMPS PLUS: Baker Sterchi Discusses 9th Cir. Ruling LESTER B. PEARSON: Sued Over Specialized School Program Fees LIBERTY MEDIA: MoU Reached in Buchanan Suit LIRON INC: Faces Labrasca Labor Suit in California State Court LOUI AMSTERDAM: Chang Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage LYNEER STAFFING: Trejo Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages MARYLAND MUTUAL: Homeowners Allege Realty Rates Price-fixing MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL: Settles Employees' 401(k) Class Action MATCH GROUP: Discovery Underway in Candelore Suit MATCO TOOLS: Bid to Dismiss or Transfer Fleming Labor Suit Denied MAXIM INC: Huguelet Sues over Fraud MCKENNA DUPONT: Faces Phillips Suit over Debt Collection Practices MDL 2047: Bid to Apply Remediation Damages Formula Partly Granted MDL 2741: Denson Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation MDL 2741: Mincks Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation MDL 2741: Parsons Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation MDL 2741: Rawls Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation MDL 2777: $59MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in EcoDiesel Marketing Suit MDL 2777: Consent Decree Issued in EcoDiesel Marketing Suit MDL 2804: Daytona Likely to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action MDL 2885: Andrews Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation MDL 2885: Brock Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation MDL 2885: Cousino Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation MDL 2885: Fleuricourt Suit Included in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation MDL 2885: Grant Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation MDL 2885: Hanson Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation MDL 2885: Hudgens Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation MDL 2885: Hughes Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation MDL 2885: Hulsey Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation MDL 2885: Jacobs Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation MDL 2885: Robinson Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation MDL 2885: Rowe Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation MDL 2885: Wilson Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation MELT BAR: Clark Suit Alleges FLSA Violations METRO BANK: Amann Sues over Accounting Errors MIAMI INT'L: Gomez Sues Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act MIDLAND CREDIT: Damasco Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York MIDWEST INVESTORS: Baldwin Suit Alleges BIPA Violation MINDSHARE VENTURES: Davis Sues over Unwanted Text Messages MINED MINDS: Former West Virginia Students File Class Action MONSANTO CO: Pinson Sues in Missouri Over Injuries From Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Geich Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MURRAY-DARLING BASIN: Irrigators File Class Action NANTHEALTH INC: Bid for Class Certification in Deora Still Pending NANTHEALTH INC: Case Management Conference Set for Sept. 17 NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Initiated in Gulino Discrimination Suit NEW YORK: Appeals Order in Gulino Discrimination Suit to 2nd Cir. NEW YORK: Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment in Gulino Discrimination Suit NEW YORK: Disability Advocates File Class Action Against MTA NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Decision in Gulino Bias Suit NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of S.D.N.Y. Ruling in Gulino Suit NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Walfish Suit OAKLEY INC: Accused by Haggar Suit of Violating Disabilities Act ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Aug. 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set PANALPINA WORLD: CCOIC Appeals Decision in Precision Class Suit PANE EVINO: Gonzalez et al Seek Minimum Wage and OT Pay PETLAND INC: Blumenauer Sues over Automated Marketing Text Messages PHELAM HALLIMAN: Johnson Files Appeal in Suit Sup. Ct. Pennsylvania PHH MORTGAGE: Cabral TCPA Case Goes to District of Massachusetts POSTMATES: Faces Class Action in New York Over Fees RALPHS GROCERY: McCorkle Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations REAL TIME: Berry Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation RGS FINANCIAL: Tataru's Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement ROBINS JEAN RETAIL: Haggar et al. Alleges ADA Violations ROGAR MANAGEMENT: McGrath Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium S & H CONSTRUCTION: Salazar Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime SCHENKER INC: Lane Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois SCHWANS COMPANY: Miller PI Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida SEDANOS MARKET: Garcia Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime SEQUIUM ASSET: Activities on Howard's Bid to Certify Class Stayed SERVIS ONE: Maryland Court OKs Class Notice in Dolphus Labor Suit SGS NORTH AMERICA: Tamimi Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. SMART & FINAL STORES: Shahandeh Hits Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks SQUARE INC: Ruark Sues over Mishandling of Patient's Medical Data STAGE STORES: Bid for Corrective Notice in Crosby FLSA Suit Denied STELARIS FOODS: Shortchanges Drivers' Wages, Rivera Claims STURM FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Relabel Subclass in Suchanek Suit TD AMERITRADE: Illinois Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action TELUS COMMS: Business Members Can't Be Part of Class Action TRANS BAY CABLE: Coleman et al. Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. TRI-CITY MEDICAL: Faces Gerson Labor Suit over Unpaid Wages UNITED STATES: Two Immigrants Classes Certified in Jimenez Suit VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Roper Moves to Certify Class Under FLSA VERSUM MATERIALS: Robert Files Suit Over Merck Merger Deal VIEGA LLC: Prime Source Sues Over Copper Press Fitting Price-fixing VIKING CRUISES: Faces Viking Sky Class Action in California VITALE'S ITALIAN: Court Refuses to Certify Torres' FLSA Class VORTENS INC: Court Grants Prelim Approval of Cone Suit Settlement WABCO HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action WELLCARE HEALTH: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action WEST PARK HD: Oberg Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages WEST VIRGINIA: Richards Sues Human Resources over ADA Violations WESTERN REFINING: Schmidtberger Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime WILLIS, TX: Court Affirms Dismissal of Garcia's Claims WORK-MODE INC: Trego Sues over Late Termination Notice WORLD WIDE TECHNOLOGY: Young Suit Transferred to S.D. Illinois ZILLOW GROUP: Correa Suit Transferred to C.D. California [*] AdvoFin Builds Class Action Against Online Casinos [*] Insurers Respond to Rising Levels of Securities Class Actions Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 43,200 Claims v. Goodyear Tire Pending at Mar. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Defends 3,688 Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Still Faces Mount Vernon Mills Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Defends Lawsuits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns Confirmed for Mill Residents ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beaver Falls Couple Sues Over Asbestos Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,709 Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Action Signals Asbestos-Level Health Crisis ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Firm Fined GBP176,500 for Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA to Remove Asbestos Debris From Tire Plant ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Cleared of Negligence in Mechanic's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Defends Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Ordered to Pay $300MM in Olson Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J, Colgate Created "Severe Health Hazard" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Still Faces Suits at March 29 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lanier Law's $4.69-Bil. Win Named 2018 Top Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mineralogist Says No Asbestos in J&J Baby Powder ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pollution Exemption Clears Insurer from Obligation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Estimates $70.2MM Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 789 Pending Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 9 Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Diagnosed with Cancer Secure Cash Benefits ********* 3M COMPANY: Faces Motiani Suit in Florida Over Defective Earplugs ----------------------------------------------------------------- RAJESH MOTIANI v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01480-MCR-EMT (N.D. Fla., May 14, 2019), arises out of an alleged multi-year, multi-million-dollar fraud perpetrated on the United States Government and the men and women, who served in the United States military by one of the largest companies in the country, 3M. From approximately 2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the U.S. military tens of thousands of defective earplugs, the dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs") for the use of U.S. soldiers and service men and women in combat and training. 3M knew that its earplugs were defective, but manipulated laboratory testing results and falsely represented to the military as meeting the military's specifications, including representations by 3M that their Combat Arms Earplugs offered maximum hearing protection for military personnel and that they were free from all defects that could have impaired their serviceability, the Plaintiff alleges. 3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M is one of the largest companies in the United States and is in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling worker safety products, which include hearing protection devices. Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in St. Paul. AHC was formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned subsidiary of 3M Company. AHC is one of the group of 3M predecessor and subsidiary entities collectively known as "the Aearo entities." Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in St Paul. ATL is a subsidiary of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies." ATL is one of the group of 3M predecessor and subsidiary entities collectively known as "the Aearo entities." Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. ATI was formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc. ATI is a subsidiary of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company. ATI is one of the group of 3M predecessor and subsidiary entities collectively known as "the Aearo entities." Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Indianapolis. AL is a subsidiary of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company. AL is one of the group of 3M predecessor and subsidiary entities collectively known as "the Aearo entities."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael W. Gaines, Esq. Tim L. Bowden, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN 306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200 Goodlettsville, TN 37072 Telephone: (615) 859-1996 Facsimile: (615) 859-1921 E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com bowden_law@bellsouth.net 3M COMPANY: Sold Defective Earplugs, Porginski Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER PORGINSKI v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01479-RV-EMT (N.D. Fla., May 14, 2019), accuses the Defendants of selling defective earplugs to the United States Government and the men and women, who served in the United States military. From approximately 2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the U.S. military tens of thousands of defective earplugs, the dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs") for the use of U.S. soldiers and service men and women in combat and training. The Plaintiff contends that these defective earplugs were purchased in good faith by the U.S. military and were standard issue in certain branches of the military during foreign conflicts and deployments between 2003 and 2015, resulting in severe and permanent hearing loss to tens of thousands of soldiers, who were issued and used the defective earplugs upon 3M's representations that the earplugs were defect-free and offered effective hearing protection. 3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M is one of the largest companies in the United States and is in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling worker safety products, which include hearing protection devices. Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in St. Paul. AHC was formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned subsidiary of 3M Company. AHC is one of the group of 3M predecessor and subsidiary entities collectively known as "the Aearo entities." Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in St Paul. ATL is a subsidiary of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies." ATL is one of the group of 3M predecessor and subsidiary entities collectively known as "the Aearo entities." Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. ATI was formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc. ATI is a subsidiary of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company. ATI is one of the group of 3M predecessor and subsidiary entities collectively known as "the Aearo entities." Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Indianapolis. AL is a subsidiary of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company. AL is one of the group of 3M predecessor and subsidiary entities collectively known as "the Aearo entities."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael W. Gaines, Esq. Tim L. Bowden, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN 306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200 Goodlettsville, TN 37072 Telephone: (615) 859-1996 Facsimile: (615) 859-1921 E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com bowden_law@bellsouth.net ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Faces Zaklow Suit in New Jersey Court ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accounts Receivable. The case is captioned as JILL ZAKLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-12755-CCC-MF (D.N.J., May 21, 2019). The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi.[BN] Attorneys for Jill Zaklow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Ari Hillel Marcus, esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (347) 526-4093 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com ari@marcuszelman.com ACCURATE BACKGROUND: Shekar Moves to Certify Class Under FCRA ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled KIRAN KUMAR CHANDRA SHEKAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ACCURATE BACKGROUND, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00585-LA (E.D. Wisc.), moves for class certification and proposes this class definition: All individuals about whom Defendant's "AccurateNow" division (including its corporate predecessor) furnished a background report for employment purposes to a prospective employer that contained an item of public record information between April 25, 2012 and the present and to whom it did not send any notice under FCRA section 1681k(a)(1) at the time it prepared the report. Discovery has established that the Class that Mr. Shekar seeks to certify here includes over one hundred thousand members, according to the Motion. The lawsuit arises from claims pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Soumilas, Esq. James A. Francis, Esq. Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Larry P. Smith, Esq. David M. Marco, Esq. SMITHMARCO PC 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 324-3532 Facsimile: (888) 418-1277 E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com dmarco@smithmarco.com ACORN STAIRLIFTS: Flores FCRA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Flores v. Acorn Stairlifts, Inc., Case No. 2019-CA-004317-O, was removed on May 2, 2019, from the Orange County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:19-cv-00844-PGB-GJK to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Acorn Stairlifts manufactures and installs stair lifts in homes in the United States and internationally. The Company offers wireless remote controlled chair lifts/stair glides/stair climbers for various staircases. The Company serves handicapped, as well as people finding difficulty in using staircases. Acorn Stairlifts was founded in 2001 and is based in Orlando, Florida.[BN] Plaintiff Bianca Flores, on her own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, are represented by: Marc Reed Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA One Tampa City Center, Suite 700 201 N Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602-5157 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com Defendant Acorn Stairlifts, Inc., a Foreign For-Profit Corporation, is represented by: Clark Sigman Splichal, Esq. Susan N. Eisenberg, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 871-3990 Facsimile: (786) 220-0470 E-mail: csplichal@cozen.com seisenberg@cozen.com ADP LLC: Rohde Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Rohde, individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, ADP Payroll Services, Inc., Automatic Data Processing, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-03347 (C.D. Cal., May 17, 2019), seeks all damages and injunctive relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. ADP provides consumer reporting, investigation and background checks, as well as payroll services throughout the country. Pederson claims ADP routinely sends unsolicited text messages without his consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 893-7002 Fax: (312) 275-7895 Email: eturin@mcgpc.com ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Sabatini Files Suit Over Waste Mgmt. Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Sabatini, for himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Advanced Disposal Services, Inc., Michael Koen, B. Clyde Preslar, Richard Burke, Tanuja M. Dehne, E. Renae Conley, Michael Hoffman and Ernest J. Mrozek, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00919, (D. Del., May 17, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. by Waste Management, Inc. and Everglades Merger Sub Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Advanced Disposal's stockholders will receive $33.15 in cash for each share of Advanced Disposal common stock they own. The complaint asserts that the registration statement for the merger failed to include critical financial analysis performed by its financial advisor, UBS Investment Bank including all line items used to calculate Cash Flow from Operations less Adjusted Capital Expenditures and a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics that support the fairness opinions in order to make a fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal needed by the shareholders to make an informed decision on the merger deal. Advanced Disposal, based in Ponte Vedra, Florida, is a solid waste company that provides integrated, non-hazardous solid waste collection, recycling and disposal services to residential, commercial, industrial and construction customers across sixteen states and the Bahamas. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 Email: rm@maniskas.com AIR CANADA: Court Rules in Favor of Passengers in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos P Martins, Esq. -- cmartins@lexcanada.com -- and Emma Romano, Esq. -- eromano@lexcanada.com -- of Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP, in an article for International Law Office, report that the Quebec Superior Court of Justice recently ruled against Air Canada in a class action brought by passengers with disabilities, their attendants and obese passengers who had been required to pay for additional seats on flights. The court held that Air Canada was required to compensate passengers and their attendants for the discriminatory practice but it limited the class of individuals who were eligible for compensation to those who had purchased their tickets in Quebec. Facts The representative plaintiff in this class action was severely disabled. He lived in a long-term care home in Baie-Comeau, Quebec and his condition required constant assistance. On several occasions he had travelled to Montreal on flights operated by Air Canada. Given his disability, he had required an attendant to accompany him for each of these flights. On each occasion he had assumed the cost of his attendant's seat on the plane as well as his own, as required by Air Canada's fare policy. The policy stipulated, among other things, that passengers with a disability must travel with an attendant who may assist with everyday needs during the flight (eg, eating, using the washroom or taking medication) and, in case of changes in cabin pressure or an emergency, services not provided by the crew. Parties' position The plaintiff argued that: * Air Canada was liable for committing a contractual fault by levying fees for the additional seat required for passengers with a disability, disregarding the obligations imposed on Air Canada by: the Civil Code of Quebec; the Canada Transportation Act; and the Canadian Human Rights Act; * the attendant's travel expenses should be borne by Air Canada, which is obliged to do all that is reasonably possible to accommodate passengers with disabilities; * the additional expense constituted an undue obstacle to mobility contrary to the Canada Transportation Act, in addition to it being discriminatory; * with respect to the claims on behalf of the attendants who had paid for their own ticket to accompany a person with a disability, these claims had been proper because they were related to the disabled passengers' claims; and * for obese persons, the reasoning was similar because Air Canada required payment for two seats for the benefit of a single person whose particular condition did not allow for the use of a single seat. Air Canada argued that: * the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case; * its pricing practices were not discriminatory; * its rate policies did not constitute undue obstacles to mobility contrary to the Canada Transportation Act; and * the claims by class members who were attendants should not succeed because these passengers could not claim to have been personally discriminated against based on a disability. Finally, Air Canada urged the court to limit the scope of the class action to those parties who had purchased tickets in Quebec. Quebec Superior Court decision The court began by addressing preliminary issues, including: * the attendants' claims; * whether the class should be limited to those parties who had purchased tickets in Quebec; * the nature of the claim; and * the question of jurisdiction. Attendant claims The court held that the attendants who had paid for their own seat to accompany a person with a disability were entitled to compensation, reasoning that an attendant could not be considered the same as any other passenger. Rather, an attendant must be considered an accessory to the transport of the person with the disability. Therefore, the court held that the attendants who had paid for their own seats were properly included in the collective action. Class limited to Quebec purchasers The court limited the class of people eligible for reimbursement from Air Canada to those passengers who had bought tickets in Quebec. The court reasoned that the claim was based on whether Air Canada had committed a contractual fault within the meaning of Article 1458 of the Civil Code of Quebec. In contrast to other Canadian provinces, Quebec has a civil law regime which is codified in the Civil Code of Quebec. Given the significant differences between the civil and common law, and given the absence of evidence from the plaintiffs on the law applicable in the other provinces, the court limited the class members to only those persons who had bought tickets in Quebec. Nature of claim and jurisdiction The court held that the essential nature of the class action was a claim for contractual liability for breaching an obligation which had been imposed by the Civil Code of Quebec, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act. The question of jurisdiction had been finally decided in a previous decision in this case. Regardless, the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision in WestJet v Chabot (2016 QCCA 584) established that the court had jurisdiction to hear and decide a class action based on contractual civil liability where damages had been claimed against an airline for the improper performance of a contractual obligation. Was Air Canada at fault? Once the preliminary issues had been addressed, the court framed the issue of whether Air Canada was liable for a contractual fault as follows: * Has Air Canada committed a discriminatory practice by requiring payment of two airline tickets, either for: an attendant in the context where the passenger has a disability; or an obese person who requires two seats? * If there is a discriminatory practice, does that constitute a fault within the meaning of Article 1458 of the Civil Code of Quebec? * If there is a fault, can Air Canada exonerate itself by invoking a valid defence? The court found that Air Canada's practice of requiring passengers with a disability and obese passengers to purchase two seats was discriminatory. Relying on a Canadian Transportation Agency's decision from 2008, the court found that the fact that a person must pay for an additional seat because of their disability constituted an undue obstacle to their mobility within the meaning of the Canada Transportation Act. As Air Canada presented no evidence to challenge the veracity of the Canadian Transportation Agency's decision, the decision was presumed to be accurate. The court also held that the practice of requiring payment for two seats was a discriminatory practice within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Code. The court found that there was no valid defence because imposing a 'one passenger one ticket' rate as an accommodation measure would not result in excessive costs for Air Canada. Therefore, the practice constituted a fault within the meaning of the Civil Code of Quebec. The failure to perform a specific duty imposed by a law or a regulation is in principle a civil fault, since there is a violation of a norm of conduct fixed by the legislature. Damages The court held that damages could be awarded based on the cost of the second fare for each passenger with a disability or who was obese. However, the court declined to award non-pecuniary damages for humiliation and punitive damages as the plaintiffs had presented no evidence for these heads of damages. Comment This decision confirms that carriers that do not abide by a 'one passenger one ticket' policy may be liable for discriminating against passengers with disabilities and obese passengers who require more than one seat. [GN] AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Bid for Class Cert. in Karth Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiff in Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., has filed a motion to further amend his complaint and for class certification. Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Keryx and certain of its former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James Oliviero) and consolidated in the Massachusetts District Court, captioned Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 26, 2016, with an amended complaint filed on February 27, 2017). Plaintiff seeks to represent all stockholders who purchased shares of Keryx common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016. The complaint alleges that Keryx and the named individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning Keryx, its supplier relationships, and future prospects, and that the allegedly misleading statements were not made known to the market until Keryx's August 1, 2016 announcement of an interruption in its supply of Auryxia. By order dated July 19, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 27, 2019, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On April 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to further amend his Complaint, and also moved for class certification. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ALIBABA GROUP: Oct. 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on June 3 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Alibaba Group Holding Limited (BABA): SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and/or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Alibaba Group Holding Limited ("Alibaba") American Depositary Shares ("ADS"), or purchased call options or sold put options on Alibaba ADS, during the period September 19, 2014 through January 28, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), other than those shares purchased directly in the September 19, 2014 Initial Public Offering (the "Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned litigation (the "MDL Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the MDL Action have reached a proposed settlement of the MDL Action for $250,000,000 (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the MDL Action. A hearing will be held on October 16, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Colleen McMahon at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, Courtroom 24A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the MDL Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 26, 2019 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. Court-appointed Lead Counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees for all Plaintiffs' Counsel in an amount not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund (including accrued interest). In addition, Lead Counsel will apply for reimbursement of Litigation Expenses paid or incurred in connection with the institution, prosecution and resolution of the claims against the Defendants, in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000, which may include a request for award(s) sufficient to reimburse the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs, including lost wages, directly related to their representation of the Class in an amount not to exceed $12,500 for each representative Plaintiff. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Settlement of the MDL Action, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Christine Asia Co. Ltd. et al. v. Jack Yun Ma et al., c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063, 1-833-226-6360. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.AlibabaSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than September 3, 2019. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the MDL Action. If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than September 25, 2019 to the Claims Administrator, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the MDL Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses must be filed with the Court and provided to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than September 25, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. The MDL Action is separate from an action that had been filed in California Superior Court, San Mateo County, that alleged violations of a different federal statute. That state court action was separately settled in May 2019. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Alibaba, or Alibaba's counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: The Rosen Law Firm P.A. Attn: Laurence Rosen, Esq. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Email: alibabasettlement@rosenlegal.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Christine Asia Co. Ltd. et al v. Jack Yun Ma, et al. c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 1-833-226-6360 www.AlibabaSettlement.com By Order of the Court ALTERATION GROUP: Denied Pay Slips, Overtime Pay, Thermidor Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jean M. Thermidor, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alteration Group of NY, LLC, Jeremy Miller, David Miller, Sona Babooram and Eileen Nunez, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04572 (S.D. N.Y., May 17, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for 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 tailoring services company, located at 89 5th Ave #904, New York, NY 10003 under the name "Alteration Specialists of New York" where Thermidor was employed as a tailor. She claims 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 AMAZON.COM.KSDC LLC: Engineers Class Certified in Christeson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Kathryn H. Vratil sustains in small part the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Conditional Certification of Proposed Settlement Class and Preliminary Approval of the Parties' Settlement Agreement and Release and Notice to Settlement Class Members filed in the lawsuit titled WYATT CHRISTESON, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees v. AMAZON.COM.KSDC, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-02043-KHV-JPO (D. Kan.). The Court conditionally certifies a collective action comprised of Christeson and seven other IT Support Engineers, whom the Defendant employed at any time between January 25, 2015, and March 31, 2018. The Court otherwise overrules the Plaintiff's Motion. In addition, the Court approves Wyatt Christeson as class representative. The case remains set for trial on September 16, 2019. Wyatt Christeson brings suit against Amazon.com.ksdc, LLC on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleging that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under the amended settlement agreement, the Defendant agrees to pay each Settlement Class Member who opts in ("Participating Plaintiff") $250 plus approximately $195 for each instance in which the Participating Plaintiff recorded 40, 49 or 55 hours in a workweek. This entitles each Participating Plaintiff to between $250 and $3,762, depending on his or her timesheets. If all seven IT Support Engineers opt in and become Participating Plaintiffs, the Defendant will pay up to $61,636.00, which includes the Plaintiff's request for up to $35,000 in attorney's fees, up to $2,467.62 in costs and up to a $5,000 service award to the Plaintiff. According to the Court's Memorandum and Order, if the parties seek further approval of a settlement, they must cite specific cases which authorize costs and fee awards in that order of magnitude. The Court is skeptical of such high fee requests, especially where they are not subject to testing through the adversarial process.[CC] AMERICAN FRUIT: Martinez Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Julio C. Martinez Sr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Fruit and Produce, Corp. and Hugo Acosta, Case No. 1:19-cv-21251 (S.D. Fla., April 02, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to provide their employees overtime pay and or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a fruit and vegetable quality inspector from October 20, 1992 through March 29, 2019 and was a resident of Dade County, Florida. The Defendant American Fruit is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County. The Defendant Acosta is a corporate officer and owner and manager the Defendant American Fruit. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 AMERICAN RECEIVABLES: Vice Sues Over Vague Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------ Rickey Vice, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Receivables Agency, LLC, Defendants Case No. 19-cv-04038 (D. Kan., May 17, 2019), seeks statutory and punitive damages, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in this action, including expert fees and other and further relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. American Receivables is a collection agency who attempted to collect an alleged debt from Vice via collection letter that does not meaningfully convey the identity of the creditor to whom the said debt is owed; letter implies that the original creditor is different than the current creditor, as it uses both terms within the body of the letter thus creating confusion. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony LaCroix, Esq. LACROIX LAW FIRM, LLC 406 W 34th St #810, Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone/Fax: (816) 399-4380 Email: Tony@lacroixlawkc.com AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Contreras Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE CONTRERAS, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees v. AMERICOLD LOGISTICS LLC, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIV DS 1913523 (Cal. Super., San Bernardino Cty., May 2, 2019), seeks to recover civil penalties arising out of the Defendants' alleged multiple violations of the California Labor Code. Mr. Contreras alleges that the Defendants did not pay him or other hourly employees properly calculated overtime wages because non-discretionary earned bonuses were not figured into their regular rate of pay for purposes of payment of overtime compensation. AmeriCold Logistics provides temperature-controlled warehousing and logistics services in the United States and internationally. The Company offers producer solutions, including facilities, public refrigerated warehouses, plant-attached storage, port facilities, integrated consolidation programs, and automation and retailers solutions. The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Singer, Esq. Kristina De La Rosa, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY SINGER 605 C Street Suite 200 San Diego CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: msinger@ackslaw.com kdelarosa@ackslaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com AMN SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Woehrle Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- SARA WOEHRLE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. AMN SERVICES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; an individual, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV15213 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 2, 2019), alleges that the Defendants fail to pay for all hours worked and for overtime wages, in violation of the California Labor Code. Providence is a California corporation, and primarily provides patient services at its owned, controlled and/or operated hospitals, medical centers, urgent and occupational care centers, imaging centers, primary care clinics and other kinds of healthcare facilities inside California. One of those medical centers is the Little Company of Mary Torrance located in Torrance, California. Providence has also owned, operated and/or controlled other facilities inside California, including Providence Tarzana Medical Center, Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center, Providence Saint John's Health Center, Providence Little Company of Mary San Pedro, and Providence Holy Cross Medical Center. AMN is an employment staffing agency and is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. In particular, AMN employs, compensates and assigns healthcare professionals to work at various kinds of healthcare facilities throughout California, including those owed, operated and/or controlled by Providence. The true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com - and - Ashkan Shakouri, Esq. SHAKOURI LAW FIRM 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 575-1827 Facsimile: (310) 575-1872 E-mail: ash@shakourilawfirm.com APEX ASSET MANAGEMENT: Varela Sues over Unfair Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed by Ricardo Varela against the Apex Asset Management, LLC for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is captioned VARELA v. APEX ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-12470-CCC-SCM (D.N.J., May 11, 2019). This consumer credit-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi. Apex Asset Management, LLC is a debt collection agency based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com APPLE INC: Faces Another Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Mikey Campbell, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Apple's almost universally positive financial outlook, offered in investor conference calls following quarterly earnings reports, are again under scrutiny as a class action complaint takes issue with comments made by CEO Tim Cook and CFO Luca Maestri in the quarter leading up to a revenue guidance correction in January. The complaint, lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, homes in on forward-looking statements regarding Apple's business in China -- specifically iPhone -- for the important holiday quarter of 2018. In forecasts presented during a conference call last November, both Cook and Maestri touted a strong product lineup expected to fuel first fiscal quarter sales between $89 billion and $93 billion. Riding high on a new slate of iPhone XS and XR handsets, which were at the time already up for sale, Apple told investors to anticipate a record-breaking quarter. Beyond reiterating prepared guidance, Cook and Maestri emphasized a positive outlook in fielding questions from analysts. Specifically, Cook dismissed concerns of "macroeconomic uncertainty" in emerging markets like China, citing Apple's "very strong" performance leading into the holiday season. The executives also failed to recognize the brewing U.S.-China trade war. That take was ultimately proven incorrect, as economic headwinds in the burgeoning Chinese market contributed to what would result in quarterly revenue of $84.3 billion, well below initial guidance. The suit also claims Apple failed to account for knock-on effects of its iPhone battery replacement program, instituted in 2017 to allay concerns of handset throttling. It was later learned that Apple replaced some 11 million iPhone batteries, up to 11 times more than anticipated, allowing users to hold on to their smartphone instead of buying a new model. Apple's decision to halt reportage of unit sales is also a bone of contention, with plaintiffs claiming the move was designed to mask declines of the company's flagship product. The rosy outlook proffered by Cook and Maestri caused Apple's stock price to artificially inflate during the class period starting Nov. 2, a day after the company released earnings for the last quarter of 2018, until a guidance revision was released in early January, the suit alleges. Shareholders were consequently impacted by the "false and misleading statements" when the revision down was announced and Apple shares fell. Citing violations of the Securities and Exchange Act, the complaint seeks class status, unspecified damages and legal fees. The class action filing is similar in scope to two complaints lodged in April, which also claim Apple misled investors with largely positive forward looking statements. [GN] ARCIMOTO INC: Settlement of Consolidated Suit Awaits Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------- Arcimoto, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in the consolidated Switzer and Mendelson suits have reached a settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval. On March 11, 2018, the Company was served with a lawsuit entitled John R Switzer vs W.R. Hambrecht & Co. LLC et al., Case Number: CGC-18-564904, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court in the State of California. In this action, the Company was named as a defendant along with five individuals who were directors and/or executive officers at the time of the completion of the Company's Regulation A offering on September 21, 2017. The action was styled as a putative class action, alleged on behalf of all those who purchased the Company's common stock in its Regulation A offering. The plaintiff alleged violations of Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and is seeking damages in an unspecified amount to be proven at trial. In addition, on March 28, 2018, the Company was served with another lawsuit entitled Jay Mendelson v. Arcimoto, Inc. et al., Case Number CGC-18-565324, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court in the State of California. In that action, which was styled as a putative class action, the Company was also named as a defendant along with the same individuals who were directors and/or executive officers at the time of the completion of the company's Regulation A offering on September 21, 2017. The allegations and claims made in the Mendelson action were substantially similar to those of the Switzer action and the plaintiff was also seeking damages in an unspecified amount to be proven at trial. The two actions were consolidated into a single lawsuit on May 28, 2018. The Company believes that the consolidated lawsuit was without merit and vigorously defended itself against these claims in court. On July 30, 2018, counsel for the Company filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint, seeking its dismissal. By Order dated September 19, 2018, the San Francisco Court sustained in part and denied in part the demurrer. On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs in that case filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint. The Company denied the substantive claims and allegations made in that amended pleading and continued to assert a vigorous defense. On January 25, 2019, the parties reached a settlement agreement in the consolidated cases, subject to court approval. By its terms, the settlement agreement resolves this litigation in its entirety. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Arcimoto, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells three-wheeled electric vehicles. The company was formerly known as WTP Inc and changed its name to Arcimoto, Inc. in December 2011. Arcimoto, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Eugene, Oregon. BELL CANADA: Court Allows Privacy Class Action to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------- Alex Boutilier, writing for Toronto Star, reports that an Ontario court has cleared the way for a class-action lawsuit against Bell Canada over a controversial advertising program that tracked its customers' internet, phone and television habits. On May 13, the Ontario Superior Court certified the class-action lawsuit against Bell over its now-discontinued "Relevant Advertising Program" (RAP). The program tracked Bell customers' activities to build detailed profiles for third-party advertisers. RAP was announced in 2013 and discontinued in 2015, although Bell claims the program was never launched. But the telecom giant could be on the hook for hundreds of millions in damages over the program, and the lawsuit could have wider implications for internet and tech giants that collect massive amounts of data about their users in order to sell advertising. "All sorts of e-commerce is trying to collect this information . . . (and) digitizing it, collecting it and monetizing it," said Ted Charney, one of the lawyers representing the Bell customers. "This is where the big money is going now, and people are increasingly beginning to realize that their privacy and their data is worth something. And they're beginning to feel more and more like they're being taken advantage of by these companies." Charney has previously said $750 million was "a very conservative number" in assessing potential damages, but said on May 14 that it's difficult to estimate the potential bill for Bell if the lawsuit is successful. He said lawyers are still trying to determine how much money each customer's personal data was worth to Bell. [GN] BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Seeks to Certify Class Under TCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SHEHAN WIJESINHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-20073-CMA (S.D. Fla.), asks the Court to: (1) certify a class with respect to the claims for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act: All individuals within the United States (i) who were sent an outbound call; (ii) which call was connected; (iii) to a cellular telephone number obtained by Defendant as a lead from Choice Hotels International, Inc., which was designated as a "Choice Inact CP Wireless" campaign lead; (iv) promoting Defendant's vacation packages; (v) placed by Gold Mountain Communications, LLC on behalf of Defendant using the TCN "Manual Dial Only" system; (vi) from October 9, 2018 through January 28, 2019; (2) designate Plaintiff as class representative; and (3) designate the law firms of IJH Law, Hiraldo P.A., and Eisenband Law, P.A as class counsel. The case concerns Defendant BlueGreen Vacation Unlimited, Inc.'s alleged use of "manual dialer" technology to try and circumvent the TCPA so that it could bombard consumers with unwanted telemarketing calls. This decision ultimately resulted in 3.38 million calls to unsuspecting consumers in a period of just over 15 months.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 496-4469 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com CA VENTURES: Cortazar Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against CA Ventures, LLC for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is captioned BRITTANY CORTAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CA Ventures, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22075-UU (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2019). Plaintiff Brittany Cortazar alleges that CA Ventures, LLC sent unsolicited text messages to her cellular telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system and without her prior express consent. CA Ventures, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company whose principal office is located at 130 E. Randolph, #2100, 1 Prudent, Chicago, Illinois. The company is engaged in various real estate investment and development projects. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com CARBEL USA: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Pay, Minimum Wage ------------------------------------------------------ An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Carbel USA LLC for violations of the New York Labor Law, New York Minimum Wage Act, and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. The case is captioned Douglas Rodriguez, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- Carbel USA LLC, Defendant, Index No. 705142/2019 (N.Y. Sup., March 25, 2019). Plaintiff Douglas Rodriguez seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay for manual workers. Among other things, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff at a rate of at least 1.5 times his regular rate and 1.5 times the New York State Minimum wage rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week, for each week during the period of his employment with Defendants. Carbel USA LLC is a for-profit limited liability company with offices located at 182-08 149th Avenue, Springfield Gardens, New York. The company is engaged in the business of providing warehouse and distribution services for companies such as ZARA clothing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue, Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: 9718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com CASINO RAMA: Judge Dismisses Cyber-Attack Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Armstrong, Esq. -- larmstrong@sbalawyers.ca -- of Strigberger Brown Armstrong LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in Kaplan v. Casino Rama, released May 7, 2019, Justice Belobaba dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action arising from the 2016 cyber-attack on Casino Rama. Background In November 2016 Casino Rama's computer system was hacked and a variety of personal information relating to the casino's employees, customers and suppliers was stolen. The hacker made a ransom demand, which was not paid, following which the hacker posted the personal information of close to 11,000 people online. The representative plaintiffs included employees of the Casino, members of the Casino's loyalty program, and people who had joined OLG's self-exclusion program. In considering whether to certify the class action, Justice Belobaba made specific reference to the steps taken by the Casino, including notifying the authorities, notifying thousands of people potentially affected by the breach, taking steps to shut down the websites containing the stolen information and providing free credit monitoring for a year to many of the people affected. He also noted that there was no evidence that anyone had experienced fraud or identity theft or that anyone had suffered financial or psychological loss because of the attack. Certification Analysis In reviewing the five requirements for certification, as set out in s 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, Justice Belobaba concluded the class action "collapse[d] in its entirety at commonality" [5(1)(c)]. Despite this finding, Justice Belobaba also made substantive comments with respect to 5(1)(a) and (b), which are summarized below. 5(1)(a) Cause of Action The plaintiffs asserted five causes of action: negligence, breach of contract, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of confidence and publicity given to private life. Of note, the hacker remained unidentified and was not a party to the action. Traditionally, some of the causes of action pleaded are aimed at recovery from the party who breached the plaintiff's privacy (i.e. the hacker). Justice Belobaba commented that this left class counsel "trying to force square (breach of privacy) pegs into round (tort and contract) holes". The Court found the claims for breach of confidence and publicity given to private life were doomed to fail and should be struck. It is also questioned whether intrusion upon seclusion could be sustained against the defendants on the basis of their alleged recklessness. However, considering the infancy of the tort of inclusion upon seclusion, Justice Belobaba was not prepared to find that the claim was bound to fail. He found the same with respect to the claims in negligence and breach of contract. 5(1)(b) Class Definition The Court found the proposed class was overly broad and imprecise. Justice Belobaba made a point of agreeing with the defendants, that the class definition could not include the Casino's unionized employees. The Court lacked jurisdiction over their complaints for the privacy breach, whether in negligence or contract, as they fell within the ambit of the collective agreement. Such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. 5(1)(c) Common Issues Justice Belobaba deliberated on the appropriate test under s. 5(1)(c), which for years required satisfying two inquiries: (1) whether there was some evidentiary basis that the proposed common issue actually existed; and, (2) whether there was some evidence that the proposed issue could be answered in common across the entire class. However, in the 2013 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, ProSys Consultants Ltd v. Microsoft Corp, the first part of the test was eliminated, no longer requiring evidence that the alleged acts occurred. Justice Belobaba found himself to be bound by the SCC's direction; however, he performed the two-step analysis, noting that an appeal was likely forthcoming. Getting to the heart of the common issues analysis, Justice Belobaba made the following comments at paragraph 56 of the decision: The problem here, with almost all of the PCIs [proposed common issues] is that there is no basis in fact for either the existence of the PCI or its overall commonality or both. Further, many of the PCIs require so much in the way of individual inquiry that any commonality is overwhelmed by the need for individualized assessments. Justice Belobaba found that the proposed causes of action that could possibly proceed -- negligence, breach of contract, and intrusion upon seclusion -- could not serve as the basis for common issues. His conclusion hinged on a not so subtle finding that privacy breach cases are inherently individual in nature. In this case, the stolen information varied amongst the victims; ranging from mundane information (e.g. addresses) to more sensitive data (e.g. bank records). Justice Belobaba found that, whether each of the alleged causes of action could be made out, required a look at the individual circumstances of each plaintiff. For instance, the standard of care in data breach cases is a sliding scale based on the sensitivity of the stolen information. Intrusion upon seclusion also requires consideration as to whether the breach is "offensive" to the specific plaintiff. Finally, there was no evidence of any class-wide contractual terms or conditions to support a common issue in that regard. The Court acknowledged that it should not refuse certification merely because the damages would require individual assessments. However, Justice Belobaba found that there were no common liability issues, which made the issue of damages moot. Finding that there was a lack of commonality, the Court dismissed the motion for certification. [GN] CBL & ASSOCIATES: Paskowitz Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------ Laurence Paskowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., Stephen D. Lebovitz, Charles B. Lebovitz, A. Larry Chapman and Farzana Khaleel, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00149 (E.D. Tenn., May 17, 2019), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney fees and experts fees and other costs and disbursements pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. CBL is a real estate investment trust and is an active owner and developer of malls and shopping centers in the United States, owning holding interests in, or managing more than 140 properties across 31 states. CBL is under investigation by both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the SEC for allegedly inflating the Company's rental income and occupancy rates for its properties when providing those figures to banks when applying for financing arrangements. CBL reached an agreement to settle the claims for $90 million, reflecting the payment of full damages, costs and counsel fees but only announced this news 14 days after filing their annual report on Form 10-K. In reaction to this revelation, CBL shares dropped 47 cents, or roughly 25% on trading volume of approximately 11.7 million shares. CBL Series D preferred shares dropped 7%, or 74 cents, on volume of 576,300 shares, and CBL Series E preferred shares dropped 69 cents in two days, on volume of 214,200 shares. Paskowitz acquired and held shares of the CBL at artificially inflated prices and lost substantially.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES 40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200 P. O. Box 150734 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone:615.248.2828 Facsimile: 866.816.4116 Email: PKNASHLAW@aol.com Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com - and - Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY, McKENNA, & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com - and - Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2440 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 867-1156 Facsimile: (212) 504-8343 Email: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Class Certification in Naylor Farms' Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, NAYLOR FARMS, INC.; HARREL'S LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHAPARRAL ENERGY, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, BLACK STONE MINERALS COMPANY, L.P., Amicus Curiae, Case No. 17-6146 (10th Cir.), Judge Nancy Moritz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting Naylor Farms' motion to certify under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant Chaparral operates approximately 2,500 oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. Plaintiffs Naylor Farms and Harrel's have royalty interests in some of those wells. As a result, Naylor Farms receives a portion of the proceeds those wells generate. But according to Naylor Farms, Chaparral systematically underpaid Naylor Farms and other similarly situated royalty owners by improperly deducting from their royalty payments certain gas-treatment costs -- costs that Naylor Farms says Chaparral was required to shoulder under Oklahoma law. Thus, Naylor Farms brought a putative class-action lawsuit against Chaparral and moved to certify the class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Naylor Farms assert claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and failure to produce in paying quantities. The complaint alleges that Chaparral breached the IDM by improperly deducting GCDTP-service costs from the royalty payments Chaparral made to Naylor Farms and to other similarly-situated royalty owners. More specifically, Naylor Farms contends that in an attempt to circumvent the implied duty of marketability ("IDM"), Chaparral enters into wellhead sales contracts with midstream processing companies. Under the terms of those contracts, the midstream companies acquire title or possession of unprocessed gas at or near the wellhead. Yet according to Naylor Farms, the midstream companies don't actually pay Chaparral for the gas at this time. Instead, the midstream companies first perform certain gathering, compressing, dehydrating, transporting, and producing ("GCDTP") services and then sell the treated gas to downstream purchasers. Based on this theory of liability, Naylor Farms moved to certify a class comprising it and other similarly situated royalty owners. In relevant part, it argued that certification was appropriate under Rule 23 because (1) whether Chaparral breached the IDM is a common question; and (2) this and other common questions predominate over any individual ones. In response, Chaparral asserted that whether it breached the IDM isn't a common question because a jury won't be able to answer it without first assessing "individualized issues, including the obligation created by each" individual lease and the gas produced from each" individual well. Further, Chaparral asserted, these individual questions about lease language and gas quality, as well as individual questions about damages, predominate over any common questions Naylor Farms might identify. Thus, Chaparral argued, Naylor Farms cannot satisfy Rule 23's certification requirements. The district court disagreed and concluded that certification was appropriate. As an initial matter, the court ruled that Naylor Farms identified at least one common question: whether Chaparral breached the IDM. It hen rejected Chaparral's arguments that answering this common question will require an individualized assessment of either the language that appears in each lease or the quality of the gas that comes from each well. Next, the district court ruled that common questions, including whether Chaparral breached the IDM, predominate over any individual ones. Ultimately, after addressing Rule 23's remaining requirements, the district court granted Naylor Farms' motion to certify. Chaparral now appeals the district court's class-certification order. According to Chaparral, the district court erred in certifying the class under Rule 23. In support, Chaparral advances three discrete arguments. It first asserts the district court erred in failing to recognize that marketability constitutes an individual question -- one that necessarily predominates over any common ones in this litigation. It next contends the district court erred in rejecting Chaparral's argument that distinctions in lease language also give rise to individual questions, and that those individual questions likewise predominate. Finally, it insists the district court erred in failing to recognize that in the absence of evidence indicating Chaparral employs a uniform payment methodology, certification is inappropriate. Judge Moritz finds that the district court didn't abuse its discretion by concluding that the marketability question in this particular case is subject to common, classwide proof for purposes of satisfying Rule 23's commonality and predominance requirements. She agrees with Chaparral that if the district court assumed GCDTP services function solely as a mechanism for transforming unmarketable gas into a marketable product, then the court committed a legal error. But she disagrees with Chaparral that the district court ever assumed otherwise. Naylor Farms has also presented evidence of these same two factors. More importantly, it has presented classwide evidence of these same two factors. First, the record contains classwide evidence indicating that Chaparral elects to participate in the high-pressure-pipeline market: according to Naylor Farms' expert, this is where Chaparral's gas is actually "sold." Second, Naylor Farms' expert opined that, as a classwide matter, the gas at issue, was required to undergo at least one GCDTP service before it could "reach" and be "sold into" the pipeline market. In short, the district court's ruling that marketability is subject to classwide proof under the specific facts of the case is entirely consistent with the OCOCA's decision in Pummill v. Hancock Expl. LLC. Thus, Chaparral faces an uphill climb in attempting to show that this particular ruling rests on an error of state law. In attempting to make that showing, Chaparral relies heavily on the OCOCA's recent decision in Whisenant v. Strat Land Expl. Co. Next, Chaparral asserts that even if gas-quality variations don't pose a bar to certification, lease-language variations do. The Judge holds that the argument overlooks the fact that the district court declined to certify Naylor Farms' fraud claim. And Chaparral cites no authority indicating that whether it entered into the wellhead sales contracts in good faith is dispositive of, or even relevant to, the claims the district court did certify. Accordingly, the Judge finds the argument inadequately briefed and declines to consider it as well. And she further concludes that Chaparral therefore fails to demonstrate the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class despite minor variations in lease language. As a final matter, Chaparral asserts Naylor Farms failed to demonstrate that Chaparral uses a uniform payment methodology to calculate royalty payments and that this lack of a common payment methodology defeats class certification. The Judge sees no indication that will occur in the case. On the contrary, as the district court pointed out, Naylor Farms provided evidence that its expert can determine damages on a classwide basis through use of a model, thus obviating the need for individualized evidence. And Chaparral fails to explain why that model is inaccurate or unworkable. Further, the district court correctly noted that if necessary, it can later divide the class into subclasses for purposes of determining damages. Thus, the district court didn't abuse its discretion in ruling that individual questions about damages don't defeat predominance. For the reasons she discussed, Judge Moritz concludes that Chaparral fails to demonstrate the district court's decision to certify the class falls outside the bounds of rationally available choices given the facts and law involved in the matter at hand. She therefore affirmed the district court's order. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/VN3kwL from Leagle.com. Anthony J. Shaheen -- ajshaheen@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, Colorado, (Christopher A. Chrisman -- cachrisman@hollarndhart.com -- and Jessica M. Schmidt -- jmschmidt@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, Colorado; Linda J. Byford, Chaparral Energy, LLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; John J. Griffin, Jr., Harvey D. Ellis, Jr., and Charles V. Knutter, Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, with him on the briefs), for Defendant-Appellant Chaparral Energy, LLC. Conner L. Helms (Gary R. Underwood and Erin M. Moore, with him on the brief), Helms Underwood & Cook, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Naylor Farms, Inc. and Harrel's LLC. Daniel H. Charest -- dcharest@burnscharest.com -- and Warren T. Burns -- wburns@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest LLP, Dallas, Texas, filed an amicus curiae brief for Black Stone Minerals Company, L.P. in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees Naylor Farms, Inc. and Harrel's L.L.C. COCA-COLA CO: Soler-Somohano Appeals Order in Sales Practices MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Movant Alberto Soler-Somohano filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the multidistrict litigation styled In re: COCA-COLA PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION (NO. II), MDL No. 4:14-md-02555-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought on behalf of "all persons who purchased Coca-Cola's Coke product that: (1) lists phosphoric acid on the ingredients list but does not state that the product contains artificial flavoring and/or chemical preservatives; (2) includes the label statement "no artificial flavors. no preservatives added. since 1886."; and/or (3) includes the label statement "original formula." The appellate case is captioned as GEORGE ENGURASOFF; JOSHUA OGDEN; JULIA HUGHES; AYANNA NOBLES; PAUL MERRITT; BRISTOL I. AUMILLER; YOCHEVED LAZAROFF; RACHEL DUBE; RONALD SOWIZROL; MICHELLE MARINO; MARY RANKIN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC.; COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees v. ALBERTO SOLER-SOMOHANO, Movant-Appellant, Case No. 19-16025, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- June 12, 2019 -- Transcript shall be ordered; -- July 12, 2019 -- Transcript shall be filed by court reporter; -- August 21, 2019 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1; -- September 20, 2019 -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1; and -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief, pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN] COFIROUTE USA: Faces Class Action Over Toll Service Ads ------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Bradon, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a man is filing a class action lawsuit against numerous transportation authorities, alleging that he and other drivers were mailed a letter that advertised toll services. Harvey Thompson III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint on April 26 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Cofiroute USA LLC, Orange County Transportation Authority, Riverside County Transportation Commission. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are transportation agencies that operate as electronic toll collection systems on toll highways. The plaintiff and proposed class members were allegedly accused by the defendant of using the Express Lanes without a FasTrak account. The defendants later retracted their claims, admitting that they were wrong with their allegations, the suit says. In the letters of retraction, Thompson says the defendants advertised toll-related services. Thompson alleges those letters violated the Streets & Highways Code. The plaintiff is seeking trial by jury, penal fines of more than $5 million, attorneys' fees, court costs and other relief deemed fit. The plaintiff is represented by William McGrane of The Walsh Firm P.C. United States District Court for the Central District of California Southern Division Case number 8:19-CV-00769 [GN] CONTRACT CALLERS: Tabiti Sues over FDCA Violations -------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Contract Callers, Inc. and JH Capital Group for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA). The case is captioned Tabiti v. Contract Callers Inc. et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-03269 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2019). This consumer credit-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman. Established in 1926, Contract Callers, Inc. is a business process outsourcing company that offers clients across all business sectors customer care and complete credit life cycle solutions. The company provides first-party receivables management and third-party debt recovery services. Based in Woodland Hills, California, JH Capital Group, LLC is a diversified specialty finance company that offers end-to-end solutions to customers at different stages of the distressed credit cycle in the United States. It provides consumer debt settlement and credit lending services that rehabilitates consumers' credit standing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Celetha Chatman, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com - and - Michael Jacob Wood, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com CRANE CARTAGE: Vasquez Seeks Minimum Wage ----------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Crane Cartage, LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned CHRISTOPHER VASQUEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CRANE CARTAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00657-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal., May 14, 2019). Plaintiff cites the Defendant's failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay wages upon termination, failure to reimbursed business expenses, and for its unlawful and unfair business practices. Crane Cartage LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that provides nationwide ground and logistics services. The company maintains a single, centralized Human Resources department at its corporate headquarters in Houston, Texas. It offers air charter, warehousing, and transportation management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Drexler, Esq. Molly A. DeSario, Esq. Jonathan Lee, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com Molly.DeSario@CapstoneLawyers.com Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Arbitration Ruling in Smith Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, THOMAS B. SMITH, et al., v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 2373 (Md. Spec. App.), Judge Melanie M. Shaw Geter of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City compelling arbitration in a contract action for the purchase of an automobile. On Nov. 15, 2013, Appellants, Thomas Smith and Timothy Smith, entered into a Retail Installment Contract to purchase a 2003 Cadillac Escalade from Anderson Automotive Group, Inc. The Dealership assigned all of its rights, title, and interest, including its security interest, in and to the Contract and the Vehicle to Appellee, Credit Acceptance. Beginning in 2015, the Appellants failed to remit the required monthly installment payments to Credit Acceptance as required. After Credit Acceptance attempted to obtain payment from Appellants unsuccessfully, Credit Acceptance repossessed and sold the Vehicle, which resulted in a deficiency balance of $12,957.30. On Nov. 30, 2016, Credit Acceptance filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Maryland, seeking to recover the unpaid deficiency balance. On July 11, 2017, just prior to trial, Credit Acceptance voluntarily dismissed the District Court Action. Following the Appellee's voluntary dismissal of its action against Appellants in the District Court of Maryland for failure to make required payments under the same contract, the Appellants filed a class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The Appellants alleged the Appellee charged impermissible "convenience fees" and failed to sufficiently notify the Appellants regarding the repossession and sale of the vehicle in contravention of Maryland's Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions. The Appellee then petitioned the circuit court to compel arbitration of the Appellants' claim. The Appellants opposed the motion, arguing the Appellee waived its right to arbitration when it previously filed its claim in the District Court. On Jan. 12, 2018, the circuit court granted the Appellee's petition. The Appellants timely appealed and present the following question for the Court's review: Whether the Maryland Court of Appeals in Cain v. Midland Funding, LLC, 452 Md. 141, 156 A.3d 807 (Md. 2017) limited the waiver of the right to arbitrate related claims as defined by Charles J. Frank, Inc. v. Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore, Inc., 294 Md. 443, 450 A.2d 1304 (Md. 1982) to include only those claims that are dependent on the claims raised in a prior action. As Judge Shaw Geter sees it, by either standard, Credit Acceptance did not waive its right to arbitrate the claims in the Circuit Court Action. None of the Appellants' claims filed in the Circuit Court Action were "raised and/or decided" in the District Court Action. The sole issue before the District Court was a breach of contract action alleging the Appellants were responsible for a contractual deficiency. The Appellants argue their answer to an interrogatory in the District Court Action sufficiently "raised" the issues alleged in the Circuit Court Action as required by Frank. The Judge disagrees. She opines that the answers to interrogatories are not a part of the court record. Also, the notice of intention to defend, filed by Appellants, was general and did not specify any issues. Further, Credit Acceptance dismissed the lawsuit prior to trial. Thus, under Frank, Credit Acceptance did not waive its right to arbitrate the claims in the Circuit Court Action as the issues were neither "raised and/or decided in a judicial proceeding." The Appellants' claims in the Circuit Court Action are also not "related to" nor "dependent" on Credit Acceptance's claim in the District Court Action under Cain. Unlike in Cain, where Cain's claims would not have existed but for Midland's district court action against him, the Appellants' claims that Credit Acceptance violated the CLEC is wholly independent of Credit Acceptance's claim in the District Court. The Appellants' claims arise from Credit Acceptance's actions in collecting payment under the Contract, while Credit Acceptance's claim in the District Court Action was for a contractual deficiency. The Appellants' claims would exist regardless of whether they breached the Contract or whether Credit Acceptance instituted the District Court Action. Accordingly, the Judge holds the circuit court did not err in granting Credit Acceptance's petition to compel arbitration. Based on the foregoing, Judge Shaw Geter affirmed. Costs to be paid by the Appellant. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/zCRZHi from Leagle.com. CV SCIENCES: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Smith Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit initiated by David Smith is pending. On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action complaint in Nevada District Court alleging certain misstatements were contained in financial filings that led to stock price fluctuations and resulting financial harm. Several additional individuals filed similar claims, and the Smith suit and each of the other suits all arise out of a report published by Citron Research on Twitter on August 20, 2018 suggesting that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose that the Company's efforts to secure patent protection had been "finally rejected" by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). On November 15, 2018, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust as Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated actions. On January 4, 2019, Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust filed a "consolidated amended complaint". On March 5, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the action. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations. CV Sciences said, "Since no discovery has been conducted and the case remains stayed, an estimate of the possible loss or recovery cannot be made at this time. Various shareholder derivative suits have been filed which are premised on the same event as the already-pending case. These are stayed pending the outcome of the securities class action case." CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp. and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. CV SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Sallustro Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit initiated by Tanya Sallustro. On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York (the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased certain shares of the Company's common stock for a total investment of $16 thousand. The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014 and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1.3 million were restated to $1.1million, a reduction of $0.2 million) and restated goodwill as $1.9 million (previously reported at net zero). Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share." Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, six different individuals filed a motion asking to be designated the lead plaintiff in the litigation. On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling appointing Steve Schuck as lead plaintiff. Counsel for Mr. Schuck filed a "consolidated amended complaint" on September 14, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. After requesting several extensions, counsel for Mr. Schuck filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 21, 2016. The Company's reply brief was filed on April 25, 2016. On April 2, 2018, the Court issued a ruling granting in part and denying part the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, on October 3, 2018, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to withdraw Mr. Schuck as Lead Plaintiff and to substitute Jane Ish as new Lead Plaintiff. This motion was granted by the Court. CV Sciences said, "Various shareholder derivative suits and complaints have been filed which are premised on the same event as the already-pending securities class action case. These are stayed pending the outcome of the securities class action case." Management intends to vigorously defend these allegations and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time. CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp. and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. DIAL SOAP: DOJ Files Statement of Interest in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Independent Women's Forum reports that on May 10, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in a class action lawsuit against Dial Soap due to the extraordinary attorney fee arrangement in the case. Most people think of class action lawsuits as a democratic tool for justice, but this case may be an example of the potential for abuse. In the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Congress found that class action lawsuits "are an important and valuable part of the legal system"—but only "when they permit the fair and efficient resolution of legitimate claims." Class actions aggregate hundreds or thousands of claims into one case and are designed to allow for the recovery of small claims where the cost of individual litigation otherwise would be prohibitive. In CAFA, Congress also found that the class action devise had been abused and this abuse had "undermined public respect for our judicial system." One such abuse identified by Congress was where class counsel are awarded massive fees but class members "receive little or no benefit." Because of this potential for abuse, Congress allows the Attorney General to review class settlements and file Statement of Interests in the case. In the Dial case, plaintiffs allege (and Dial disputes) that Dial falsely advertised that its hand soaps containing triclosan were more effective at killing germs than were other soaps. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the attorneys would be awarded a whopping $3.825 million, including nearly two million tied to the award of injunctive relief. The United States argues that the injunction "provide[s] no benefit to consumers," given that the FDA has banned the use of triclosan, and Dial has already voluntarily made the changes required by the injunctive relief. The United States thus opposes the proposed class action settlement because it "would afford little value to consumers while handsomely compensating attorneys." Too often the potential for abuse is exploited, but it looks like the DOJ is paying attention this time. Costly class actions that don't result in any benefit to "the little guy" only ultimately add to the costs that consumers face as litigation costs are passed along to us. Our justice system should be about righting wrongs, not enriching trial lawyers. [GN] DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Aug. 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the Diplomat Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DAVID N. ZIMMERMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC., et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 2:16-cv-14005-AC-SDD Hon. Avern Cohn CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC. ("DIPLOMAT") COMMON STOCK FROM FEBRUARY 29, 2016 THROUGH AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER 3, 2016 THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "Court") and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that (i) the above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of a class of all Persons who purchased Diplomat common stock from February 29, 2016 through and including November 3, 2016, except for certain Persons excluded from the Class as defined in the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is available as described below; and (ii) Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants in the Litigation have reached an agreement to settle the Litigation for an aggregated settlement payment of $14.1 million in cash (the "Settlement"). If the Settlement is approved it will resolve all claims in the Litigation. Any capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation of Settlement dated April 22, 2019 (the "Stipulation"), and the Notice. A hearing will be held on August 20, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Avern Cohn, at the Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, Michigan for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the sum of $14,100,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlement; (3) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation; (4) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (5) the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with this Litigation together with the interest earned thereon (which may include payments to the Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in connection with their representation of the Class). If you purchased Diplomat common stock during the period between February 29, 2016 and November 3, 2016, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the settlement of this Litigation. If you have not received a detailed Notice and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies (as well as a copy of the Stipulation) by writing to Diplomat Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 404131, Louisville, KY 40233-4131, or by downloading this information at www.DiplomatSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must either submit a Proof of Claim online at www.DiplomatSecuritiesSettlement.com by September 23, 2019, or by mail postmarked no later than September 23, 2019, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion postmarked by July 30, 2019, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All Members of the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed or delivered to the Clerk of the Court and counsel for the Settling Parties at the addresses below such that it is received no later than July 30, 2019: Court: Clerk of the Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 231 W. Lafayette Blvd. Detroit, MI 48226 Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs: Ellen Gusikoff Stewart ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Joshua L. Crowell GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Counsel for Defendants: James W. Ducayet SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact counsel for Lead Plaintiffs at the addresses listed above or go to the following website: www.DiplomatSecuritiesSettlement.com. DATED: May 7, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN DON VITO OZUNA: Camilo's Bid for Prelim. OK of $375K Deal Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Virginia K. Demarchi denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of settlement in the lawsuit entitled RODRIGO CAMILO, et al. v. SEVERO C. OZUNA, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-02842-VKD (N.D. Cal.). According to the Order, the Court held a hearing on the Motion on March 19, 2019. Following the hearing, and at the Court's direction, the Plaintiffs filed supplemental briefing on the matter. Upon consideration of the moving papers, the Plaintiffs' supplemental submissions, and the arguments of counsel, the Court conditionally certifies a Rule 23 class and FLSA collective class, but otherwise denies the Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice to filing a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by June 17, 2019. Plaintiffs Rodrigo Camilo, Alvaro Camilo, Ricardo Sanchez, and Jose Lopez bring this hybrid putative class action and collective class action for alleged wage and hour violations under various provisions of the California Labor Code and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are Severo C. Ozuna and the Don Vito Ozuna Food Corporation, a tortilla factory based in Morgan Hill, California. Prior to certification, the parties participated in a full-day private mediation with Hon. George Hernandez (Ret.) and reached a settlement as to the Plaintiffs' claims and those of all "Class Members," defined in the parties' Joint Stipulation for Class Action Settlement and Release ("Stipulated Settlement") as follows: All non-exempt hourly employees who are employed or have been employed by Defendants as all non-exempt hourly employees involved in the tortilla and chip manufacturing process who were employed by Defendants between May 14, 2014 and March 19, 2019 who claim they were not paid all their overtime at the rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay, and who claim did not receive their breaks. The Stipulated Settlement does not refer to a subclass of employees who were not timely paid final wages upon termination. The proposed settlement is non-reversionary and contemplates a release of claims in return for a total payment of $375,000 into a common fund. From that fund, the parties will deduct $112,500 in attorneys' fees, up to $10,000 in litigation expenses, no more than $15,000 for settlement administration costs, and service awards of $5,000 to each named Plaintiff. The remaining sum, $217,500, referred to as the "Net Settlement Fund," will then be available for distribution to each "Participating Class Member" based on the number of weeks he or she worked, with 67% of the fund being allocated to Rule 23 class claims and 33% being allocated to those under the FLSA. The Defendants agree to fund the settlement in two installments. The first payment of $200,000 is due by July 1, 2019, or 30 days after final approval of the settlement (assuming no objections are asserted and no appeal is filed), whichever is later. The second installment of $175,000 is due by May 1, 2020. Payments will be distributed by CPT Group, the agreed-upon claims administrator, after each installment is paid.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Faces Class Action Over Gender Pay Bias ----------------------------------------------------- Dan Desai Martin, writing for Shareblue Media, reports that Omarosa Manigault-Newman, the former Apprentice star, Trump supporter, and White House staffer, alleges she was paid less on the Trump campaign than a man doing the same work. The allegations, filed on May 13 in federal court, are part of an effort by another former Trump campaign staffer, Alva Johnson, to certify a collective action lawsuit against the Trump campaign. In the court document, Manigault-Newman alleges that the Trump campaign paid her and other female staffers "less than male employees who performed the same or similar job duties under similar working conditions." Manigault-Newman released a statement after the allegations were files saying that she strongly suspected she was subjected to pay discrimination, and has since seen evidence from experts supporting her hunch. "The numbers don't lie," she said. After the campaign, Manigault-Newman worked at the White House until she was fired in December 2017. In addition to Manigault-Newman, Johnson's attorney presented data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) which shows that, "excluding a small handful of employees in senior leadership roles, on average, females were paid $3,865 monthly and males were paid $4,568 -- a stunning gap of 18.2 percent." The data is from May 2016 through December 2016. Alva Johnson made headlines when she filed her lawsuit in February 2019. In addition to allegations of pay discrimination, Johnson claimed Trump grabbed her and kissed her without her consent. Johnson is one of 23 women who have accused Trump of sexual harassment. "I immediately felt violated because I wasn't expecting it or wanting it," Johnson said. "I can still see his lips coming straight for my face," she added. The actions described by Johnson line up with how Trump himself described his own sexual predatory behavior on an Access Hollywood tape. "You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them," Trump said. "It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything." In her court filing, Manigault-Newman did not allege sexual harassment by Trump. If Johnson's motion to create a collective action lawsuit is successful, she will be able to reach out and invite other women who worked on Trump's campaign to join in the lawsuit, according to her lawyer. If the allegations are true, Trump has the same stance toward equal pay as Republicans in the House of Representatives. The House recently voted on the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill to make it easier for women to challenge pay discrimination and hold employers accountable. While Democrats unanimously supported the bill, Trump's Republican pals overwhelmingly voted against it. [GN] EL POLLO: Aug. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the El Pollo Loco Securities Settlement: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION DANIEL TUROCY, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. EL POLLO LOCO HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 8:15-cv-01343-DOC-KES (Consolidated) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED EL POLLO LOCO HOLDINGS, INC. (EL POLLO LOCO) COMMON STOCK OR EXCHANGE-TRADED CALL OPTIONS, OR SOLD EXCHANGE-TRADED PUT OPTIONS FROM MAY 15, 2015, THROUGH AND INCLUDING AUGUST 13, 2015, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE CLASS), YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS AS SET FORTH IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, that the above-captioned litigation (the Litigation) has been certified as a class action and that a Settlement has been proposed for $20,000,000 in cash. A hearing will be held on August 21, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., before the Honorable David O. Carter at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Courtroom 9D, Santa Ana, CA 92701, for the purpose of determining whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (3) the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys fees of no more than 30% of the Settlement Amount, payment of litigation expenses of no more than $750,000 from the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon, and an amount not to exceed $3,000 each for Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) in connection with their representation of the Class, should be approved; and (4) the Court should enter the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action (the Notice) and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: El Pollo Loco Securities Settlement, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 505027, Louisville, KY 40233-5027, 1-866-446-5054. You may also obtain copies of the Stipulation of Settlement, Notice and Proof of Claim and Release at www.ElPolloLocoSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail postmarked no later than August 6, 2019, or submit it online by that date, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. If you do not submit a valid Proof of Claim and Release, you will not share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will still be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Litigation (including the releases provided for therein). If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Litigation (including the releases provided for therein) whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim and Release. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion so that is postmarked no later than July 31, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you request exclusion, you will not recover money pursuant to the Settlement. Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation of Settlement proceeds, or the fee and expense application must be filed with the Court and delivered such that it is received by each of the following no later than July 31, 2019: CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Ronald Reagan Federal Building & United States Courthouse 411 West Fourth Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Co-Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP RYAN A. LLORENS 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Defense Counsel: SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP JASON D. RUSSELL 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERKS OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above or by calling 1-800-449-4900 or 1-213-785-2610. DATED: May 15, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION EPICENTER FESTIVAL: Disgruntled Attendees Mull Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Cierra Jones, writing for mxdwn.com, reports that the Epicenter Festival was nothing short of a disaster. Severe weather, traffic nightmares, and canceled sets turned eager fans into disappointed fans. Problems arose early, as traffic was a big issue for fans trying to get to the festival. According to consequenceofsound, a ticket holder by the name of Kelly Tesh told a local news channel that she arrived within three miles of the festival around 5:00 p.m. on May 10 via US Highway 1. After moving just one and a half miles in four hours, she and her friends decided to get rid of their tickets and head home. For those who stuck it out and made through traffic, another problem stood in between them and the festival. Parking was also a disaster for fans as there was a lack of lighting, parking attendants, or security. This left cars trapped in chaos with festival goers claiming they were stuck in the parking lot for more than four hours. The issue became so frustrating that a few people decided to cut a hole through the fencing around the parking lot, allowing cars to filter out through the gap. Severe weather led to a forced set evacuation ahead of the May 11 evening's performances. Fans were told to seek shelter in their cars, while those who attempted to leave the festival grounds were stuck in mayhem once again. The weather led to the cancelation of highly anticipated sets from Tool, Judas Priest, The Cult, and many more. Major damage was detected to the festival grounds, stages, and infrastructure, leading to a delay for the May 12 gates to open for several hours. Before the festival, the forecast had predicted inclement conditions for the festival days. With the recent traffic mayhem and last-minute evacuation, it seemed as though organizers were perhaps not as prepared as fans would have liked. Through all of the mishaps, Epicenter decided to continue the festival on May 12 to end with a high note. For some fans, there is no forgiving or forgetting how much of a disaster the Epicenter Festival was. According to theprp, a Facebook group formed calling for a class-action lawsuit against the organizers. Over 1300 members signed up for the group, but it appears to have since been removed from the social network. [GN] EQUIFAX INC: Reaches Data Breach Settlement Agreements ------------------------------------------------------ Emma Hurt, writing for WABE, reports that Equifax Inc. (NYSE: EFX), the Atlanta-based credit bureau, revealed in its earnings release that dealing with its 2017 cybersecurity breach has cost about $1.4 billion plus legal fees, but Chief Executive Mark Begor told investors the company has made progress since the 2017 breach, notably by reaching settlement agreements recently with some of the class action lawsuits and government investigators. "This is a positive step forward for Equifax, as we work to put the 2017 cybersecurity event behind us," Begor said of the lawsuits, though he qualified they are pending court approval. A year and a half ago, the company, which gathers consumers' credit histories, revealed a massive security breach compromised the personal information of about 150 million people. Begor also said the settlement terms include the creation of a single "consumer redress fund" to consolidate redress requests, for which the company advocated. There are still many other lawsuits outstanding. The company has said hundreds of suits were filed against it since the breach, including more than 2,500 individual consumer plaintiffs, international and domestic class action suits, shareholder litigation and government lawsuits from states and cities. [GN] EQUITY BANCSHARES: July 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, on May 14 announced that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Equity Bancshares, Inc. ("Equity Bancshares," "EQBK" or the "Company) (NASDAQ: EQBK) between May 11, 2018 and April 22, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeks to recover damages for Equity Bancshares investors under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased EQBK securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit EQBK Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclosed that (1) Equity Bancshares lacked adequate internal controls to assess credit risk; (2) certain of Equity Bancshares' loans posed an increased risk of loss; (3) Equity Bancshares was reasonably likely to incur significant losses for certain substandard loans; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about Equity Bancshares' business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On April 22, 2019, Equity Bancshares disclosed that a $14.5 million provision for loss against a credit relationship had impacted its financial results for first quarter 2019. On this news, Equity Bancshares' share price fell $4.76, or more than 16%, to close at $24.71 per share on April 23, 2019. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Equity Bancshares class action, you must move the court no later than July 12, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased EQBK securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit https://tinyurl.com/yydd82jh or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. [GN] EXPRESS SCRIPTS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Action Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on May 7, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit summarily affirmed the judgment by Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting defendants' motion to dismiss in a putative securities class action. In re Express Scripts Holdings Co. Securities Litigation No. 18-cv-1850 (2d Cir. May 7, 2019). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants -- a pharmacy benefit manager ("the Company") and certain of its officers -- violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") by making materially false or misleading statements in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. As discussed in our prior post, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs did not adequately plead that defendants made any misleading statements or that defendants acted with the requisite scienter. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the District Court incorrectly held that the Amended Complaint failed to adequately allege that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omission and acted with scienter. The Second Circuit affirmed in a summary order. Summary orders do not have binding precedential effect. The Company entered into a ten-year agreement with a major insurance company to serve as its exclusive pharmacy benefits manager, which was subject to periodic pricing reviews and could be renewed at the end of the ten-year term. Plaintiffs allege that defendants "materially misrepresented" and "failed to disclose the true state" of the Company's "relationship and negotiations" with the insurance company, and that the Company "misled investors by amortizing the [a]greement over 15 years, rather than 10 years," when it knew the agreement would not be renewed. Plaintiffs cited the following four statements by defendants as being materially false or misleading: (i) an officer describing the relationship between the Company and the insurance company as "great," "very, very solid," and "business as usual;" (ii) an officer stating that the Company "really enjoys" its relationship with the insurance company and that it is a "two-way street;" (iii) an officer stating that the Company was "currently in discussions with [the insurance company] regarding the periodic pricing provisions of the agreement" and "excited to continue productive discussions," which were "very early on;" and (iv) an SEC filing by the Company representing that it was actively engaged in good-faith discussions with the insurer concerning the periodic pricing review. According to the Second Circuit, the statements by the officers were opinions and "expressions of puffery" and as such were not misleading. The Court emphasized that the Company had made efforts to negotiate and had attempted to resolve disputes between the parties, and the Company's statements merely expressed optimism about the process and did not become misleading just because it did not turn out as planned. Indeed, the Second Circuit noted that the Company had in fact warned investors that the negotiations could be unsuccessful and that the agreement might not be renewed. Accordingly, the Second Circuit found that "no reasonable investor could have found the statements, in light of the overall context, to be false, misleading, or incomplete." The Second Circuit next considered plaintiffs' allegation that the Company misleadingly amortized the ten-year agreement over a fifteen-year period when it knew that there was a remote possibility that the agreement would actually be renewed. While agreeing that the Company's expectations were "overly optimistic," the Second Circuit found that these actions did not demonstrate that the Company "overvalued" the agreement. Furthermore, the Second Circuit found that defendants did not have a duty to disclose the allegedly troubled relationship between the parties. Citing to the Second Circuit's holding in In re Vivendi, S.A. Sec. Litig., 837 F.3d 223, 239 (2d Cir. 2016), the Court noted that a "pure omission is actionable under securities laws only when the corporation is subject to a duty to disclose the omitted facts, and in and of themselves, [Section] 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 do not create an affirmative duty to disclose any and all material information." Because discussions between the parties were ongoing, the Court found that defendants' "lack of clairvoyance . . . does not constitute securities fraud." Turning to the issue of scienter, the Second Circuit agreed with the District Court's holding that plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants had an intent to deceive or misrepresent the relationship to the public. The Second Circuit noted that while scienter based on conscious misbehavior or reckless conduct may be established with circumstantial evidence that defendants knew or had access to information suggesting that their public statements were not accurate, the Second Circuit has "limited the scope of securities fraud liability" on such a basis and liability would not be found if public statements were consistent with information that was "available at the time." The Court found that defendants "could not have known that the negotiations with [the insurance company] would ultimately fail, especially considering the fact that the first periodic pricing review was successful even though it took ‘approximately a year,' was ‘combative,' and led [the insurance company] to ‘raise[] the possibility of litigation' to resolve the contractual dispute." According to the Court, the "fact that [d]efendants' optimism ‘turned out to be unwarranted is not circumstantial evidence of conscious fraudulent behavior or recklessness.'" Finding plaintiffs' remaining arguments without merit, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment dismissing the claims with prejudice against defendants. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Court Allows Class Action to Expand ------------------------------------------------------ The Canadian Press reports that a class-action lawsuit launched against Facebook by a British Columbia woman is allowed to include to residents of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador who claim their images were used without their knowledge. Deborah Douez claims the social media giant used her image and those of others without their knowledge in the "sponsored stories" advertising program that is no longer in operation. Facebook Inc. fought the certification of the class action all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and lost and now a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled that Douez can expand the certification to include residents of other provinces who were unknowingly featured in the promotion. Justice Nitya Iyer also agreed with Douez that Facebook is obligated to pay any profits that it made from the unauthorized use of the class members' names or portraits. If someone liked a product under the program, which ran from January 2011 to May 2014, Facebook generated a news feed endorsement using the person's name and profile photo, but didn't tell that person their image was being used. In a ruling issued on May 13, Iyer said if the plaintiffs were asking for damages, she would agree with Facebook that the change should be denied, but she notes that giving up the profit made is a remedy under privacy laws in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador. [GN] FEDERAL EXPRESS: Freem Moves for Certification of FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MICHELL FREEM, behalf of himself and on behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly situated v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:19-cv-00445-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), asks the Court pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for entry of an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of persons who at any point in the last 3 years: (1) work or have worked for Federal Express Corporation ("Defendant" and/or "FedEx") as hourly paid technician employees; (2) have worked off the clock or for more than forty (40) hours in any week; and (3) have not been paid minimum wage or overtime wages; 2. directing FedEx to produce a computer-readable list identifying by name, last known mail address, last known e-mail address, and telephone number of the class members within 10 days of entry of the Order; 3. authorizing the Plaintiff to issue the proposed Notice to putative class members via U.S. Mail and/or e-mail and the Consent to Join form; 4. authorizing FedEx to post the Notice in a conspicuous common area in its branches; and 5. equitably tolling the statute of limitations of the FLSA Collective until the Court deems notice is proper. The Court will commence a hearing on June 24, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Quintilone, II, Esq. Andrew H. Haas, Esq. QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES 22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961 Telephone: (949) 458-9675 Facsimile: (949) 458-9679 E-mail: req@quintlaw.com ahh@quintlaw.com - and - Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq. Michael D. Singer, Esq. J. Jason Hill, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com msinger@ckslaw.com jhill@ckslaw.com FIAT CHRYSLER: 2nd Partial Consent Decree in State Suit Entered --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, v. FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES N.V., FCA US LLC, V.M. MOTORI S.p.A., and V.M. NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-CV-00151 (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, has entered the Second California Partial Consent Decree, resolving the Defendants' alleged violations of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., 17500 et seq., and 17580.5. The State of California, acting by and through Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of the State of California, and the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") filed a complaint in the action on Jan. 9, 2019, against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., FCA US LLC, V.M. Motori S.p.A, and V.M. North America, Inc., alleging in relevant part that, in connection with the certification, marketing, distribution, and sale in California of approximately 14,000 model year ("MY") 2014 to 2016 Ram 1500 and MY 2014 to 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles equipped with 3.0 liter EcoDiesel engines, the Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. Section 7604(a)(1); California Health and Safety Code Sectio 43016, 43151, 43152, 43153, 43154, 43205, 43211, and 43212; 13 C.C.R. Sections 1961, 1961.2, 1965, 1968.2, and 2037 and the 40 C.F.R sections incorporated therein by reference; and California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., 17500 et seq., and 17580.5. The California Complaint alleges, in relevant part, that each Subject Vehicle contains, as part of the electronic control module, certain software functions and calibrations that cause the emission control system of those vehicles to perform differently (i.e., to underperform or shut off) during normal vehicle operation and use, as compared to during emissions testing. It alleges that these software functions and calibrations are undisclosed Auxiliary Emission Control Devices ("AECDs") in violation of California and federal law, and that they are also prohibited defeat devices under California and federal law. The California Complaint also alleges that during normal vehicle operation and use, the Subject Vehicles emit increased levels of oxides of nitrogen ("NOx"). It seeks, among other things, civil penalties, injunctive relief, mitigation, costs and other equitable relief related to the presence of the defeat devices in the Subject Vehicles. The Parties intend to resolve certain aspects of the California Claims through the entry of: (1) a consent decree among the United States, California, and the Defendants ("FCA/US/CA Consent Decree") concerning the Subject Vehicles, lodged on Jan. 10, 2019, that, among other things, establishes a recall program offering consumers an approved emissions modification to be applied to the Subject Vehicles, establishes a post-entry testing program to ensure continued compliance and durability of modified Subject Vehicles, requires the Defendants to implement certain corporate compliance reforms, and requires Defendants to make a civil penalty payment of $42.7 million to CARB and a separate penalty payment of $3,175,200 to CARB for certain additional on-board diagnostic ("OBD") non-compliances; and (2) a consent decree between California and Defendants concerning the Subject Vehicles, lodged on Jan. 10, 2019, that requires the Defendants to make a payment of $19,035,000 to CARB and which is intended to fully mitigate the total lifetime excess NOx emissions from the Subject Vehicles in California, as claimed by California. They have agreed to resolve the remaining aspects of the California Claims related to the Subject Vehicles without the need for litigation through the Second California Partial Consent Decree. The Consent Decree resolves the Defendants' alleged violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., 17500 et seq., and 17580.5 as more fully described in the California Complaint, including by providing certain injunctive and monetary relief to the California Attorney General. The Parties recognize, and Judge Chen by entering the Consent Decree finds, that the Consent Decree has been negotiated by the Parties in good faith and will avoid litigation among the Parties regarding the Consumer Protection Claims, and that the Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest. The obligations of the Consent Decree apply to and are binding upon the State of California, including the California Attorney General, and upon Defendants, as applicable, and any of their respective successors, assigns, or other entities or persons otherwise bound by law. The Defendants' obligations to comply with the requirements of the Consent Decree are joint and several. They will do all things within their power and authority to ensure that any legal successor or assign of any Defendant will remain jointly and severally liable for the payment and other performance obligations hereunder. They will provide a copy of the Consent Decree to the members of their respective Board of Directors and their executives whose duties might reasonably include compliance with, or oversight over compliance with, any provision of the Consent Decree. The Defendants are permanently restrained and enjoined from advertising, marketing, offering for sale, selling, offering for lease, leasing, or distributing, or assisting others in the advertising, marketing, offering for sale, selling, offering for lease, leasing, or distributing in California any vehicle that contains a Defeat Device. The Defendants will pay to the California Attorney General $13.5 million, to be used by the California Attorney General, at the sole discretion of the California Attorney General, for the enforcement of consumer protection and environmental laws by the California Attorney General, and to defray the costs of the investigation leading to this Consent Decree, the FCA/US/CA Consent Decree, and the First California Partial Consent Decree, and of the California Attorney General's ongoing monitoring of Defendants' compliance with these consent decrees. The Total Settlement Payment comprises (i) $8.3 million to resolve the Consumer Protection Claims concerning the no fewer than 13,515 Subject Vehicles sold or leased in California; and (ii) $5.2 million to defray the costs of the investigation leading to the Consent Decree, the FCA/US/CA Consent Decree, and the First California Partial Consent Decree, and of the California Attorney General's ongoing monitoring of Defendants' compliance with these consent decrees. If the Defendants fail to make the payment required, then they shall, in addition to the California Mitigation Payment, pay stipulated penalties directly to the California Attorney General as follows: Noncompliance: (i) $20,000 (1st through 30th day),(ii) $40,000 - 31st through 45th day, and (iii) $80,000 - 46th day and beyond. The payments required to be made pursuant to the Consent Decree will be made within 30 calendar days of the date of entry, payable by wire transfer to the California Attorney General's Office pursuant to instructions provided by the California Attorney General's Office. The Defendants are responsible for any bank charges they incur for processing wire transfers. The Effective Date of the Consent Decree will be the date upon which it is entered by the Court or a motion to enter the Consent Decree is granted, whichever occurs first, as recorded on the Court's docket. Upon its approval and entry by the Court, the Consent Decree will constitute a final judgment of the Court as to the California Attorney General and the Defendants. Judge Chen finds that there is no just reason for delay and therefore enters the judgment as a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and 58. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/LNDl9u from Leagle.com. People of the State of California, Plaintiff, represented by Judith Aurora Yosepha Fiorentini, Office of the Attorney General, Laurel Carnes, Office of the Attorney General, Nicklas A. Akers, California Department of Justice & Jon F. Worm, Office of the Attorney General. FIRST AMERICAN: Brent and Teri Files Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against First American Financial Corporation. The case is styled as Brent and Teri Johnson, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. First American Financial Corporation and First American Title Company, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01112-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Diversity-Other Contract. First American Financial Corporation is a United States financial services company and is a provider of title insurance and settlement services to the real estate and mortgage industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin F Ruf, Esq. Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel:(310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 Email: kruf@glancylaw.com FISHING LINE: Accused by Fishing Line of Salmon Price-fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ The Fishing Line LLC, on behalf of itself and all other 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 Leroy Seafood Group ASA, Leroy Seafood USA Inc. and Scottish Sea Farms Ltd. The Fishing Line LLC, and all others similarly situated, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-22011 (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2019), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. Defendants are salmon producers alleged of entering into anti-competitive agreements and/or concerted practices with each other to control the prices of salmon and salmon-related products. The Fishing Line is a fresh fish market which supplies fish, including farm-raised salmon, to retailers and institutions throughout the United States. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Steven M. Ebner, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 347-7323 Fax: (305) 347-7760 Email: SEbner@shutts.com - and - Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq. Ryan J. Keenan, Esq. Scott C. Ferrier, Esq. WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor New York, New York 10110 Phone: (212) 382-3300 Fax: (212) 382-0050 Email: raranoff@wmd-law.com rkeenan@wmd-law.com FLIK TOKEN: Investors File Class Action in Atlanta -------------------------------------------------- Daryl Nelson, writing for Atlanta Black Star, reports that in November 2018 a $5 million federal securities lawsuit was filed by Chicago-based lawyer Alexander Loftus against T.I. and a man said to be Tip's business partner named Ryan Felton. Loftus represents a group of plaintiffs that invested in Felton's cryptocurrency FLiK Token, an investment vehicle the plaintiffs claim T.I. also had a stake in. And now, as of May 10, a class-action lawsuit has been filed in a federal district court in Atlanta on behalf of the investors, who said they paid $40 million and were told the tokens would substantially increase in value. T.I. and Felton are accused of enticing investors to buy in at 6 cents per coin and said they were told it would be worth $14.99 in just a year and a half. Plus, celebrities like Kevin Hart mentioned the cryptocurrency on social media and congratulated the "Live Your Life" rapper for starting it, and he was accused of making the offer seem more legitimate. The value eventually increased to 21 cents per coin before it was worthless, and the suit alleges that T.I. and his co-defendants dumped the cryptocurrency afterward, then stopped all the social media promotions. And besides the securities class action suit, that $5 million complaint from the investors in the initial coin offering was amended, so now Hart has been added for his connection with FLiK. Loftus, who said Felton and T.I. were involved in a classic "pump and dump" scheme, said the government is now cracking down on cryptocurrency startups. "This is an example where technology got a bit ahead of regulation and now that the SEC is catching up, a lot of ICO offerings are going to get pinched for violations just like this" said Loftus in a statement. "Thinly traded cryptocurrencies like this can be manipulated just like a penny stock, so fraudsters can make a quick buck with a celebrity endorsement pumping the value up such as the endorsement made by Actor Kevin Hart in this case." In November T.I.'s attorney Albert A. Chapar sent a statement to Atlanta Black Star and said the rapper is far from a fraudster, because he was also duped by Felton. "Tip is truly disheartened by the lawsuit," said Chapar. "Tip did not receive a single dollar from Felton or any of the money alleged to have been invested by the Plaintiffs, nor did he have any ownership in the company." "Felton has made multiple misrepresentations as well as unauthorized statements about Tip's involvement," he added. "The terribly unfortunate truth is that Felton misused and took advantage of Tip's name and likeness, thereby victimizing both the investors and Tip." [GN] FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Coffie Files Tort Class Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Florida Crystals Corporation. The case is styled as Clover Coffie and Jennie Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Florida Crystals Corporation, Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, United States Sugar Corporation, Flo-Sun Incorporated, American Sugar Refining, Inc, Okeelanta Corporation, Osceola Farms, Sugarland Harvesting Co., Trucane Sugar Corporation, Independent Harvesting, Inc., King Ranch, Inc. and J & J Ag Products, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80730-DMM (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land. Florida Crystals is the only producer of certified organic sugar grown and harvested in the United States. Its subsidiary, ASR Group, is the world's largest cane sugar refining company, which owns and operates sugar refineries in Louisiana, California, New York, Maryland, Canada, Mexico, England, Italy and Portugal.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph C. Schulz, Esq. The Law Offices of Berman & Berman P.O. Box 272789 Boca Raton, FL 33427 Tel: (561) 826-5200 Fax: (561) 826-5201 Email: service@thebermanlawgroup.com - and - Zachary West, Esq. The Law Offices of Berman and Berman, P.A. 805 NW 13th Street, Suite D Gainesville, FL 32601 Tel: (352) 514-3791 Email: zwest@thebermanlawgroup.com FLOWERS FOODS: Court Won't Decertify FLSA Class in Neff Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Geoffrey W. Crawford denies the motion for decertification of the FLSA class and grants the motion for certification of the Vermont labor law claims in the lawsuit styled NICK NEFF and MATTHEW McCREA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., CK SALES CO., LLC, and LEPAGE BAKERIES PARK STREET, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00254-gwc (D. Vt.). The Plaintiffs work as distributors for the Defendants. The Plaintiffs deliver bread, snacks, and other baked goods produced by the Defendants to stores and other retail locations. Prior to 2012, most Plaintiffs were full-time employees of LePage and received overtime wages after 40 hours of work each week. In 2012, Flowers Foods acquired LePage. Flowers Foods is the second-largest commercial bakery company in the United States. Flowers Foods follows a business model in which most distributors are classified as independent contractors. In the months following the acquisition, the Plaintiffs were presented with identical distribution agreements, which described this new business arrangement. As independent contractors, they no longer received overtime pay. The Plaintiffs have filed suit, claiming that the Defendants misclassified distributors as independent contractors, thus, depriving them of overtime wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act. A subset of the Plaintiffs, who are located in Vermont have filed claims under Vermont law seeking compensation for alleged unlawful deductions from their pay and other damages. All Plaintiffs also seek injunctive and declaratory relief establishing their right as employees to receive overtime pay. The Plaintiffs move for class certification of their Vermont law claims.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Appeal Pending in Transmission Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- Clifford Atiyeh, writing for Car and Driver, reports that by now it is a well-publicized issue that Ford's PowerShift dual-clutch automatic transmission has caused problems for owners of several model years of its Fiesta and Focus cars. Now, nearly two million customers stand to get repayment for their trouble in a class-action lawsuit settlement currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals, and it could cost Ford in the billions. The Ford PowerShift transmission in question is found in 2011–2016 Fiesta and 2012–2016 Focus cars. As described by owners of the vehicles, the primary, recurrent issues are a shuddering feeling while accelerating from a stop -- like someone who can't feather the clutch properly on a stick shift -- followed by a rough 1-2 upshift that again sends a vibration throughout the vehicle. Owners have reported replacing clutches, output shafts, and entire transmissions. They've come back for software updates. More often than not, as described by owners we've spoken to and on forums across the internet, the problems reappear even after service technicians claim the transmission is within normal factory limits. What's the Problem? In place of a conventional automatic's torque converter, this dual-clutch six-speed transmission uses two clutch packs to couple the engine to the transmission -- one that's engaged when an odd gear is selected, the other for evens. Dual-clutch gearboxes typically deliver improved fuel economy and faster shifts than a traditional automatic. But these transmissions also tend to slip the clutch like a manual when getting off the line and can shift rougher than a torque-converter automatic. Exacerbating these undesirable traits, the Ford uses dry clutches in the interest of efficiency. Wet clutches, which bathe the friction discs in hydraulic fluid, offer smoother engagement. It's no coincidence that the better dual-clutch transmissions -- such as those used by Audi, BMW, Porsche, and Volkswagen -- use wet clutches. In the case of the Ford transmission, many owners simply weren't used to dual-clutch transmission feel. But in the U.S. and across the world, this transmission's history of needing frequent repairs has been well documented. What Has Ford Done about It? Since its European introduction 10 years ago, Ford has issued more than 20 technical service bulletins addressing problems with the PowerShift, code-named DPS6. In 2014, Ford extended the powertrain warranty on affected Fiesta and Focus models by an extra two years or 40,000 miles, to seven years or 100,000 miles total. Ford first modified the PowerShift transmission in 2012 after the automaker's scores in J.D. Power and Consumer Reports surveys dropped. But these issues didn't go away until Ford began getting sued in 2017. According to then Ford Australia president Graeme Whickman, speaking to CarAdvice in July 2017, Ford made several improvements to the PowerShift transmission on vehicles after the 2016 model year. That's not to say customers have never since reported a similar issue, but by and large, it hasn't affected a dramatic spread of owners as did earlier models. Legal Action With $35 million involved in the pending class-action settlement in California, that's not much money in the pipeline for the estimated 1.6 million current and 400,000 former owners of these cars in the United States, many of whose vehicles have needed multiple service visits and sometimes, multiple new transmissions. Most owners affected by these transmission problems might get a few hundred dollars and a coupon toward the purchase of a new Ford. The public interest group Public Citizen argued that the proposed $35 million figure is too low, representing a "sweet deal" for the automaker. However, the maximum $4 billion liability Ford faces from this lawsuit is theoretical—every owner would have to file, and each of their cars would have had to be repaired eight times to be eligible for the maximum cash payment, which is capped at $2325 per class-action suit member. That's why a Michigan firm is suing Ford individually for roughly 20,000 owners who opted out of that original class-action lawsuit. The firm, Stern Law, has based its suits on consumer protection legislation, including state lemon laws and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and claims it will deliver more money per person than the class-action suit. The cases are pending. Individuals have indeed sued Ford for the PowerShift transmission, as reported by the Free Press, and have won settlements of amounts of three times or more what their cars were worth brand new. The majority of these individual state lawsuits have been transferred to the California class action as part of multi-district litigation rulings. The automaker failed to overturn a class-action lawsuit in Thailand in September 2018 -- reportedly the first class-action suit against a foreign company in Thai history -- that paid nearly 300 owners a combined $730,000 for defective Focus and Fiesta transmissions. Ford also issued a formal apology for "the inconvenience caused by the PowerShift transmission problems" and promised to "work earnestly to take responsibility for fixing them according to our customer service procedures," according to the Detroit News. Earlier in 2018, Ford was fined $7.5 million by Australia's consumer protection division for "unconscionable and misleading or deceptive conduct" relating to repairs for the PowerShift. When the case was filed in 2017, Whickman admitted to CarAdvice that the company didn't help its customers the way it should have. "We don't set out to give [a] poor experience to our customers," he said. What Owners Can Do It's too late to join the Michigan lawsuit unless you had already elected to opt out of the pending Ford class-action settlement before September 5, 2017. By default, everyone named in a class-action lawsuit is assumed to accept all of the terms, with or without their knowledge, so once a settlement is paid an owner cannot later sue individually for the same allegations. Any individual suit at this point is likely to be transferred to the class-action suit. However, regardless of whether you had warranty service done or you paid out of pocket, the class-action suit will award between $200 and $2375 per person and between $400 and $4650 in discounts toward the price of a new Ford, depending on how many service visits the car needed for parts replacements within the transmission. For software updates only, the settlement will pay $50 for each service visit up to $600. Ford will also buy back certain cars if the settlement arbitrator approves the claim, although it will not buy back cars older than six years. If you own or lease (or ever owned or leased) one of the subject vehicles, you need to file a claim, as you are automatically part of the class if you have not previously opted out. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Canadian Court Approves Transmission Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Yvonne Colbert, writing for CBC News, reports that there is light and perhaps money at the end of the tunnel for some owners of Ford Fiesta and Focus vehicles now that a Canadian court has approved a class-action settlement over the cars' problem-plagued dual-action transmissions. Current owners may be partially refunded what they paid for their vehicles, according to class-action lawyer Ted Charney, with compensation determined by how often they were forced to replace faulty clutches. People who leased may get a total refund on payments, minus usage. The settlement, which was approved earlier in May by an Ontario judge, covers the 2011-2016 Fiesta and the 2012-2016 Focus. It's estimated 160,000 of the cars were sold in Canada. Halifax resident Jordan Bonaparte went public in 2016 with his concerns about the PowerShift dual-clutch transmission. His Focus had started acting strangely about a month after he bought it in 2013. "It would go from bumping to, all of a sudden, the car would jerk forward five or seven feet [1.5 to 2.1 metres]," he said. "The biggest issue at first was my fear of hitting the car in front of me or slowing down and having the car behind me hit me." He was especially concerned because he had purchased a new vehicle to ensure his new baby would be safe. In the end, after two transmission replacements and needing a third, he and his wife stopped driving the Focus because he didn't think it was safe on the road. Even previous owners will get something Bonaparte's story touched a nerve with other owners who shared their concerns with CBC News and Transport Canada. The problems included shuddering, delayed acceleration, sudden acceleration and sudden loss of power. The federal department said it subsequently received more complaints about the issue than any other in the past 10 years. As of May, there have been 1,936 complaints, although the department said it "is not aware of any injuries or collisions occurring as a result of the transmission performance in these vehicles." The settlement also offers what Charney calls "modest relief" for people like Bonaparte who sold their vehicles rather than continue to drive a car that didn't seem fixable. If they had three or more transmission hardware parts replacements, they may be eligible for $250 or a $500 Ford certificate. The amount increases as the number of replacements increases to a maximum of almost $3,000 or an almost $6,000 Ford discount. Charney said that when negotiating the settlement, he was well aware transmission replacements only seem to fix the problem for a period of time. For current owners who meet certain criteria, Ford must install a new clutch with a two-year warranty. This class-action lawsuit differs from others in that there is not a specific amount of money attached to it. The judge who approved it suggested it could cost Ford $50 million, but Charney said "nobody really knows," partly because it also covers those who have problems in the future, something most class actions do not. "The program will be open for probably another five years until the 2016 cars are off warranty," he said. He said it is intended to cover a whole variety of situations involving people who have the cars over multiple years. The settlement also includes an option for Ford to buy back vehicles, at the automaker's discretion. Owners can get full information from the website of the settlement administrator, RicePoint. A claims form was expected to be posted there by the end of May. After that, it's expected to take six to 12 months to process them. In Australia, Ford was ordered to pay a $10-million penalty in April 2018 for what the Competition and Consumer Commission called "unconscionable conduct" in the way it dealt with transmission complaints about the vehicles. It is one of the largest penalties handed down by the commission, which it said "reflects the seriousness of Ford's conduct." In the U.S., a settlement was reached, but it has been appealed by some owners who felt it didn't provide enough compensation. A decision from the courts is expected later this year. Advice for those who've been wronged As for the man who blew the whistle on the vehicles, Bonaparte said he feels proud to have played a part in exposing the problem. "I didn't think it would lead to these followup stories and people from all over the country coming forward, but I'm glad it did," he said. His advice to others who feel they've been treated unfairly: "Protect yourself by being thorough, doing your research and documenting everything and ultimately not giving up." Transport Canada opened a defect investigation into the vehicles in November 2016. When asked about the status of the 2½-year investigation, a spokesperson simply said it's "ongoing." [GN] FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Can Compel Arbitration in Gutierrez Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALEJANDRO GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff, v. FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05918-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Defendant FriendFinder's wholly-owned subsidiary owns and operates the website AdultFriendFinder ("AFF"), www.adultfriendfinder.com, an adult online dating site. Users of the website are required to register in order to use the site but otherwise may use the website for free. However, users can pay for certain upgrades or to access certain services. As part of the registration process, AFF collects users' personal information, including names and email addresses, billing information, and other content the users might submit. Use of AFF is governed by the site's Terms of Use. During the relevant time period, users did not have to explicitly agree to the Terms in order to register for or use the site, but that the Terms were readily accessible to users throughout the site. AFF has updated its Terms at various times, including in July 2002, October 2009, and November 2011. Plaintiff Gutierrez is a long time user of AFF. He alleges he joined the site in 1998, and the Defendant's records indicate he registered on July 24, 2003. The Plaintiff continued to use the site until at least Sept. 6, 2018. Throughout this time, the Plaintiff provided personal information to AFF, including his name, address, credit card numbers, and photos. He also made 39 credit card transactions on the site during this time. The Plaintiff alleges that in October 2016 a hacker or group of hackers breached the Defendant's system and downloaded two decades worth of personal information of 339 million AFF users. Based on this breach, and the Defendant's alleged failure to prevent and timely cure it, the Plaintiff brings the putative class action, alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) breach of implied contract; (3) invasion of privacy; (4) violation of California's Customer Records Act; (5) violation of California's Online Privacy Act; and (6) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Defendant now moves to compel arbitration and dismiss the action based on the arbitration provision contained in the Terms. It argues that the Court must compel arbitration because there was a binding contract with a valid arbitration clause (embodied in the Terms) that covers the claims at issue. The Plaintiff argues that he never agreed to any contract requiring arbitration and that even if he had, the contract to arbitrate is unenforceable due to unconscionability. Because the Plaintiff had at least inquiry notice of his need to comply with the Terms in using the website, and he continued to use the site knowing he was bound by the Terms, Judge Freeman holds that the Plaintiff accepted the Terms by using the site. She need not determine whether reference to the AAA or JAMS rules alone is sufficient to warrant compelling questions of arbitrability because of the "validity" language. However, Brennan v. Opus Bank demonstrates that incorporation of those rules is certainly a factor pointing toward a clear and unmistakable delegation of arbitrability. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit in Brennan recognized that the vast majority of the circuits that hold that incorporation of AAA rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties' intent do so without explicitly limiting that holding to sophisticated parties or to commercial contracts. As such, the Judge holds that in combination with the language governing arbitration of validity issues, incorporation of the JAMS and AAA rules constitutes a clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability. Because the Judge has held that the Terms clearly and unmistakably delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the only remaining question is whether the particular agreement to delegate arbitrability -- the Delegation Provision -- is itself unconscionable. She finds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the delegation provision is substantively unconscionable and thus unenforceable. The Defendant primarily asks the Court to compel arbitration and dismiss all of the Plaintiff's claims because the arbitration provision covers each of his claims and the Court has discretion to stay or dismiss. The Plaintiff does not state a preference on a stay versus dismissal. The Judge is not entirely convinced that it has discretion to dismiss. Because the arbitrator must determine whether the parties' arbitration agreement applies to the particular dispute, the Judge cannot say whether all of the claims are arbitrable. None of the courts in Defendant's cited cases determined that the threshold question of arbitrability is for the arbitrator. In any event, even if the Court does have such discretion, the Judge believes that a stay of the litigation is more appropriate, at least until the arbitrator makes the initial determination as to arbitrability, so that that statute of limitations will not run on claims that may ultimately not be arbitrable. Based on the foregoing, Judge Freeman granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitratio and stayed the action until the arbitrator determines whether the arbitration provision covers the claims asserted here. The parties are to submit a joint status report re arbitration every 120 days from the date of the Order, informing the Court of the progress of the arbitration. Within 14 days of the arbitrator's decision as to whether the arbitration provision applies to the Plaintiff's claims, the parties will submit a status report to the Court informing it of the arbitrator's decision. If the arbitrator determines that each of the Plaintiff's claims is covered by the arbitration provision, the Court will dismiss the action. Otherwise, the action will remain stayed until the arbitration is completed. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/Ue0mIZ from Leagle.com. Alejandro Gutierrez, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Nathan Cherniak -- acherniak@hammondlaw.com -- HammondLaw, PC, Julian Ari Hammond -- jhammond@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLaw, P.C., Laura L. Ho -- lho@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Anne P. Bellows , Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian and Ho & Polina Brandler, HammondLaw, P.C. FriendFinder Networks Inc., Defendant, represented by Margaret Lucy Goodnough -- lgoodnough@computerlaw.com -- Computerlaw Group LLP, Christopher Joseph Sargent -- csargent@computerlaw.com -- Computerlaw Group LLP & Jack Russo -- jrusso@computerlaw.com -- Computerlaw Group LLP. FTS INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Glock Class Suit over IPO ---------------------------------------------------------------- FTS International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a purported securities class action suit initiated by Carol Glock. On February 22, 2019, Carol Glock filed a purported securities class action in the 160th Civil District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Cause No. DC-19-02668) against the Company, certain of its officers, directors and stockholders, and certain of the underwriters of the company's initial public offering (IPO). The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons or entities who purchased the company's common stock in or traceable to its IPO, and purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws relating to the disclosure in the registration statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the company's IPO. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, damages in an amount in excess of $1.0 million, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. FTS International said, "We are in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which we intend to vigorously defend. FTSI has insurance coverage on this matter." FTS International, Inc. provides hydraulic fracturing services in North America. Its services enhance hydrocarbon flow from oil and natural gas wells drilled by exploration and production companies (E&P), in shale and other unconventional resource formations. FTS International, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. GENERAL MOTORS: Car Owners Sue Over Defective Transmission ---------------------------------------------------------- Keith Shelton, Karen Shelton, Daniel Drain, Wavers Smith, Richard Freeman, Samuel Ford, Keith Fenske, Colton Kelly and Christopher Giles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Motors, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00918 (D. Del., May 17, 2019), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert fees, disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate and such other relief resulting from negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the certain GM vehicles with defective transmissions in breach of warranty and in violation of various state consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs are owners of GM vehicles equipped with the Hydra-Matic 8L90 transmission or Hydra-Matic 8L45 transmission which they claim slip, buck, kick, jerk and harshly engage, suffer abnormal internal wear, suddenly accelerate, encounter delays in downshifts, delayed acceleration and difficulty in stopping the vehicle. Said defect allegedly manifests itself within the limited warranty period or shortly after the limited warranty period expires. GM has routinely failed to repair the defect without charge when the defect manifests. GM has not issued any recall for that matter. Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: rpaul@bm.net - and - Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. Mark A. Ozzello, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 Email: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com GOGO INC: Bid to Dismiss Pierrelouis Class Action Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Gogo Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the class action suit styled as, Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., is still pending. On June 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division styled Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and its current Chief Financial Officer and President, Commercial Aviation as defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of our securities from February 27, 2017 through May 4, 2018. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by us purporting to relate to our 2Ku antenna's reliability and installation and remediation costs. The plaintiffs seek to recover from us and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages. In December 2018 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in February 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss such amended complaint. In April 2019 the plaintiffs filed a response to the company's motion. The company intends to file a reply in May 2019 at which time the motion will be submitted to the Court for a ruling. Gogo said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. In accordance with Delaware law, we will indemnify the individual named defendants for their defense costs and any damages they incur in connection with the suit. We have filed a claim with the issuer of our Directors' and Officers' insurance policy with respect to this suit. No amounts have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential losses." Gogo Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadband connectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviation industry in the United States and internationally. It operates through three segments: Commercial Aviation North America (CA-NA), Commercial Aviation Rest of World (CA-ROW), and Business Aviation (BA). The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. GOOGLE INC: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Cy Pres Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Alan W. Hersh, Esq. -- hersha@gtlaw.com -- and Stephen L. Saxl, Esq. -- saxls@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that Cy pres awards -- where money goes to nonprofit organizations instead of class members -- are an increasing and often criticized component of class action settlements. On March 20, the United States Supreme Court decided Frank v. Gaos, a case that was expected to be the high court's first opportunity to address the validity of cy pres settlements. Although the court ultimately ruled on an unrelated standing issue, the justices' questions during oral argument and seeming eagerness to weigh in suggest that the days of large cy pres awards may soon come to an end. Overview of Gaos In Gaos, plaintiffs sued Google for ostensibly failing to warn customers that their "search terms" were forwarded to the websites that customers ultimately selected after running an internet search. There were serious disputes as to whether any plaintiff could identify an actual injury suffered from this alleged failure to warn other than the technical violation of the federal statute. Google settled the case for $8.5 million. Importantly, none of the settlement went directly to absent class members. Instead, the bulk of the settlement -- approximately $5 million -- was set up as a cy pres2 award that would be distributed to various nonprofits, with another $2 million going to class counsel. One of the absent class members challenged the settlement, asserting that the cy pres award is not "fair, reasonable, and adequate" compensation to class members and, without the cy pres component, class counsels' attorney's fees were unreasonable. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the cy pres award, noting that each class member would only be entitled to "a paltry 4 cents in recovery." The Supreme Court granted cert to address whether, and under what circumstances, cy pres awards that provide no direct relief to class members are appropriate. However, nearly five months after cert was granted, the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief arguing that plaintiffs needed to show an identifiable injury, not just a statutory violation, to have standing. The court ordered additional briefing on standing and ultimately adopted the Solicitor General's suggestion, vacated the Ninth Circuit's opinion, and instructed the Ninth Circuit to address standing. Thus, although Gaos was advertised as the Supreme Court's first foray into cy pres awards, it ultimately proved to be the wrong vehicle for the issue. What This Means for Class Actions in the Future As Chief Justice Roberts recognized, cy pres awards "are a growing feature of class action settlements."3 According to a 2017 article, the use of cy pres awards were at their highest level ever in 2015 or 2016, the last years covered by the referenced study.4 Moreover, with the rise of lawsuits like Gaos that relate to electronic privacy -- where the class size may be millions but any individual harm is minimal -- cy pres awards are a means of addressing class harm where the administrative burdens of paying class members are cost-prohibitive. However, cy pres settlements have been criticized as a justification for reaping large attorney's fees while giving nothing directly to class members. Indeed, Justice Thomas dissented in Gaos, stating that: Whatever role cy pres may permissibly play in disposing of unclaimed or undistributable class funds, . . . cy pres payments are not a form of relief to the absent class members and should not be treated as such (including for calculating attorney's fees). . . . [T]he fact that class counsel and the named plaintiffs were willing to settle the class claims without obtaining any relief for the class -- while securing significant benefits for themselves -- strongly suggests that the interests of the class were not adequately represented. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Kavanaugh expressed similar concern during oral argument. In a future case, it thus appears likely that the current makeup of the Supreme Court would be likely to at least severely scrutinize large cy pres awards. Also on appeal from the Ninth Circuit, Perryman v. Romero is another cert petition pending before the court that presents nearly identical cy pres issues as Gaos. Perryman presents a different set of facts regarding class settlement, given that class members directly received $225,000 in actual settlement, while $3 million was allocated as a cy pres award to local schools. Furthermore, class counsel received $8.85 million as their portion of the settlement -- nearly three times as much as the cy pres recipients and nearly 40 times as much as all class members. Perryman does not appear to have any of the standing issues that plagued Gaos. The responses to the cert petition in Perryman are due in the coming weeks. Nevertheless, the attorney generals for 15 separate states have filed an amicus brief in support of the petition, and opposing cy pres awards. As those attorney generals argue, Perryman "presents an ideal vehicle for the Court to address when (if ever) cy pres class action settlement arrangements are acceptable." Thus, Perryman v. Romero is the case to watch regarding the fate of cy pres awards. [GN] GOOGLE INC: Settles Pixel Phone Microphone Defect Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Webb, writing for Business Insider, reports that Google has agreed to pay people who bought their original Pixel smartphone up to $500 as a part of a class action settlement, according to a report from The Verge. Back in 2017, Google acknowledged that a small percentage of Pixel devices had defective microphones, which led to hundreds of complaints and returned devices. However, the device was never pulled from the market. A class action lawsuit filed in 2018 criticized Google for continuing to sell the Pixel in spite of knowledge of the defect, and claimed that multiple people who returned their defective devices were given replacements with the same problem. Google agreed to settle the lawsuit and will pay people who received a defective replacement up to $500, Verge reports. Those who dealt with just one defective Pixel could be paid up to $350, and even Pixel owners who didn't experience any issues could be paid up to $20. People who used insurance to replace a Pixel can also be reimbursed for the value. Google did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment. According to the Verge, the settlement is still awaiting preliminary approval, with a hearing scheduled for June 5. The law firm handling the case will also be responsible for making sure Pixel owners get their payouts. People interested in joining the settlement should visit their website, but it seems to be down at the moment, likely due to a massive influx of Pixel owners. The Pixel's defective microphones were impacted by a manufacturing issue that created a disconnect in the phone's audio hardware. The Pixel launched in October 2016 and customers began reporting audio problems right away. Google employees identified the hardware problem a few months later and made adjustments to its manufacturing process. In April, Google also settled a class action lawsuit targeting its Nexus 6P smartphone. Some Nexus 6P devices suffered from a "bootloop" issue that forced the phone to constantly restart, and people who dealt with the issue are entitled to up to $400. Google partnered with Huawei to launch the Nexus 6P, and the companies could pay up to $9.75 million to past customers. [GN] GREATCALL INC: Barnes Sues over Defective Medical Alert Device -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against GreatCall, Inc. and Best Buy, Co., Inc. for several causes including fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranty, and a violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act in connection with the defective medical alert device. The case is captioned SCOTT BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GREATCALL, INC.; BEST BUY CO., INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04457 (C.D. Cal., May 22, 2019). Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants' failure to disclose the defect in the medical alert device has resulted to an ascertainable loss including, but not limited to, out-of-pocket expenses and other consequential damages. Best Buy Co., Inc. is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business at 7601 Penn Ave. S., Richfield, MN. Defendant Best Buy is the parent corporation of GreatCall, Inc. In August 2018, Best Buy acquired GreatCall, Inc. Defendants manufacture, market and sell the Defective Medical Alert Device to citizens in California and throughout the United States, and advertises the product as the "highest standard in medical alerts." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Chase, Esq. Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. Ian M. Silvers, Esq. BISNAR | CHASE LLP 1301 Dove Street, Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 752-2999 Facsimile: (949) 752-2777 E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com jbeligan@bisnarchase.com isilvers@bisnarchase.com GRUMA CORP: Citywide Sues over Independent Distributor Model ------------------------------------------------------------ CITYWIDE CONSULTANTS & FOOD MANAGEMENT, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GRUMA CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, dba MISSION FOODS CORPORATION; SMART & FINAL STORES, INC.; STATER BROS. MARKETS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04724 (Cal. Super., May 30, 2019), targets Defendants' violation of the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, Gruma, the world's largest tortilla maker, contracts with hundreds of delivery drivers to get its goods to market in California. To avoid employment-related expenses (such as 40-hour work weeks, days off, Social Security, and disability insurance), Gruma uses an independent distributor model, effectuated through a so-called "Store Door Distribution Agreement. The Distributors cannot change the resale prices to Chain Stores, i.e., the prices in the database, and the Chain Stores simply will not negotiate with Distributors. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and the members of a putative class consisting of all persons or entities who, between four years before the date of this complaint's filing through to the present and continuing to the time of trial (the "Class Period"), are or were signatories to an agreement with Gruma for the distribution of Products within California (the "Class"). Gruma manufactures and distributes baked goods, such as tortillas, under brand names including Mission, Guenero, and Calidad.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Jeffrey K. Compton, Esq. MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP 17383 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite A380 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272-4181 Telephone: (310) 454-5900 Facsimile: (310) 454-5970 E-mail: jcompton@mzclaw.com - and - Jonathan Weiss, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN WEISS 10576 Troon Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90064-4436 Telephone: (310) 558-0404 E-mail: jw@lojw.com HALLEN CONSTRUCTION: Bid to Certify Lewis Class Held in Abeyance ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DEAN LEWIS and TODD WALLACE individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by THE HALLEN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Plaintiffs, v. THE HALLEN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., and JOHN DOE BONDING COMPANY, Defendants, Docket No. 151729/2017 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Barbara Jaffe of the Supreme Court for the New York County (i) held in abeyance the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and (ii) denied the Defendants' cross-motion. On July 1, 2010, non-party members of the General Contractors Association of New York, Inc. entered into a collective bargaining agreement with non-party International Union of Operating Engineers, Locals No. 14-14B and No. 15-15A. On Aug. 22, 2016, Defendant Hallen and non-party Building, Concrete, Excavating & Common Laborers' Union Local No. 731 of Greater New York, Long Island & Vicinity of the Laborers' International Union of North America entered into a collective bargaining agreement. On Dec. 1, 2015, non-party National Grid Corporate Services, LLC and Hallen entered into a utility contract agreement for "Mains & Services Installation Work in the Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island Regions." On April 13, 2016, Hallen and non-party Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. revised a previous utility contract by which Hallen would provide Manhattan keyhole servic. On Feb. 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the class action complaint in which they allege that during their employment with Hallen, they were not paid prevailing wages as required by the utility contracts. In affidavits offered on the motion, they claim that although they were classified and paid as laborers, they performed tasks of higher paid operating engineers. The Defendants assert that as Plaintiffs are members of Local 731, their claims are governed by the collective bargaining agreement between it and Hallen. Theyalso argue that the Plaintiffs do not state a prevailing wage claim given their acknowledgment that they were paid proper Local 731 wages and supplements. According to the Defendants, they are entitled to summary judgment because Hallen owes no wages or fringe benefits to employees. In addition, despite the grievance provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, the Plaintiffs never complained to a union or to Hallen about a misclassification. The Plaintiffs deny having asserted a cause of action covered by the collective bargaining agreements. Rather, they claim that Hallen breached the utility contracts it had entered into with Consolidated Edison and National Grid which require that it pay prevailing wages for work they performed as operating engineers, and thus, as third-party beneficiaries of the utility contracts, they have the right to sue in state court. By notice of motion, the Plaintiffs move pursuant to CPLR 901 and 902 for an order certifying the action as a class action. The Defendants oppose. By notice of cross-motion, the Defendants move pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and CPLR 3212 for an order dismissing the complaint in its entirety. The Plaintiffs oppose. Judge Jaffe holds that to the extent that the Defendants argue that Labor Law Section 220 does not apply because a public agency is not part of the utility contracts and the Plaintiffs' work was not part of a public works project, they raise this argument for the first time on reply, and thus, it is not considered. As to the bid for class certification, she holds that some class members live in "New York" or "the New York City area," as opposed to New York County, and that some work was performed in "New York and Long Island," does not establish that New York County is the proper venue. Thus, it is unclear that New York County is the proper venue for this action. Supplemental briefing on the issue is thus required. Accordingly, Judge Jaffe held in abeyance the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending supplemental briefing on the issue of venue. The Plaintiffs are to submit a brief, no more than five pages, plus any additional exhibits to be considered, addressing the sole issue of venue, within 20 days of the date of the decision. The Defendants may file a brief in opposition, no more than five pages, plus any exhibits, within ten days thereafter. No reply papers will be accepted without leave of court. Upon the Plaintiffs' failure to submit timely the supplemental briefing, their motion for class certification will be denied. The Judge denied the Defendants' cross-motion in its entirety. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/zvW1eC from Leagle.com. HONEYWELL SAFETY: McKnight Renews Bid to Certify Class Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned BARBARA MCKNIGHT and SHEILA ANDERSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC. AND HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., DAVID M. COTE, CARL JOHNSON, and MARK R. JAMES, in their Official and Individual Capacities, Case No. 1:16-cv-00132-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), file with the Court their renewed motion for notice to be issued to similarly situated individuals and for conditional certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, the Plaintiffs ask that the Court: (1) conditionally certify the Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); (2) order that notice be issued to all Buyers who have worked for Defendants during the last three years by first class mail, e-mail or fax, and by visibly posting the notice on the premises of Honeywell in the form set forth in Exhibit 1; and (3) order that the Defendants produce a list of the names, last-known mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers for all individuals who currently work and/or previously worked at Honeywell as Buyers at any time since January 9, 2014.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louise A. Herman, Esq. HERMAN LAW GROUP 1445 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 104 East Providence, RI 02915 Telephone: (401) 277-4110 Facsimile: (401) 433-0139 E-mail: lherman@lhermanlaw.com - and - Amato A. DeLuca, Esq. DeLUCA AND WEIZENBAUM, LTD 199 North Main Street Providence, RI 02905 Telephone: (401) 354-7223 Facsimile: (401) 453-1501 E-mail: bud@delucaandweizenbaum.com JABIL, INC: Walker Seeks Unpaid Overtime & Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------- The case, KODY WALKER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JABIL, INC., a corporation; JABIL CIRCUIT, INC., an unknown entity; WOLFE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC.; JABIL SILVER CREEK, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-347835 (Cal. Super., May 21, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to provide required meal periods, failed to provide required rest periods, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failed to maintain required records, failed to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of the Defednants, the Plaintiff and class members have suffered, and continue to suffer, from loss of earnings, the lawsuit says. Jabil Inc. is an American worldwide manufacturing services company. Headquartered in St. Petersburg, Florida, it is one of the largest companies in the Tampa Bay area. Jabil has 100 plants in 28 countries, and 170,000 employees worldwide.[BN] Attorneys for Kody Walker individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Tagore 0. Subramaniam, Esq. Julia Z. Wells, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Leavitt Sues over Talcum-Based Products ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, TERESA ELIZABETH LEAVITT and DEAN J. McELROY, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.); IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., formerly known as LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to WINDSOR MINERALS, INC., AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC., and CHARLES MATHIEU INC.); CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (sued individually, doing business as, and as successor-in-interest to AMERICAN TALC COMPANY METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC., and CHARLES MATHIEU INC.); CYPRUS MINES CORPORATION (sued individually, doing business as, and as successor-in-interest to AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC., and CHARLES MATHIEU INC.); DELTA LINES, INC.; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. RG17882401 (Cal. Super., May 30, 2019), 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: Joseph D. Satterley, Esq. Denyse F. Clancy, Esq. KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD Jack London Market 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 302-1000 Facsimile: (510) 835-4913 E-mail: jsatterley@kazanlaw.com dclancy@kazanlaw.com JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 14 disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Jumia Technologies AG (NYSE:JMIA) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") during the period between April 12, 2019 and May 9, 2019 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Strugala v. Jumia Technologies AG, et al., No. 19-cv-4397. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Jumia ADSs during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from May 15, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/jumia/ The complaint charges Jumia and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Jumia operates a pan-African e-commerce platform. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements about Jumia and its business. These statements are alleged to be materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that: (a) Jumia had materially overstated its active customers and active merchants; (b) Jumia's representations about its orders, order cancellations, undelivered orders and returned orders lacked a sufficient factual basis and materially overstated the Company's sales; (c) Jumia failed to sufficiently disclose related party transactions; and (d) Jumia's financial statements were presented in violation of applicable accounting standards. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Jumia ADSs during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a national law firm representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For five consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in both the amount recovered for shareholders and the total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also advocates for corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. [GN] JWS CONSTRUCTIONS: Class Action Among Options if Faults Proven -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Garrick, writing for ABC News, reports that young mother Angel Worthington was less than thrilled to receive a letter telling her that structural problems had been identified in her Palmerston apartment block. The Building Practitioners Board also confirms that an inquiry into the engineer at the centre of the allegations has now been formed Living there with her two-year-old son Ashley, she had been named in the unenviable lottery of about 200 people in nine buildings across Darwin and Palmerston whose blocks may have been botched in the design phase. "I don't think I've been informed enough -- I think I should've received a call or an email straight away, instead of sending me a piece of paper in the mailbox," said Ms Worthington, who has been renting the apartment for six months. "[The owner] hasn't called me, they haven't texted me, not one email, just that letter to say things need to be done." Her apartment block on Tarakan Court in Johnston is run by Venture Housing Company, which provides low-cost housing to Territorians. In a statement, Venture said it had "hand-delivered letters to all its tenants advising them [of the possible structural issues]". The company said it had now hired a structural engineer to prepare a "detailed report". "Venture expects to receive this detailed structural engineer's report and will advise its tenants of the report's findings," it said. Once the report has been handed down, and if repairs were found to be needed, homeowners could have a better idea about what financial burdens they could be up against. Both Venture and the Infrastructure Department have said that none of the nine buildings had been deemed unsafe. Board triggers inquiry into engineer A recent desktop analysis by the department revealed that all nine buildings had non-compliance issues relating to concrete structures known as "transfer slabs" -- and that the same engineer responsible for all of them may have been involved in misconduct by approving them. Now, the department has officially referred a complaint to the Building Practitioners Board to conduct an inquiry into whether engineer John Scott from JWS Constructions has engaged in misconduct, which, if proven, could lead to a suspension, fine or even cancellation of his licence. Currently, he remains registered as an approved certifier of construction work in the NT. But action on prosecuting the man allegedly responsible for the issues could be cold comfort for the homeowners if they end up with a hefty bill. An NT parliamentary committee in Darwin on May 14 heard from departmental officials who confirmed that most of the owners would not be protected by an NT Government-regulated insurance scheme for some homeowners. The Master Builders Fidelity Fund was launched by the NT Government in 2013 to protect consumers from defects. "A lot of buildings are not covered by the Fidelity Fund because of the height of the buildings, and the age of the buildings," said the department's Mark Meldrum. Owners may have to push class action But even if regulations meant the fund wouldn't cover those affected, there could be scope to take legal action, said Master Builders NT executive director David Malone. "So they would still be able to go back and say the building is not fit for purpose, and be able to take action against the builder and the building practitioners that might have been involved in that project." He said a class action could be the "most likely" outcome for homeowners if the structural damages were eventually proven and repairs were required. "You would expect that if there is a class problem, then you'd expect to get some kind of class action back," he said. "But it's probably too early to pre-empt that at this stage, because we just don't know what the real affect of these issues are on the ground." Renter fears the prospect of relocation One of those on the ground at the Tarakan Court address was renter Patrick Mossongo, a migrant from Congo with a background in the construction industry. He was surprised that the non-compliance issues weren't found earlier on in the project. While he remained optimistic things would work out, he said if any future works meant he would have to move out, it would cause him and his family upheaval. "If it comes to have to relocate, maybe it would be difficult, because to find a new place, I don't think it would be easy in Darwin," Mr Mossongo said. The exact date of the Building Practitioners Board's inquiry into Mr Scott's conduct currently remained unclear. [GN] KEYW HOLDING CORP: Wheby Sues Over Jacobs Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------- Earl M. Wheby Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Keyw Holding Corporation and its Board of Directors, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01459 (D. Md., May 17, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of The KeyW Holding Corporation by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. and Atom Acquisition Sub, Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Jacobs is to acquire all of KeyW's outstanding common stock for $11.25 per share in cash. The registration statement for the merger failed to include critical financial analysis performed by its financial advisor, Guggenheim Securities, LLC including all line items used to calculate Management Defined Adjusted EBITDA, all line items used to calculate Adjusted EBITDA, all line items used to calculate unlevered free cash flow and a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics that support the fairness opinions in order to make a fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal needed by the shareholders to make an informed decision on the merger deal. KeyW is a national security solutions provider to the Intelligence, Cyber, and Counterterrorism communities, specializing in cyber, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and analytics. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Minton, Esq. 3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 201 Baltimore, MD 21211 Tel: (410) 783-7575 Email: tminton@charmcitylegal.com - and - RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 Email: rm@maniskas.com KNOXVILLE, TN: Recode May Spur De-Annexation Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The Knoxville Focus reports that so far most reporting on Recode has been about residential issues and concerns. How will Recode affect commercial businesses in Knoxville? Recode simply will put some businesses out of business. Take for example the case of John Marshall. In 1992 Marshall's business was annexed by the City of Knoxville. A contract was signed promising city services such as water, gas, fire protection and sewer. It took many years for street lights and city water. It took ten years to get natural gas. There was a fire in one of his buildings in June of 2017. The fire hydrants could not supply enough water, and the fire department had to run lines from Dry Gap Pike. To his knowledge no change has been made to the water lines servicing the hydrants. After 27 years, his business is still on a septic systems. Marshall has paid his city property taxes every year without interruption yet he has not received the services the city contracted that they would provide. When the Knoxville-Knox County Planning Commission mailed Marshall the so-called public notice on Recode he immediately called the City of Knoxville. He was referred to the planning commission who then referred him back to the city. Marshall explained that Recode would zone him out of business. Recode would change his zoning from C-6 to I-MU which prohibits used car lots. The city told him he could get a letter from the city grandfathering him on his zoning. The problem with this is to own a used car lot you have to have a state license. That license requires you operate your business in a zone that allows that business. The new Recode I-MU zoning does not allow his business. The situation is much worse than that. Marshall asked what would happen if he sold his property—would the grandfather letter be transferred to the new owner? The city could not provide an answer. After 27 years of faithfully paying city property taxes Marshall is being deprived of his property rights and property value. Marshall has contacted the mayor of Knoxville and has respectfully asked to be de-annexed. A single business or person cannot request de-annexation. This problem opens the city up to federal lawsuits for restraint of trade and a class action for other businesses to join a de-annexation lawsuit. How is it in Draft 5 of Recode that these concerns have not been considered? Why on earth would Recode put tax-paying businesses out of business? On the Sunday, May 5th episode of WATE's Tennessee This Week Mayor Madeline Rogero was interviewed by Blake Stevens of WATE. Stevens asked the mayor about Recode and her response was that Recode would be a living document just like the current zoning has been. That it would be updated every year like the zoning has been for the last fifty years. Doesn't Mr. Marshall deserve more than that? How can the city fix losing a state license? It is clear that Recode is not ready to be voted on. [GN] L'OREAL USA: Removes Conti Case to Eastern District of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- L'Oreal USA S/D Inc. removes case ANGELA CONTI and JUSTINE MORA, individuals, on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plainitff, vs. L'OREAL USA S/D INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CECG00816 (Filed March 6, 2018), was removed from the California Superior Court, Fresno County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 30, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00769-LJO-SKO to the proceeding. The case asserts that Defendants violated the California and Federal law, by failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide required meal and rest periods, failing to to provide itemized statements.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants: Angela J. Rafoth, Esq. Irene V. Fitzgerald, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433 1940 E-mail: arafoth@littler.com ifitzgerald@littler.com LAMPS PLUS: Baker Sterchi Discusses 9th Cir. Ruling --------------------------------------------------- Douglas Hill, Esq. -- dhill@bscr-law.com -- of Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC, in an article for Lexology, reports that a divided United States Supreme Court recently handed down the latest in a series of wins for employers, manufacturers, retailers, and other businesses looking to use arbitration as a means to mitigate the risks of possible class-action litigation. This time, in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that an employer could not be compelled to arbitrate similar claims by its employees on a class-wide basis, even though its employment agreement was ambiguous as to whether the arbitration of similar claims be conducted on a class-wide basis, instead of individually. I. A clear, albeit controversial, trend in favor of individual arbitration Arbitration agreements, which are strongly favored under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), can be a powerful tool for potential class-action defendants, both to mitigate the risks of potential exposure and to make those risks more predictable. But a contract is only useful to the extent it can be enforced. Fortunately for potential defendants, there has been a string of Supreme Court decisions in recent years empowering businesses to use arbitration clauses to narrowly define the procedures by which class-wide claims can be asserted. These decisions have been controversial, and most have been decided along roughly the same ideological divide. But there has been a clear trend in favor of the enforceability of arbitration agreements that limit or exclude class-wide arbitration actions. For example, Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. was a 2010 case in which the Supreme Court concluded that silence was no substitute for the requisite "affirmative consent" to class arbitration, meaning that class-wide arbitration cannot be compelled based on an agreement that is simply silent as to the availability of class-wide remedies. The following year, in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court found that the FAA preempted a California statute providing that any class-action waiver in a consumer contract was unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable. This 5-4 decision held the state statute was inconsistent with the FAA's "overarching purpose" of ensuring "the enforcement of arbitration agreements according to their terms, so as to facilitate informal, streamlined proceedings." Then in the 2013 case of American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, SCOTUS rebuffed another attempt to invalidate contracts that affirmatively waived the right to class arbitration. There, the Second Circuit had found a class-action waiver in American Express's merchant agreement to be unenforceable, on the grounds that individually arbitrating each claim would be prohibitively expensive, since the costs of the arbitration would almost always exceed the potential recovery on any one claim. On appeal, a divided Supreme Court found that this sort of practical analysis was beyond the courts' authority and ran counter to the principle, embodied in the FAA and recent case law, that parties should be free to agree to arbitrate, or not, as they see fit. And just last year, in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the high court—once again split 5-4 along ideological lines—found that the National Labor Relations Board had overstepped its authority by finding that the National Labor Relations Act's protection of employee "concerted activities" taken for their "mutual aid or protection" gave employees the right to pursue class claims and displaced the FAA in interpreting arbitration agreements between employers and employees. Recognizing that whether to arbitrate on an individual or class-wide basis is one of the "fundamental attributes" of an arbitration agreement's character, the majority held that class-action waivers are just as enforceable in employment agreements as in any other arbitration agreement. II. The recent Lamps Plus decision This brings us to the recent Lamps Plus case, decided on April 24, 2019. It arose from a corporate data breach in which a hacker gained access to the personal financial and tax information of 1,300 company employees. Many of these employees had been required by the employer to sign contracts at the start of their employment, each of which included a clause requiring disputes regarding their employment to be submitted to binding arbitration. The arbitration language, however, was ambiguous as to whether similar claims would be arbitrated in separate proceedings or together, on a class-wide basis. Frank Varela was one of the employees whose personal information had been compromised in the data breach, and he filed a civil lawsuit in the Central District of California seeking to assert claims under state and federal law, both individually and as a representative of a putative class of similarly situated employees. The employer moved to dismiss the civil case and to compel arbitration, specifically requesting that arbitration be on an individual rather than class-wide basis. The trial court granted the employer's motion to dismiss, but its order specified that arbitration would proceed on a class-wide basis. The employer appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the trial court's ruling, reasoning that ambiguities in the employment agreement -- which was mandatory for the employees and was drafted exclusively by the employer -- should be construed against the employer and in favor of the employees' right to assert claims as a class. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and struck down the lower courts' rulings. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion and was joined by the court's four other conservative-leaning justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh). The remaining four justices each filed dissenting opinions. The court accepted the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that the arbitration clause was ambiguous as to whether arbitration would be conducted individually or on a class-wide basis. Even though the agreement never specifically mentioned class-wide proceedings, some of its language -- for example, its statement that arbitration would be "in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings" -- was "capacious enough to include class arbitrations" as a potential remedy. But that ambiguity was not enough to force class-wide arbitration. Irrespective of state-law principles that ambiguous contractual language should be construed against its drafter, arbitration remains "a matter of consent, not coercion," according to the majority, so there must be an "affirmative contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to class arbitration." Relying heavily on the Stolt-Nielsen opinion discussed above, the majority ruled that without a clear expression of the parties' intent to arbitrate on a class-wide basis, courts cannot force them to do so. An ambiguous contract is, by its very nature, not a clear expression of intent. Therefore, each employee's claim was subject to individual arbitration, rather than a single class-action. In a scathing dissent, Justice Ginsberg lamented what she sees as the Court's consistent use of the FAA "to deny employees and consumers effective relief against powerful economic entities." She found it ironic for the majority to invoke "the first principle" that "arbitration is strictly a matter of consent," when employment agreements like the one at issue here are often presented on a take-it-or-leave it basis, and she decried the "Hobson's choice employees face: accept arbitration on their employer's terms or give up their jobs." Justice Sotomayor authored a dissent of her own, in which she took issue with the majority's characterization of class arbitration as fundamentally different from individual arbitration, characterizing it as "simply a procedural device," which "an employee who signs an arbitration agreement should not be expected to realize that she is giving up." Justice Kagan's dissent focused on the authorship of the employment agreement, arguing that it should be construed against its drafter—the employer—under general principles of contract law adopted in every state, which are not abrogated by the FAA. Justice Breyer also authored a dissent, focused largely on the threshold question of whether the order compelling arbitration a "final" order was vesting the appellate courts with jurisdiction even to hear the appeal. This case fits the mold of recent Supreme Court cases addressing class arbitration, which have consistently affirmed the validity of arbitration agreements and pushed back on efforts to limit their applicability or enforceability. Although the dissenting opinions evidence just how controversial the use of arbitration clauses remains, the majority opinion further entrenches arbitration agreements as a bulwark against class-action liability. Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, the trend is unlikely to be reversed any time soon. [GN] LESTER B. PEARSON: Sued Over Specialized School Program Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Spector, writing for Global News, reports that a new class-action lawsuit alleges that parents have been illegally charged by several Quebec school boards for specialized school programs. Lawyers Joey Zukran and Michael Vathilakis submitted an application to authorize the lawsuit on May 13. "It's a class action asking for reimbursement of all the sums paid by parents for the purpose of specialized programs -- for example, sports-etudes, arts, international programs, et cetera," Zukran explained. Among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is a West Island father who Zukran says spent $10,000 on a sport-etude program at the Lester B. Pearson School Board. "The first year, he paid $4,200. The second year, he paid $5,000, and it turns out -- and we know this because there were debates and amendments to the law on May 9 -- it turns out that these amounts were unlawfully imposed and collected, and we're asking for the reimbursement for those amounts," said Zukran. The lawyers adds that dozens of parents have contacted his firm in the last few days in connection with the lawsuit. "We're asking the courts to authorize the class action on behalf of everybody, so on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Quebec parents who have paid these fees over the years," he said. The lawsuit application names school boards all over the province, including Lester B. Pearson School Board, the English Montreal School Board (EMSB) and the Commission Scolaire de Montreal. Education Minister Jean-Francois Roberge said during a National Assembly commission into Bill 12 that having parents pay for such programs goes against the right to have a free public education. He reiterated that argument on May 14. "With the adoption of this bill, there will be more gratuity than before and our schools will be more accessible," he insisted during Question Period. "Parents will be charged less. Finally, on the question of class action there will be none, I'm convinced, because the agreement out of court that was signed, which cost us quite a lot of money, covered educational services . . . Let's fix the system and offer the best to our children." Roberge blames the Liberal Party and the Parti Quebecois for negligence. "Since 2007, the law hasn't been fixed, [they] cost us $153 million," he said. Zukran argues that the government amended and "modified Article 3 of the Education Act to provide a specific exclusion to the principle of free education." "The new law says the specialized programs are excluded from the principle of free education. Now, that law only goes into effect July 1, 2018 so anyone who would've paid these fees up until then has done so unlawfully," he told Global News. A spokesperson for Roberge told Global News that the minister feels the issue was resolved when a settlement was reached in another 2016 case. Zukran disputed that point, saying the 2016 case related to parents paying for school supplies. Roberge refused to comment any further as the matter is before the courts. Jim Hendry, a spokesperson for the Lester B. Pearson School Board, also declined to address the lawsuit. "At this time, the Lester B. Pearson School Board is not prepared to speculate on an issue that is in the hands of the court," Hendry said. EMSB chair Angela Mancini said the school board has already made some changes. "We have adjusted the way in which we charge any fees to our parents and are now complying to whatever the minister has given us in terms of guidelines as to what can and cannot be charged," Mancini said. The lawsuit aims to get back over $1 billion collected from parents for specialized programs across the province -- meaning roughly $100 per person. Zukran says that any parent who might have paid these extra fees is automatically included in the suit. [GN] LIBERTY MEDIA: MoU Reached in Buchanan Suit ------------------------------------------- Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that SIRIUS XM Holdings entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the purported class action suit initiated by Thomas Buchanan. On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against SIRIUS XM Holdings in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this action alleges that SIRIUS XM Holdings violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") by, among other things, making telephone solicitations to persons on the National Do-Not-Call registry, a database established to allow consumers to exclude themselves from telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive the calls in a signed, written agreement, and making calls to consumers in violation of SIRIUS XM Holdings' internal Do-Not-Call registry. The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction prohibiting SIRIUS XM Holdings from making, or having made, any calls to land lines that are listed on the National Do-Not-Call registry or its internal Do-Not-Call registry. Following a mediation, on January 31, 2019, SIRIUS XM Holdings entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle this purported class action suit. The settlement is expected to resolve the claims of consumers for the period October 2013 through January 2019. As part of the settlement, SIRIUS XM Holdings will agree to pay $25 million into a non-reversionary settlement fund from which cash to class members, notice, administrative costs, and attorney's fees and costs will be paid. The settlement also contemplates that SIRIUS XM Holdings will provide three months of service to its All Access subscription package for those members of the class that elect to receive it, in lieu of cash, at no cost to those class members and who are not active subscribers at the time of the distribution. The availability of this three-month service option will not diminish the $25 million common fund. As part of the settlement, SIRIUS XM Holdings also expects to implement certain changes relating to its "Do-Not-Call" practices and telemarketing programs. Settlement of this matter is subject to execution of a definitive settlement agreement between the parties and, among other things, approval by the Court. This charge is included in the selling, general and administrative expense line item in the condensed consolidated financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2019, but has been excluded from Adjusted OIBDA for the corresponding period as this charge does not relate to the on-going performance of the business. Liberty Media Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the media and entertainment businesses primarily in North America and the United Kingdom. The company operates through SIRIUS XM and Formula 1 segments. The company is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado. LIRON INC: Faces Labrasca Labor Suit in California State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Liron, Inc. The case is captioned Cindy Labrasca vs. Liron Inc, Case No. 34-2019-00256445-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 14, 2019). Founded in 1999, Liron, Inc. provides various business services. Its office is located at 201 S Guild Ave Ste 101 Lodi, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St Ste 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com LOUI AMSTERDAM: Chang Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage ------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Loui Amsterdam, Inc. DBA Cap't Loui and Jihoon Jeong for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The case is captioned Andrew Chang, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Loui Amsterdam, Inc. DBA Cap't Loui and Jihoon Jeong, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03056 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2019). Plaintiff Andrew Chang alleges that the Defendants failed to pay proper minimum and overtime wages to him. During the course of his employment by Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked over eight hours per day and over 40 hours per week. Defendants did not pay his minimum or overtime wage properly and they never compensated Plaintiff with the spread of hours pay. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages was willful and intentional. Loui Amsterdam, Inc. is a New York corporation doing business as Cap't Loui, a seafood restaurant located in Manhattan, New York. The restaurant is owned by Ji Won Jung and managed by Jihoon Jeong. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW 163-10 Northern Blvd. Suite 205 Flushing, NY 11358 E-mail: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com LYNEER STAFFING: Trejo Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- ANITA TREJO, the Plaintiff, v. LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC; EMPLOYERS HR LLC; YUSEN LOGISTICS (AMERICAS) INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, the inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.: 19STCV18725 (Cal. Super., May 30, 2019), seeks penalties in connection with Defendants' violations of California Labor Code section 2698 et seq., the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. According to the complaint, the Defendants have consistently maintained and enforced against Plaintiff the following unlawful policies and practices: willfully refusing to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages; due upon separation of employment; and willfully refusing to furnish to Plaintiff accurate itemized wage statements upon payment of wages. The Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees frequently worked over eight 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees the legally mandated overtime rate for all work performed over eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per week by, among other things, imposing on Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees a time "rounding policy" which was not fair and neutral and which resulted, over a period of time, in failure to compensate employees properly for all time actually worked, including minimum wage and/or overtime wages, the lawsuit says. Lyneer Staffing operates as an employment agency. The company offers staffing services in accounting and finance, administrative and clerical, hospitality, information technology, legal, light industrial, and medical fields.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd.. Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net MARYLAND MUTUAL: Homeowners Allege Realty Rates Price-fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ Alexander Williams, Sr., Franklin and Dorothy Robinson, Keith B. Cook, Terry Gordon, Sr., and Roger and Susan Enochs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the entire class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Maryland Mutual Mortgage, LLC, Hawk Mortgage Group, LLC, Corey J. Anderson and Jeffrey T. Hawk, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01464 (D. Md., May 17, 2019), seeks treble damages for title and settlement services illegally charged, reasonable attorneys' fees, interest and costs and such other and further relief. Plaintiffs are borrowers who currently have or had a residential mortgage loan originated and/or brokered by Maryland Mutual Mortgage, LLC and/or Hawk Mortgage Group, LLC secured by their residential real property. They allege that the Defendants received and accepted illegal kickbacks in exchange for the assignment and referral of residential mortgage loans, refinances and reverse mortgages to All Star Title, Inc., a Maryland-based title and settlement services company, for title and settlement services in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act for price fixing, minimum pricing and refusal to deal agreements related to the residential mortgage loans. Plaintiffs also allege racketeering activities over a period of at least five years in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act brought about by laundering kickbacks through third party marketing companies, creating sham invoice and payment records, fraudulent representations in marketing materials, false allocation of title and settlement fees and manipulation of the annual percentage rate associated with Maryland Mutual and Hawk Mortgage loans, false and fraudulent representations and omissions in Maryland Mutual and Hawk Mortgage borrowers' loan documents. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy F. Maloney, Esq. Veronica B. Nannis, Esq. Megan A. Benevento, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, Maryland 20770 Telephone: (301) 220-2200 Facsimile: (301) 220-1214 Email: tmaloney@jgllaw.com vnannis@jgllaw.com mbenevento@jgllaw.com - and - Michael Paul Smith, Esq. Melissa L. English, Esq. Sarah A. Zadrozny, Esq. SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Towson, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 821-0070 Facsimile: (410) 821-0071 Email: mpsmith@sgs-law.com menglish@sgs-law.com szadrozny@sgs-law.com MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL: Settles Employees' 401(k) Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Massachusetts Financial Services Co. agreed to settle a class action by employees challenging the affiliated mutual funds in their 401(k) plans. The lawsuit accuses MFS of mismanaging the plans, which together hold more than $500 million, by offering high-cost funds affiliated with the company and by failing to investigate lower-fee options. [GN] MATCH GROUP: Discovery Underway in Candelore Suit ------------------------------------------------- Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that discovery is still ongoing in the putative state-wide class action suit entitled, Allan Candelore v. Tinder On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed against Tinder in state court in California. Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles). The complaint principally alleged that Tinder violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging users age 30 and over a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service. The complaint sought certification of a class of California Tinder Plus subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified amount. On September 21, 2015, Tinder filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the complaint. On October 26, 2015, the court issued an opinion sustaining Tinder's demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, ruling that the age-based pricing differential for Tinder Plus subscriptions did not violate California law in essence because offering a discount to users under age 30 was neither invidious nor unreasonable in light of that age group's generally more limited financial means. On December 29, 2015, in accordance with its ruling, the court entered judgment dismissing the action. On February 1, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the judgment, and the parties thereafter briefed the appeal. On January 29, 2018, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) issued an opinion reversing the judgment of dismissal, ruling that the lower court had erred in sustaining Tinder's demurrer because the complaint, as pleaded, stated a cognizable claim for violation of the Unruh Act. Because the company believes that the appellate court's reasoning was flawed as a matter of law and runs afoul of binding California precedent, on March 12, 2018, Tinder filed a petition with the California Supreme Court seeking interlocutory review of the Court of Appeal's decision. On May 9, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied the petition. The case has been returned to the trial court for further proceedings and is currently in discovery. Match Group said, "We believe that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against it." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MATCO TOOLS: Bid to Dismiss or Transfer Fleming Labor Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Nothern District of California denied Matco's motion to dismiss or transfer the case, JOHN FLEMING, Plaintiff, v. MATCO TOOLS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00463-WHO (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Fleming brings suit on behalf of himself and a putative class of other distributors that he asserts were misclassified as independent contractors, rather than employees, by Defendants Matco Tools Corp., NMTC, Inc., doing business as Matco Tools, and Fortive Corp. Matco manufactures and distributes mechanic's tools and service equipment. It relies on distributors to make sales and service calls to existing and prospective customers through mobile distributorship stores. Fleming was a distributor for Matco from July of 2012 through December of 2018. He claims that, by allegedly misclassifying him and similarly situated distributors as independent contractors, Matco has sought to avoid various duties and obligations owed to employees under California's Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders, including: the duty to indemnify employees for all expenses and losses necessarily incurred in connection with their employment; the duty to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of eight hours in a day or forty hours a week; the duty to provide off-duty meal periods; the duty to authorize and permit paid rest periods; the duty to furnish accurate wage statements; the duty to pay employees all wages owed upon termination; and unlawful collection and receipt of earned wages. According to Matco, Fleming entered into two distributorship agreements with it in July 2012 and October 2013. The July 2012 distributorship agreement was amended in October 2013 and November 2016. The October 2013 distributorship agreement was terminated in September 2015. For the purposes of the instant motion, both the July 2012 agreement and October 2013 are functionally the same. Matco moves to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Northern District of Ohio in light of the above forum selection clause and the arbitration clause contained in the Distribution Agreement. If the case is transferred, Matco will move to compel arbitration once the matter is lodged in the Northern District of Ohio. In its briefing, Judge Orrick finds that Matco's only counterarguments were that (1) the Judge should not consider the text of the arbitration provision because it is the forum selection clause that is at issue and (2) the governing law has yet to be determined. At the hearing held on April 24, 2019, Matco also argued (3) that because the severability provision refers to "such breaches" it only contemplates PAGA claims. The Judge has already disposed of Matco's first argument. Matco's second argument is not persuasive because the terms of the arbitration provisions are clear and there is no indication that his interpretation of their plain terms would differ under either California or Ohio law. As to the third argument, the term "breaches" in the Distribution Agreement is defined to include "all breaches, claims, causes of action, demands, disputes and controversies" between Fleming and Matco. Matco's argument that "such breaches" would mean only PAGA claims need not be arbitrated does not make sense given how the Distribution Agreement defines "breaches." Because the arbitration provision is void, the FAA does not preempt Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sectio 20040.5 and the forum selection clause has no effect. Matco also argues that Fleming is equitably estopped from repudiating the forum selection clause because his claims are inherently intertwined with the Distribution Agreement and his purported employment relationship with Matco arises from the Agreement. The Judge holds this argument fails because the forum selection clause is inoperative as a matter of law under Section 20040.5. Because the forum selection clause is void pursuant to Section 20040.5, the Judge must decide whether to transfer the action under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) for the convenience of parties and witnesses or in the interest of justice. In assessing a motion to transfer for convenience, the Court considers public factors, which go to the interests of justice, and private factors, which go to the convenience of the parties and witnesses. He finds that the forum selection clause is invalidated by Section 20040.5 and Matco makes no other arguments in relation to its private interests, the private interest factors identified by Fleming favor denial of Matco's motion to transfer. Finally, the private factors, to a great degree, and the public factors, to a much lesser extent, favor Fleming. Matco has failed to meet the factors outlined in 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). He will deny its alternative motion to transfer. Based on the foregoing, Judge Orrick denied Matco's motion to dismiss because by the Distribution Agreement's own terms, the arbitration provision is invalid and Section 20040.5's prohibition of forum selection clauses in franchise agreements restricting venue to a forum outside California is not preempted by the FAA. He denied the motion to transfer. Matco will answer the complaint within 15 days. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/DFYcfF from Leagle.com. John Fleming, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Valerie Jean Brender -- vbrender@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP, Dylan Thomas Cowart -- dcowart@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland Riggin LLP, Jessica Lee Riggin -- jriggin@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland & Riggins LLP & Peter Scott Rukin -- prukin@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP. Matco Tools Corporation, a Delaware corporation, NMTC, Inc. d/b/a Matco Tools, a Delaware corporation & Fortive Corporation, Defendants, represented by Christian Joseph Rowley -- crowley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Eric Michael Lloyd -- elloyd@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Matthew A. Goodin -- mgoodin@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP. MAXIM INC: Huguelet Sues over Fraud ----------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed by Luther Huguelet against Maxim Inc. and Biglari Holdings Inc. for fraud. The case is captioned Huguelet v. Maxim Inc. et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-04452-ALC (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2019). It is assigned to Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. Maxim Inc. is a multimedia company headquartered in New York. The company owns the MAXIM trademark and publishes the flagship MAXIM U.S. edition, the leading men's lifestyle magazine, and Maxim.com. Maxim Inc. has 10 licensed local editions. Biglari Holdings Inc. is a diversified holding company headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. Biglari's major subsidiaries include Steak 'n Shake, Maxim magazine, First Guard Insurance and Western Sizzlin'. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com MCKENNA DUPONT: Faces Phillips Suit over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Mckenna, Dupont, Higgins & Stone, PC for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA). The case is captioned PHILLIPS v. MCKENNA, DUPONT, HIGGINS & STONE, PC, Case No. 2:19-cv-12429-JMV-SCM (D.N.J., May 10, 2019). This consumer credit-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez. McKenna, Dupont, Higgins & Stone, PC is a law firm in Red Bank, New Jersey. It provides legal services to Monmouth County families, businesses, state financial institutions and municipal governments since 1980. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Leyland Gentile, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC 110 Jericho Turnpike-Suite 100 Floral Park, NY 11001 Telephone: (201) 873-7675 E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com MDL 2047: Bid to Apply Remediation Damages Formula Partly Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL LOUISIANA AMORIN CASES, Section L (5), Civil Action MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted in part and denied in part the Motion for an Order Applying the Remediation Damages Formula Adopted by the Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Related to the June 9, 2015 Damages Hearing to the Claims of Former Owners of Affected Properties filed by the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC"). From 2004 through 2006, a housing boom in parts of the United States and rebuilding efforts necessitated by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina in the Gulf South led to a shortage of construction materials, including drywall. As a result, drywall manufactured in China was brought into the United States and used to construct and refurbish homes in coastal areas of the country, notably the Gulf and East Coasts. Sometime after the Chinese drywall was installed, homeowners began to complain of foul-smelling odors, the corrosion and blackening of metal wiring, surfaces, and objects, and the breaking down of appliances and electrical devices in their homes. Many of these homeowners also began to complain of various physical afflictions believed to have been caused by the Chinese drywall. These homeowners then began to file suit in various state and federal courts against homebuilders, developers, installers, realtors, brokers, suppliers, importers, exporters, distributors, and manufacturers who were involved with the Chinese drywall. Because of the commonality of facts in the various cases, the litigation was designated as a multidistrict litigation. Pursuant to a Transfer Order from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 15, 2009, all federal cases involving Chinese drywall were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in MDL 09-2047 before the Court. Relevant to the Order are the Chinese Defendants. These Defendants include the principal Chinese-based Defendant, Taishan, namely, Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd. ("Taishan Entities"). Other Chinese-based Defendants include China New Building Materials Group, China New Building Materials Co., CNBMIT Co. Ltd., CNBM USA Corp., and United Suntech Craft, Inc., as well as the Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co. and Beijing New Building Material Group. The Court's initial inquiry regarding Taishan involved four cases in the MDL: (1) Germano v. Taishan Gypsum Co. (Case No. 09-6687); (2) The Mitchell Co. v. Knauf Gips KG (Case No. 09-4115); (3) Gross v. Knauf Gips KG (Case No. 09-6690); and (4) Wiltz v. Beijing New Building Materials Public Ltd. (Case No. 10-361). The Chinese drywall at issue was largely manufactured by two groups of Defendants: (1) the Knauf Entities and (2) the Taishan Entities. The litigation has focused on these two entities and their downstream associates and has proceeded on strikingly different tracks for the claims against each group. On March 15, 2019, the PSC filed a motion seeking an order applying to the claims of former owners the remediation damages formula adopted by the Court in its April 21, 2017 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law following the June 9, 2015 damages hearing. In its April 21, 2017 Order, the Court reaffirmed its finding in the Germano litigation that, remediating a Chinese drywall property requires complete remediation and cleaning. The Court ultimately concluded that the total remediation damages awarded would be calculated by multiplying the under air square footage of the affected properties by $105.9110 as adjusted by the RS Means location factor. Notably, the Court's findings at that time related to current property owners. In moving the Court to extend the April 21, 2017 damages finding to former property owners, the PSC points out that these Plaintiffs were current owners when they sustained the damage and when they filed suit in the case. Moreover, the PSC contends, many Plaintiffs have since been forced to sell their properties during the decade-long, protracted Chinese Drywall proceedings because of the Defendants' dilatory litigation tactics. Accordingly, the PSC argues, any Plaintiff who was a current owner when suit was brought and when the first defaults were entered against Taishan in 2009 should be considered a current owner for purposes of calculating damages in these default proceedings. In support of their position, the PSC points to the Court's Rule 55(b)(2) proceeding in which the Court awarded Plaintiffs Deborah and William Morgan remediation damages, among other damages, despite their having declared bankruptcy. The PSC contends that, their home having been foreclosed on, the Morgans were essentially former owners. The PSC further notes that, in Germano, the Court entered judgment for both current owners and former owners based on the same formulaic methodology to calculate remediation damages. In opposition, the Defendants argue the make-whole analysis for current owners, who can use the estimated repair costs to restore their properties, is much different than the analysis needed for former owners, who no longer have property to repair. They aver the June 9, 2015 damages hearing was properly limited to current owners only, because the type of damages suffered differ as to prior owners. The Defendants submit, were the measure of damages the same for current and former owners, there would have been no reason to segregate and delay the damages calculation for the second group. Because former owners can no longer repair the property, the Defendants argue the formula for damages designed to estimate repair costs cannot be applied equally as to them. As an initial matter, Judge Fallon begins its analysis by noting the differences in the group of Plaintiffs the order relates to. First, he finds no difficulty in extending the remediation damages calculation to the subgroup of former owners who remediated their properties prior to relinquishing ownership of their homes. These Plaintiffs unquestionably are entitled to recoup remediation damages. Thus, the issue before the Court is whether to extend the remediation damages calculation to prior owners who were owners at the time the damage was sustained and at the time suit was filed, but who did not remediate their properties prior to losing possession thereof. The Judge finds that pursuant to the subsequent purchaser rule, absent evidence that the former owners assigned their personal right to sue the Defendants for the damages sustained to their home, these former owners maintain the same right to sue the Defendants for damages as the current owners. Because the Court's damage calculation is based on the cost of remediation, however, and former owners cannot remediate their homes, former and current owners do not stand in the same position with respect to proving the actual damages they incurred. Had the Defendants not chosen a course of "delay, delay, delay," which in many cases caused the property owners to lose their property and become former owners, the process of ascertaining the fair market value of a house before the defected drywall was installed and its value thereafter might not have been a difficult one. But the reality is that these injuries were sustained more than 10 years ago to homes sold or foreclosed upon many years ago. Calculating the diminution in value of the homes at issue many years after the fact presents a Herculean task made so as a consequence of the Defendants' actions. In addition, because remediating the home prior to sale or foreclosure likely would have restored the home's value, the cost of remediating that property informs the Court's analysis of its diminution damages. Thus, with respect to homes that were sold without first being remediated, the Judge concludes the remediation damages calculation will serve as a rebuttable presumption of a prior owner's diminution damages. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Fallon granted in part and denied in part PSC's Motion. To the extent the PSC moves to extend the remediation damages calculation to former owners who remediated their homes prior to relinquishing ownership of the property, the motion is granted. For the former owners who did not remediate their homes prior to relinquishing ownership of the property, the motion is denied in part and granted in part, and the Judge concludes the remediation damage formula for these owners, when introduced into evidence, creates a rebuttable presumption of their diminution damage calculation. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order & Reasons is available at https://is.gd/XX1WXd from Leagle.com. Lynn C Greer, Special Master, pro se. Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Russ M. Herman -- rherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Leonard A. Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC. Homebuilders and Installers Steering Committee, Defendant, represented by Phillip A. Wittmann -- pwittmann@stonepigman.com -- Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC. Insurer Steering Committee, Defendant, represented by Judy Y. Barrasso -- JBarrasso@BarrassoUsdin.com -- Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC. Defendant, Defendant, represented by Kerry J. Miller -- kmiller@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Andrew J Brien -- brien@carverdarden.com -- Carver, Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux. Defendant, Liaison Counsel for Taishan, BNMB entities, and CNBM entities, Defendant, represented by Harry Rosenberg -- harry.rosenberg@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP. MDL 2741: Denson Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned JEFFREY DENSON v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00975, was transferred on May 15, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02588 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:16-md-02741-VC. The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related injuries. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Mincks Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit entitled DEBRA MINCKS, Executrix on behalf of the ESTATE OF LARRY MINCKS, (deceased) v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00648, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02576-VC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:16-md-02741-VC. The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related injuries. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Parsons Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit styled KENNETH J. PARSONS, an individual v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-00462, was transferred on May 15, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02577-VC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:16-md-02741-VC. The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related injuries. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corrie J. Yackulic, Esq. CORRIE YACKULIC LAW FIRM PLLC 705 Second Avenue, #1300 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 787-1915 Facsimile: (206) 299-9725 E-mail: Corrie@cjylaw.com - and - Doug Purcell, Esq. PURCELL LEGAL & MEDIATION SERVICES, PLLC 7127 196th St. SW., Suite 201 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Telephone: (425) 774-0444 Facsimile: (425) 771-2711 E-mail: dpurcell@purcelllegal.com MDL 2741: Rawls Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit titled SCOTT RAWLS v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01630, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02580-VC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:16-md-02741-VC. The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related injuries. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justyn D. Alioto, Esq. MILLS & HOOPES, LLC 1550 N. Brown Road, Suite 130 Lawrenceville, GA 30043 Telephone: (770) 513-8111 Facsimile: (770) 513-8150 E-mail: justyn@millshoopeslaw.com - and - Jason Edward Ochs, Esq. OCHS LAW FIRM, PC 690 US 89, Suite 206 PO Box 10944 Jackson, WY 83001 Telephone: (307) 739-3959 Facsimile: (307) 235-6910 E-mail: Jason@ochslawfirm.com MDL 2777: $59MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in EcoDiesel Marketing Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP ECODIESEL(R) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 17-md-02777-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Nothern District of California, San Francisco Division, granted the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Attorneys' Fees and Costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and 23(h) and Pretrial Order Nos. 3 and 4. The Settlement, along with the interrelated US-CA Consent Decree, provides an emissions repair for approximately 100,000 vehicles, offers an extended warranty covering all vehicles receiving that repair, and compensates class members with cash payments ranging from $990 to $3,075. The Class Counsel requests an award of $59 million in attorneys' fees and $7 million in costs for work arising from the claims resolved by the Settlement. The Defendants have agreed to pay this amount in addition to compensation to the Class. The Plaintiffs request a service award of $5,000 to be paid by the Defendants in addition to the Settlement compensation. Following the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, notice has been sent to the Class via a Court-approved notice program, and the Class has had an opportunity to respond. Having considered the Parties' briefs and accompanying submissions, comments from the Class, and presentations at the hearing on these matters, for the reasons stated in granting preliminary approval and for the reasons stated at the hearing, Judge Chen finds that the fees and costs are reasonable, whether a percentage method or lodestar method is used. The requested service award is the presumptive service award in this District, and is reasonable under the facts of the case, in which the representative Plaintiffs participated actively in the litigation, including sitting for depositions, completing detailed questionnaires, and searching for and producing responsive documents. Accordingly, the Judge certified the Settlement Class and granted the Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement. He fully and finally approves the Settlement in the form contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. He directed the consummation of the Settlement pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. The Jude confirmed the appointment of (i) the Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel and the members of the PSC listed in Pretrial Order No. 3 as the Settlement Class Counsel; (ii) the Settlement Class Representatives listed in Exhibit A to the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval; and (iii) the Angeion Group as the Claims and Notice Administrator. Judge Chen granted the Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and costs, and awarded the Class Counsel $59 million in attorneys' fees and $7 million in costs to be paid by the Defendants in addition to the compensation available to the Class, and to be allocated by the Lead Counsel among the PSC firms and additional counsel performing work under Pretrial Order Nos. 3 and 4. The Settlement Class Representatives service awards of $5,000 each, also to be paid by the Defendants in addition to the compensation available to the Class, are approved. A separate judgment consistent with the Order will issue pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/4tJkkX from Leagle.com. Jose Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Thompson -- jessicat@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., James E. Cecchi -- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs- legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Lindsey H. Taylor -- ltaylor@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne, Peter B. Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Fredman & Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C. Benjamin Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Andrew Loescher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C. Miguel Fragoso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Derek William Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Greg Lewis -- jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin L. Bailey -- bbailey@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey and Glasser, LLP, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Joe P. Leniski, Jr. -- joeyl@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver -- Lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne, Lisa Faye Petak -- lpetak@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P. & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C. Mathue Fasching, Plaintiff, represented by Lynn Lincoln Sarko , Keller Rohrback L.L.P., James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. & Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne. Thomas McGann, Jr. & Joseph Neupert, Plaintiffs, represented by Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV , Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis , Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr, Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Bryan Muckenfuss & John Radziewicz, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph F. Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Satyanam Singh & Binh Quoc Tran, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Luke Kitchel, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes -- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., David S. Stellings -- DSTELLINGS@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko -- MPifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller -- pgeller@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen - - pgnguyen@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Roland K. Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd, P.C. & Wilson McClelland Dunlavey -- wdunlavey@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser. Gregory Wilkerson, Joseph Moynihan, Mark Richards, Timothy Green, Jeff Parisi, Adam Burwell, Louis Bodie, Jamie Broom, Walter Swan, Craig McCully, Aaron Carter, Daniel Brown, Nelson Delgado, Bobby Reichert, Christopher Mattingly, Micah Martin, Leslie Ghrist, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Michah Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko, Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C. & Wilson McClelland Dunlavey, Lieff Cabraser. Travis Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Prieto , Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko, Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Kyle Allen Niemi -- niemik@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Samuel H. Franklin -- sfranklin@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Wesley B. Gilchrist -- wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Darrell Scott Cafasso -- cafassod@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan Cromwell LLP, Gary G. Hebert -- ghebert@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, Marshall Thomas Cox -- mcox@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon L. Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan -- monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice. Robert Bosch GmbH, a corporation organized under the laws of Germany, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater -- mslater@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP. Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP & Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr. -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin & White, Kyle Allen Niemi, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Samuel H. Franklin, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Wesley B. Gilchrist, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC & William B. Monahan, Esq., Sullivan & Cromwell, pro hac vice. Melvin McConnell, Defendant, represented by James C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Andrew Sciolla, Pogust Braslow & Millrood LLC & Harris L. Pogust, Pogust Braslow & Millrood, LLC. VM Motori S.p.A., VM North America, Inc. & Sergio Marchionne, Defendants, represented by Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP. Brandon Automotive, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, doing business as Brandon Dodge on Broadway, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Jean Boyle, Dietze & Davis, P.C. Brandon Automotive, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Defendant, represented by William A. Rogers, III, Dietze & Davis, P.C. Michael Everett Heygood, Movant, pro se. The People of the State of California, Interested Party, represented by Jon F. Worm, Office of the Attorney General. MDL 2777: Consent Decree Issued in EcoDiesel Marketing Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, has issued a Consent Decree in the case, IN RE: CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP ECODIESEL MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES N.V., V.M. MOTORI S.P.A., and V.M. NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES N.V., V.M. MOTORI S.P.A., and V.M. NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-md-02777-EMC, No. 3:17-cv-3446-EMC (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff United States of America, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, filed a complaint in the action on May 23, 2017, against FCA US LLC ("FCA"), Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., V.M. Motori S.P.A., and V.M. North America, Inc. ("U.S. Complaint") alleging that the Defendants violated Sections 203(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, and that FCA US LLC, V.M. Motori S.P.A., and V.M. North America, Inc. violated Sections 203(a)(3)(A) and (3)(B) of the Clean Air Act, with regard to approximately 103,828 model year ("MY") 2014 to 2016 Ram 1500 and MY 2014 to 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles equipped with 3.0 liter EcoDiesel engines. The Defendants have determined that the actual number of Subject Vehicles manufactured is 101,482. The U.S. Complaint alleges that each Subject Vehicle contains, as part of the electronic control module, certain software functions and calibrations that cause the emission control system of those vehicles to perform differently (i.e., to underperform or shut off) during normal vehicle operation and use than during emissions testing. The U.S. Complaint alleges that these software functions and calibrations are undisclosed "Auxiliary Emission Control Devices" ("AECDs") in violation of the Act and that they are also prohibited Defeat Devices under the Act. The U.S. Complaint also alleges that during normal vehicle operation and use, the Subject Vehicles emit increased levels of NOx. The U.S. Complaint alleges and asserts four claims for relief related to the presence of the Defeat Devices in the Subject Vehicles. The People of the State of California, by and through the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"), and Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of the State of California, filed a complaint on Jan. 9, 2019, against FCA US LLC, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., V.M. Motori S.P.A., and V.M. North America, Inc. alleging that, in connection with the certification, marketing, distribution, and sale of approximately 14,000 Subject Vehicles in California, the Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. Section 7604(a)(1); California Health and Safety Code Sections 43016, 43017, 43151, 43152, 43153, 43154, 43205, 43211, and 43212; 13 C.C.R. Sections 1961, 1961.2, 1965, 1968.2, and 2037, and the 40 C.F.R. sections incorporated therein by reference; and California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., 17500 et seq., and 17580.5. The California Complaint alleges, in relevant part, that each Subject Vehicle contains, as part of the electronic control module, certain software functions and calibrations that cause the emission control system of those vehicles to perform differently (i.e., to underperform or shut off) during normal vehicle operation and use as compared to during emissions testing. It alleges that these software functions and calibrations are undisclosed AECDs in violation of California and federal law, and that they are also prohibited Defeat Devices under California and federal law. The California Complaint also alleges that during normal vehicle operation and use, the Subject Vehicles emit increased levels of NOx. It seeks, among other things, civil penalties, injunctive relief, mitigation, costs and other equitable relief related to the presence of the Defeat Devices in the Subject Vehicles. In 2017, EPA and CARB issued a Certificate of Conformity and an Executive Order, respectively, for the EcoDiesel Jeep Grand Cherokees and Ram 1500s for MY 2017. As a result, to remedy the alleged violations in the Subject Vehicles, the Defendants proposed to update the software and calibrations in the Subject Vehicles with software and calibrations substantially similar to the MY 2017 certified configuration. They installed a modified MY 2017 configuration, known as the "Final Carryback Configuration," on a number of test vehicles and conducted testing over an eight-month period in accordance with an agreed-upon protocol approved by EPA and CARB in December of 2017. Based upon the results of this testing, as well as independent testing conducted by EPA and CARB at their own facilities, the regulating agencies determined the Final Carryback Configuration, together with other modifications unique to MY 2014, to be an appropriate repair for the Subject Vehicles, provided that the Defendants comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the Consent Decree. The Parties recognize, and the Court by entering the Consent Decree finds, that the Consent Decree has been negotiated by the Parties in good faith and will avoid litigation among the Parties, and that the Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest. Before the taking of any testimony, without the adjudication or admission of any issue of fact or law except as provided and with the consent of the Parties, Judge issued the Consent Decree. The obligations of the Consent Decree apply to and are binding upon the United States and California, and upon the Defendants and any of Defendants' successors, assigns, or other entities or persons otherwise bound by law. The Defendants' obligations to comply with the requirements of this Consent Decree are joint and several. They will do all things within their power and authority to ensure that any legal successor or assign of any Defendant will remain jointly and severally liable for the payment and other performance obligations thereunder. They will provide a copy of the Consent Decree to the members of their respective Boards of Directors and their executives whose duties might reasonably include compliance with, or oversight over compliance with, any provision of the Decree. Terms used in the Consent Decree that are defined in the Act or in regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act will have the meanings assigned to them in the Act or such regulations, unless otherwise provided in the Decree. Likewise, except as provided herein, terms that are defined in the California Health and Safety Code or in CARB regulations promulgated pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code will have the meanings assigned to them in the California Health and Safety Code or such regulations, unless otherwise provided in the Decree. Within 30 days after the Effective Date, Defendants will pay the total sum of $305 million as a civil penalty, together with interest accruing from the date on which the Consent Decree is lodged with the Court, at the rate specified in 28 U.S.C. Section 1961 as of the Date of Lodging. Of the amount set forth, the Defendants will pay $262.3 million, plus the interest due thereon, to the United States by FedWire Electronic Funds Transfer ("EFT") to the U.S. Department of Justice account, in accordance with instructions provided to the Defendants by the Financial Litigation Unit ("FLU") of the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California after the Effective Date. The payment instructions provided by the FLU will include a Consolidated Debt Collection System ("CDCS") number, which the Defendants will use to identify all payments required to be made in accordance with the Consent Decree. At the time of payment, the Defendants will send notice that payment has been made: (i) to EPA; (ii) to the United States; and (iii) to EPA in accordance with Section XIV. Such notice will state that the payment is for the civil penalty owed pursuant to the Consent Decree in In re: Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation and will reference Civ. No. 3:17-md-02777-EM, the CDCS Number and DJ # 90-5-2-1-11607. Of the amount set forth, the Defendants will pay $42.7 million, plus the interest due thereon, to CARB by check, accompanied by a Payment Transmittal Form (which CARB will provide to the addressee listed in Paragraph 10 after the Effective Date), mailed to: Air Resources Board, Accounting Branch P.O. Box 1436 Sacramento, CA 95812-1436. The Defendants are responsible for any bank charges incurred for processing wire transfers. Except as otherwise provided by the Consent Decree, penalties paid to CARB will be deposited into the Air Pollution Control Fund and used by CARB to carry out its duties and functions. The Defendants will not deduct any penalties paid under this Decree pursuant to the Section or Section VIII (Stipulated Penalties), or any recall rate payments made, in calculating their federal, state, or local income tax. The Defendants will disclose all AECDs in the Final Carryback Configuration by listing and describing them in the AECD Disclosure Document in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section 86.1844-01(d)(11), and, in the event that they identify any AECDs not initially listed in such AECD Disclosure Document, they will submit to EPA and CARB an update of the AECD Disclosure Document by no later than 180 days from the Effective Date. The Defendants will not use the update procedure to modify the Final Carryback Configuration. No AECD listed in the AECD Disclosure Document or in the update will be a Defeat Device. EPA and CARB will follow their respective regulatory procedures, including those set forth in 40 C.F.R. Section86.1809-01, and may use any screening tests that they deem appropriate to determine whether a Defeat Device exists in the Final Carryback Configuration or in any other modification made to the Subject Vehicles after the Effective Date. To the extent that any MY 2014-16 Jeep Grand Cherokee or Ram 1500 vehicle equipped with a 3.0 liter EcoDiesel engine has never been introduced into commerce and, therefore, remains the property of one or more Defendants, such vehicle will not be sold, leased, imported, or otherwise introduced into commerce, unless and until the Defendants have installed the Approved Emissions Modification on such vehicle. No vehicle that receives the Approved Emissions Modification will count toward meeting the National Recall Target or California Recall Target. The Defendants will establish an Emissions Modification Recall Program in accordance with the requirements of the Section VI.B. Under the program, they will offer and, if accepted, provide the Approved Emissions Modification, together with the applicable disclosures and applicable warrantiesto Eligible Owners and Eligible Lessees of Subject Vehicles that meet the eligibility requirements set forth under the Consent Decree. The Recall Program will have the goal of implementing the Approved Emissions Modification on at least 85% of all Subject Vehicles, both in the United States and in the State of California, by no later than the 2-year anniversary of the Effective Date. The Consent Decree constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive agreement and understanding among the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in the Decree and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, whether oral or written, concerning the settlement embodied herein. Other than deliverables that are subsequently submitted and approved pursuant to thes Decree, the Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements, or understandings relating to the settlement other than those expressly contained in this Consent Decree. Upon approval and entry of the Consent Decree by the Court, the Consent Decree will constitute a final judgment of the Court as to the United States, California, and the Defendants. Judge Chen finds finds that there is no just reason for delay and therefore enters the judgment as a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and 58. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/5cXGBW from Leagle.com. Jose Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Thompson -- jessicat@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., James E. Cecchi -- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs- legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Lindsey H. Taylor -- ltaylor@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne, Peter B. Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Fredman & Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C. Benjamin Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Andrew Loescher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C. Miguel Fragoso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Derek William Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Greg Lewis -- jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin L. Bailey -- bbailey@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey and Glasser, LLP, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Joe P. Leniski, Jr. -- joeyl@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver -- Lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne, Lisa Faye Petak -- lpetak@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P. & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C. Mathue Fasching, Plaintiff, represented by Lynn Lincoln Sarko , Keller Rohrback L.L.P., James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. & Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne. Thomas McGann, Jr. & Joseph Neupert, Plaintiffs, represented by Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV , Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis , Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr, Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Bryan Muckenfuss & John Radziewicz, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph F. Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Satyanam Singh & Binh Quoc Tran, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Luke Kitchel, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes -- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., David S. Stellings -- DSTELLINGS@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko -- MPifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller -- pgeller@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen - - pgnguyen@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Roland K. Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd, P.C. & Wilson McClelland Dunlavey -- wdunlavey@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser. Gregory Wilkerson, Joseph Moynihan, Mark Richards, Timothy Green, Jeff Parisi, Adam Burwell, Louis Bodie, Jamie Broom, Walter Swan, Craig McCully, Aaron Carter, Daniel Brown, Nelson Delgado, Bobby Reichert, Christopher Mattingly, Micah Martin, Leslie Ghrist, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Michah Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko, Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C. & Wilson McClelland Dunlavey, Lieff Cabraser. Travis Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Prieto , Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko, Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Kyle Allen Niemi -- niemik@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Samuel H. Franklin -- sfranklin@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Wesley B. Gilchrist -- wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Darrell Scott Cafasso -- cafassod@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan Cromwell LLP, Gary G. Hebert -- ghebert@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, Marshall Thomas Cox -- mcox@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon L. Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan -- monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice. Robert Bosch GmbH, a corporation organized under the laws of Germany, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater -- mslater@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP. Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP & Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr. -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin & White, Kyle Allen Niemi, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Samuel H. Franklin, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Wesley B. Gilchrist, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC & William B. Monahan, Esq., Sullivan & Cromwell, pro hac vice. Melvin McConnell, Defendant, represented by James C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Andrew Sciolla, Pogust Braslow & Millrood LLC & Harris L. Pogust, Pogust Braslow & Millrood, LLC. VM Motori S.p.A., VM North America, Inc. & Sergio Marchionne, Defendants, represented by Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP. Brandon Automotive, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, doing business as Brandon Dodge on Broadway, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Jean Boyle, Dietze & Davis, P.C. Brandon Automotive, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Defendant, represented by William A. Rogers, III, Dietze & Davis, P.C. Michael Everett Heygood, Movant, pro se. The People of the State of California, Interested Party, represented by Jon F. Worm, Office of the Attorney General. MDL 2804: Daytona Likely to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Eileen Zaffiro-Kean, writing for The Dayton Beach News-Journal, reports that twenty years after a wave of opioid addiction first started rolling across the country, governments and healthcare agencies nationwide have responded with a flood of lawsuits targeting the drugs' manufacturers and distributors. One sweeping federal class action lawsuit based in Ohio has 1,600 plaintiffs so far. On May 15, the Daytona Beach City Commission was set to consider making the city plaintiff No. 1,601, joining the suit zeroing in on seven manufacturers and seven distributors of the highly addictive drugs that have shattered lives across the United States. The suit is going after prescription drug giants such as Purdue Pharma and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and opioid distributors including McKesson and Cardinal Health. The governments of Volusia County, Daytona Beach Shores, St. Augustine, Oviedo and Sanford have already joined the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Cleveland, Ohio. Three other Florida cities and 10 additional Florida counties are also plaintiffs. If the class action lawsuit is successful, the plaintiffs could collectively be awarded millions of dollars -- or even billions. The money would be deemed compensation for years of emergency medical care and police intervention on drug-related crimes such as pharmacy robberies -- like the one that took place just three weeks ago at a Daytona Beach Walgreens. The monetary award would also be for past and future costs of treatment programs as well as addiction-related public information campaigns, child protective services, foster care, treatment of prisoners and medical care of children born with neonatal abstinence syndrome. If Daytona Beach becomes one of the plaintiffs, it will be at no cost to the city. Attorneys representing Daytona Beach would only be paid for their expenses and work if the city is awarded damages. The lawyers would get a percentage of any money sent to Daytona Beach that would be determined by a contingent fee retainer agreement city commissioners was set to vote on May 15. Police Chief Craig Capri is all for going to war against the opioid epidemic, which he said has been especially destructive in Daytona Beach over the past year. One recent weekend alone, five or six people overdosed and three died, Capri said. Local addicts are using oxycodone and heroin laced with the extremely powerful painkiller fentanyl, the chief said. "It's a shame," Capri said. "People get hooked and they just can't fight it. It's overpowering." Governments in the lawsuit asking to be compensated for dealing with the addiction crisis must be able to show where their money was spent. Capri said he could track police calls for drug-related crimes, and possibly the number of times Narcan was used to try to revive someone who overdosed. Each dose of Narcan costs about $80, he said. "Drugs are the root cause of a lot of problems and crime," Capri said. "My recommendation is to use (any court award money) for prevention, education and treatment. You can't put a price on a human life." If Daytona Beach decides to join the legal action, the city will be represented by attorneys based in Melbourne, Lake Mary, West Palm Beach, Ohio and Maryland. The legal team proposes bringing a cause of action against the drug manufacturers under the Florida Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims of public nuisance, fraud and unjust enrichment. For the distributors, the team is looking at bringing claims of negligence and public nuisance. Melbourne attorney Michael Kahn and Lake Mary attorney James Vickaryous, two of the lawyers who would represent Daytona Beach, were expected to be at the May 15 meeting to explain the lawsuit and proposal to involve the city. The team of attorneys would investigate the merits of Daytona Beach's claims; draft and file a complaint; handle all pre-trial, discovery and motion proceedings; retain expert witnesses; try the case; and handle all briefs and arguments of an appeal. One key part of Daytona Beach joining the lawsuit centers on the four-page contingent fee retainer agreement that lays out the amount of the city's award that would go to the attorneys. If the claims are settled prior to Daytona Beach filing a complaint, 10 percent of the gross amount of a court award would go to the attorneys representing Daytona Beach. If the claims are settled prior to the first day of a trial, 20 percent of the gross amount earmarked for Daytona Beach would go to the lawyers. The share would rise to 22.5 percent if there is a trial, and 25 percent after any post-judgement appeal regardless of who brings the appeal. The proposed agreement also says that in addition to the contingent fee, the city would use its court award money to reimburse the retained attorneys for the full amount of their expenses to represent Daytona Beach. Kahn, a civil trial lawyer, believes the class action lawsuit has about an 80 percent chance of settling. If it doesn't, trials could start in October, he said. Kahn also is the attorney Daytona Beach hired to write up new panhandling regulations that nearly wiped out that problem in the city this spring. Lawsuits against the drug companies have been coming for 15 years and contend that prescription opioid makers grossly misrepresented the risks of long-term use of the drugs. The suits accuse opioid distributors of failing to properly monitor suspicious orders of the drugs. Because so many lawsuits were filed in the past few years, the federal court system ordered all of the opioid suits to be consolidated into the multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Accusers say deceptive marketing efforts by the pharmaceutical industry began in the late 1990s and encouraged physicians to prescribe long-term and high-dose opioids for the treatment of chronic, non-cancer pain while misrepresenting the risks associated with misuse and addiction. They allege the pharmaceutical industry paid physicians, created professional societies to advocate for the widespread use of opioids to treat chronic pain, and sponsored scientific articles, medical conferences and seminars which encouraged the use of opioid medications. The plaintiffs attorneys contend the drug companies used profit-motivated campaigns that led to massive over-prescription of opioid pain medications, and caused widespread physical and psychological dependence. They also claim wholesale distributors of opioids, who are statutorily obligated to develop and maintain procedures to investigate and report drug diversion, neglected their obligations. They argue that the wholesale distributors should have notified the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and state entities regarding suspicious opioid purchases that included orders of unusual size and frequency. Those failures enabled the creation of Florida's pill mills, helped spur the development of a substantial black market for prescription opioids, and sparked a resurgence in the use of other illicit drugs including heroin and fentanyl, according to the attorneys. [GN] MDL 2885: Andrews Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit titled MORRIS ANDREWS JR. v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 8:19-cv-01047, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01460-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ. All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2) were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com - and - William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq. KIRK PINKERTON, P.A. 240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: (941) 364-2400 Facsimile: (941) 364-249 E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com MDL 2885: Brock Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned ROBERT BROCK v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-21689, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01476-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ. All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2) were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. Lazaro Fields, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com laz@colson.com MDL 2885: Cousino Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit entitled BRADLY COUSINO v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 0:19-cv-01160, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01462-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ. All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2) were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com - and - Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com MDL 2885: Fleuricourt Suit Included in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled GABRIELITA FLEURICOURT v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 0:19-cv-61100, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01475-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ. All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2) were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. Lazaro Fields, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com laz@colson.com MDL 2885: Grant Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit titled ANDRE GRANT v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 8:19-cv-01046, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01459-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ. All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2) were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com - and - William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq. KIRK PINKERTON, P.A. 240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: (941) 364-2400 Facsimile: (941) 364-249 E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com MDL 2885: Hanson Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit captioned SAMUEL HANSON v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 0:19-cv-01161, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01463-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ. All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2) were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com - and - Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com MDL 2885: Hudgens Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit entitled GREG HUDGENS v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 0:19-cv-01164, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01464-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ. All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2) were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com - and - Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com MDL 2885: Hughes Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit styled TODD HUGHES v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 8:19-cv-01045, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01458-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ. All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2) were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com - and - William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq. KIRK PINKERTON, P.A. 240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: (941) 364-2400 Facsimile: (941) 364-249 E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com MDL 2885: Hulsey Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit titled JASON HULSEY v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC, and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00635, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01474-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ. All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2) were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bobby J. Bell, Jr., Esq. Ashley Paige Caraway, Esq. Tyler C. Vail, Esq. HOLLIS, WRIGHT, CLAY & VAIL, P.C. 2201 Morris Avenue Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 324-3600 Facsimile: (205) 324-3636 E-mail: bob@hollis-wright.com paigec@hollis-wright.com tylerv@hollis-wright.com MDL 2885: Jacobs Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit captioned BRYAN JACOBS v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 8:19-cv-01042, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01456-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ. All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2) were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com - and - William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq. KIRK PINKERTON, P.A. 240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: (941) 364-2400 Facsimile: (941) 364-249 E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com MDL 2885: Robinson Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled JEREMIAH ROBINSON v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 8:19-cv-01041, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01457-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ. All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2) were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com - and - William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq. KIRK PINKERTON, P.A. 240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: (941) 364-2400 Facsimile: (941) 364-249 E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com MDL 2885: Rowe Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit titled VERNON ROWE v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 8:19-cv-01040, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01455-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ. All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2) were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com - and - William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq. KIRK PINKERTON, P.A. 240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: (941) 364-2400 Facsimile: (941) 364-249 E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com MDL 2885: Wilson Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned JEFFREY WILSON v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 9:19-cv-80585, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01477-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ. All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2) were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Martinez, Esq. Francisco R. Maderal, Esq. Lazaro Fields, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: bob@colson.com frank@colson.com laz@colson.com - and - William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq. KIRK PINKERTON, P.A. 240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: (941) 364-2400 Facsimile: (941) 364-249 E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com MELT BAR: Clark Suit Alleges FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------- Eugene Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Melt Bar and Grilled Holdings, LLC, and Melt Bar and Grilled, Inc., collectively dba Melt Bar and Grilled, Case No. 1:19-cv-00728 (N.D. Ohio, April 02, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The action seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and all allowable damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA for the Plaintiff and all current or former assistant kitchen manager or manager in training who worked more than 40 hours as a salary-paid Manager in any workweek at any of the Defendants' locations. The Plaintiff worked as an Assistant Kitchen Manager, including his salary-paid training period as a Manager in Training to become validated for an assistant manager position, from approximately December 2017 until approximately August 2018. The Defendants owned and operated 13 restaurant locations in Ohio and run each Melt Bar and Grilled restaurant identically, or substantially similar in any location with the same kind of food and beverage products as well as service. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bethany A. Hilbert, Esq. C. Andrew Head, Esq. HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC 4422 N Ravenswood Ave Chicago, IL 60640 Tel: (404) 924-4151 Fax: (404) 796-7338 E-mail: bhilbert@headlawfirm.com ahead@headlawfirm.com METRO BANK: Amann Sues over Accounting Errors --------------------------------------------- The case, JOSEPH AMANN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. METRO BANK PLC, VERNON W. HILL, II, CRAIG DONALDSON, MIKE BRIERLEY, AND DAVID ARDEN, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04739 (C.D. Cal., May 30, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Metro Bank from March 6, 2018 through May 1, 2019, both dates inclusive. On January 23, 2019, Metro Bank revealed that it misclassified the risk of hundreds of millions of pounds of loans. Metro Bank issued a press release "Metro Bank Announces FY 2018 Results Preview And Trading Update". On this news, shares of Metro Bank plummeted $10.00 per share or nearly 35% to close at $18.80 per share on January 23, 2019, damaging investors, the lawsuit says. On January 31, 2019, the Financial Times published the article, "Metro Bank bosses under fire over accounting error" which reported that the realization of the accounting errors was not based on Metro Bank's own self reporting, as they previously framed it, but rather in response to the e Prudential Regulation Authority's concerns with Metro Bank's loans. It was also announced that the Company's profits were cut in half and a number of large customers ended their relationship with Metro Bank due to the previous misclassification of the loans. Multiple media reports revealed this disclosure, including the Financial Times published an article entitled, "Big customers desert Metro Bank over accounting error". On this news, shares of Metro Bank plummeted $1.95 per share, or over 18.6%, over the next two trading days to close at $8.50 per share on May 3, 2019, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com MIAMI INT'L: Gomez Sues Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES GOMEZ v. MIAMI INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ART & DESIGN, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-21757-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Gomez, a blind individual, brings this civil rights class action against the Defendant for allegedly offering and maintaining Internet Web sites (http://www.artinstitutes.edu/)and (http://www.artinstitutes.edu/miami/)that are not fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired individuals. Miami International University of Art & Design, Inc., is Florida Profit Corporation, with its principal place in Miami, Florida. The Defendant either directly or through its subsidiaries and/or partners and affiliates, owns, operates and/or maintains Miami International University of Art & Design located in Miami, Florida. The Defendant also owns, operates, and maintains its integrated Web sites for its educational institution, Miami International University of Art & Design. The Defendant is an educational institution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. Beverly Virues, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L. 4937 S.W. 74th Court Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Facsimile: (305) 553-3031 E-mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com bvirues@lawgmp.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Damasco Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Toni Damasco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 600178/2019, was removed from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) on May 30, 2019. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03217 to the proceeding. The suit demands $501,000 and alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation. Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through various education and payment plans. The company was founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for Midland Credit Management, Inc.: Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq. Matthew B. Corwin, Esq. HINSHAW & CULLERTSON 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471-6229 Facsimile: (212) 935-1166 E-mail: esilverman@hinshawlaw.com mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com MIDWEST INVESTORS: Baldwin Suit Alleges BIPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Carolyn Baldwin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midwest Investors Group, Inc. dba Metro Staffing, Inc., and Metro Staffing, Inc., Case No. 2019CH04285 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., April 02, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff brings this action over the Defendants' invasive program relying on the capture, collection, storage and use of its workers' fingerprints, without written informed consent, in direct violation of the Illinois BIPA. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff in 2017. The Defendants are staffing agencies that specialize in light industrial and professional staffing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 726 3400 MINDSHARE VENTURES: Davis Sues over Unwanted Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Davis, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Mindshare Ventures LLC, d/b/a AtlasRTX, and Trendmaker Homes, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01961 (S.D. Tex., May 30, 2019), alleges that AtlasRTX violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, by using an automatic telephone dialing system to deliver non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service without prior express written consent. The Plaintiff is the regular and sole user of her cellular telephone number—(214) 471-XXXX. On February 7, 2019, at 3:22 pm, Plaintiff received text message on her cellular telephone. The purpose of the text message that AtlasRTX and Trendmaker sent to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number was to advertise and market Trendmaker's business, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of AtlasRTX and Trendmaker's text message in that she suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a private nuisance. AtlasRTX and Trendmaker, as a matter of pattern and practice, use an automatic telephone dialing system to send text messages, absent prior express written consent, to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, the lawsuit says. AtlasRTX is a computer software company, based in Park City, Utah, and operated by Mindshare Ventures LLC, which is a consulting company also based in Park City, Utah. Trendmaker is a home builder based in Houston, Texas. Trendmaker operates as a subsidiary of Tri Pointe Group, Inc. Tri Pointe Group, Inc. is a publicly traded company, based in Irvine, California, and listed on the New York Stock Exchange as TPH.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 803-1578 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com MINED MINDS: Former West Virginia Students File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Katie Anderson, writing for Observer-Reporter, reports that a nonprofit that started in Waynesburg in 2015 is facing a class-action lawsuit in West Virginia after students alleged Mined Minds didn't follow through on promises to get them coding jobs. Mined Minds was started by married couple Jonathan Graham and Amanda Laucher, technology consultants in Chicago. They started the nonprofit in Pennsylvania and West Virginia with the hope of teaching the unemployed and former coal industry employees how to do computer coding. According to national news reports, including a Sunday New York Times article, about 60 of the former West Virginia students involved with the nonprofit have filed a class-action lawsuit against Mined Minds. The Times article quoted several students who took a free Mined Mines class in Beckley, W.Va., who claimed they were told they would be paid for the class. The students also claimed they were promised apprenticeships within the company upon graduation, and eventually tech jobs. The students involved in the lawsuit told the Times that while they had invested time and money, putting their lives on hold with the hopes of finding better career paths, Mined Minds never came through on those promises. Laucher, a native of Nemacolin, said in an email on May 13 that she is "unable to comment" due to the ongoing lawsuit. "What we will say is that there have been no new developments in this lawsuit which is more than 18 months old," she wrote. "Depositions have been taken and we believe their filing has no merit. Class remains ongoing." "A note about the NYT story itself," she continued. "Because we are unable to comment to the press, the publication states many inaccuracies." Laucher included in her email a three-page student contract that every student must sign when entering the program. The contract states that the full-time training lasts up to 32 weeks and demands students commit 40 hours a week to studying. The contract also states that students won't receive payments from Mined Minds and that the program isn't "a replacement for college or university education." "There is no job or further training opportunity guaranteed upon completion of the training," the contract states. Mined Minds had received grant money in 2017 as part of a contract with the Southwest Corner Workforce Development Board and the Washington-Greene County Job Training Agency. The $702,400 Mined Minds received came from the Appalachian Regional Commission. Amy Gatts, WGCJTA president, said Mined Minds wasn't in Pennsylvania long before they moved to West Virginia. "They trained a couple people here then moved into West Virginia," she said. Gatts said Mined Minds was having licensing issues with the state, which ordered them to cease operations until obtaining a license to run a school. "But it was free, they weren't charging anybody," Gatts said. "They're still training people and they're getting jobs." Both Gatts and Jeff Nobili, project manager for the Southwest Corner Workforce Development Board, defended Mined Mines, saying the national news articles had "discrepancies," and that they are only aware of two plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit. Former students and employees quoted in the Times article alleged that the couple's "company gatherings" involved heavy drinking in party-like atmospheres, and that apprentices and employees were fired for unjust reasons. But Nobili said he never saw that type of unprofessionalism when working with Mined Minds. "Whenever we hear about something like this, we take it very seriously and we talk to our contractors," he said. "I don't know where all those stories come from. That's not something that I've experienced dealing with Mined Minds." He also said that students his organization monitored while going through the program received the training they were promised. "If they were let go it was for business reasons," he said. "We don't tell our contractors how to run their business." Nobili said the development board's contract with Mined Minds was expected to end in May. He said the grant had been extended, but he's not sure whether Mined Minds will be included in that extension. "That's not stemming from this article necessarily, but from whether they're able to operate under the publicity they're getting," he said. [GN] MONSANTO CO: Pinson Sues in Missouri Over Injuries From Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS PINSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF SUSAN STROIA (DECEASED) v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01237 (E.D. Mo., May 14, 2019), is an action for damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Geich Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- NICK GEICH, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01529 (E.D. Mo., May 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: Charles W. Miller, Esq. HEYGOOD, ORR & PEARSON 6363 N. State Highway 161, Ste. 450 Irving, TX 75038 Telephone: (214) 237-9001 Facsimile: (214) 237-9002 E-mail: charles@hop-law.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- LETICIA RODRIGUEZ, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00355-JES-MRM (S.D. Fla., May 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: Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Palmanova Plaza Humacao, PR 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 E-mail: andrew@kaganlegalgroup.com - and - Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LAW FIRM 8191 College Pkwy Suite 303, Fort Myers, FL 33919 Telephone: (239) 466-1161 Facsimile: (239) 466-7226 E-mail: liz@kagan-law.com - and - Jennifer A. Moore, Esq. MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC 1473 South 4th Street Louisville, KY 40208 Telephone: (502) 717-4080 Facsimile: (502) 717-4086 E-mail: jennifer@moorelawgroup.com MURRAY-DARLING BASIN: Irrigators File Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Rosie King, writing for ABC News, reports that a group of nine Murray irrigators has lodged a class action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), claiming its negligent water management has caused them severe financial losses totalling $750 million. Chris Brooks, who farms in Barooga in the southern Riverina, is spearheading the claim and said it had come out of frustration more than anything else. "We've been backed into a corner and, as usual, we have no choice now but to come out fighting and our last resort is court action. "It's a bit like the old bully in the playground -- he'll keep taking your play lunch right up until you give him a smack in the nose and it's just got to that stage, unfortunately." The Murray-Darling Basin Authority was contacted by the ABC but declined the request for comment. Claims of massive waste The group claims the negligence of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority meant 850,000 megalitres of water from Murray River dams was wasted rather than allocated to their properties. "We've met with the MDBA and we've got data that we've been collecting for some time outlining the water they've lost and the water they've wasted by running those high river flows through the choke," Mr Brooks said. "It's about 850,000 megalitres, which was our allocation, and those losses were credited to our account even though they were incurred sending the water down the river. "The only reason they needed to send a massive amount down the river is because the same organisation -- the MDBA -- drained the Menindee Lakes from a flood two years ago which was also unnecessary and bad management, we will claim. "It's damaged the environment. It's damaged our economic capacity. And it's damaged communities. There was no need for it. Although the class action is only nine irrigators-strong now, Mr Brooks said he expected that number to skyrocket. "We expect all the growers -- all 2,200 landholders in the southern Riverina area -- to join this class action because they're entitled to make a claim," he said. A call for change The $750 million figure was devised using simple maths, according to Mr Brooks. "That's the profits we would have made had we been given our fair share of allocation." As well as damages, the group is calling for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to be paused and reviewed. "It's economically and environmentally doing damage and that wasn't what it was drafted for," he said. "There needs to be a better method of evenly distributing the water throughout the north, the south and the middle. "At this stage it's not the case, so we've taken action to bring more attention to the issue." A political move? Mr Brooks has made no effort to hide his support -- vocal and financial -- for the independent candidate in the seat of Farrer, Kevin Mack, who will face off against Liberal MP Sussan Ley at the federal election. Yet Mr Brooks said the timing of the class action being lodged was not another tactic aimed at ousting Ms Ley. Mr Brooks said he would see this class action to the end no matter who wins the seat. "I don't know how long it's going to take, or how much money, but we're in for a fight and we're in for a pound," he said. "Our future depends on it, and for our children, so we're committed and we're pretty confident that step-by-step we'll make a change and all will be well again." [GN] NANTHEALTH INC: Bid for Class Certification in Deora Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the defendants in the case, Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825, filed an opposition to class certification. In March 2017, a number of putative class action securities complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its current or former executive officers and directors. These complaints have been consolidated with the lead case captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825. In June 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which generally alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations in NantHealth's initial public offering (IPO) registration statement and in subsequent public statements. In particular, the complaint refers to various third-party articles in alleging that defendants misrepresented NantHealth's business with the University of Utah, donations to the university by non-profit entities associated with our founder Dr. Soon-Shiong, and orders for GPS Cancer. The lead plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired NantHealth securities in the IPO or on the open market from June 1, 2016 through May 1, 2017. In March 2018, the court largely denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In September 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of two plaintiff classes. In April 2019, Defendants filed an opposition to class certification. NantHealth said, "We believe that the claims lack merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation." NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a healthcare technology company in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC. NANTHEALTH INC: Case Management Conference Set for Sept. 17 ----------------------------------------------------------- NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the next case management conference in the case, Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., is scheduled for September 17, 2019. In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar to those in Deora. That case is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330. The parties have agreed to stay the case until the next case management conference, scheduled for September 17, 2019. NantHealth said, "We believe that the claims lack merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation." NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a healthcare technology company in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC. NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Initiated in Gulino Discrimination Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment entered on April 30, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII. The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1341, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Amarilis Ramirez Peralta is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School District of the City of New York is represented by: Zachary W. Carter, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-1000 E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov NEW YORK: Appeals Order in Gulino Discrimination Suit to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment issued on April 2, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII. The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1327, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Cynthia F. Carter-Richards is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School District of the City of New York is represented by: Zachary W. Carter, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-1000 E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov NEW YORK: Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment in Gulino Discrimination Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment dated April 30, 2019, entered in the lawsuit titled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1339, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII. The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Asuncion Orsini is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School District of the City of New York is represented by: Zachary W. Carter, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-1000 E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov NEW YORK: Disability Advocates File Class Action Against MTA ------------------------------------------------------------ Colby Hamilton, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that Disability advocates seek to bring the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to task over what they claim is a systemic failure to build required accessibility features into rehabilitated stations. Advocates filed the class action suit in the Southern District of New York on May 15, following a significant legal win for many of the same groups in March. In that decision granting partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York found the agency was required under the Americans with Disabilities Act to include reasonable accessibility improvements when stations were being redone, regardless of the cost, and should have done so during a rehabilitation project in the Bronx. Following the partial summary judgment order, the suit has moved towards discovery, with expert reports and exhibitions scheduled through the end of July. The office of the U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman of the Southern District of New York is an intervenor in the suit. Following Ramos' ruling in favor of the disability advocates, Berman said the MTA was "on notice" for including accessibility improvements like elevators in station improvements. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office declined to comment on the office's intentions regarding the latest suit. Advocates now hope to win a similar result, only across the nation's largest public transit system. "The MTA's actions clearly demonstrate that they value amenities like Wi-Fi over serving passengers with disabilities," Michelle Caiola, managing director of litigation for one of the plaintiffs. "MTA has a longstanding pattern of ignoring their ADA obligations when altering stations, harming not only those with disabilities, but all New Yorkers who benefit from elevator access, including parents with strollers and senior citizens. Its disregard and negligence should no longer be tolerated." The suit claims the MTA has an "ongoing discriminatory practice of renovating New York City subway stations without installing elevators or other stair-free routes in blatant violation" of the ADA. Advocates and transit users with mobility disabilities have been pushing "for decades" for the transit authority on making accessibility improvements to stations during renovations, according to the complaint. Advocates claims some three-quarters of stations in the New York City subway system are inaccessible to people with disabilities. This, they say, despite decades of renovations at stations where ADA-required accessibility improvements should have been included. A spokesman for the MTA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Joining DRA's legal team for the plaintiffs is Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton partner Daniel Brown -- dlbrown@sheppardmullin.com [GN] NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Decision in Gulino Bias Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment issued on April 2, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1336, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII. The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Olive Trought is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School District of the City of New York is represented by: Zachary W. Carter, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-1000 E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of S.D.N.Y. Ruling in Gulino Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment entered on April 2, 2019, in the lawsuit titled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1328, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII. The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Theresa Eason is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School District of the City of New York is represented by: Zachary W. Carter, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-1000 E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Walfish Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Fred Walfish filed an appeal from a Court ruling issued in his lawsuit entitled Fred Walfish v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-04981, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 24, 2019, the District Court issued an Opinion granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Mr. Walfish is an insurance agent, who was associated with the Defendants. The Plaintiff filed a one-count putative class action complaint alleging that Northwestern's method of compensating agents violates the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL). According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified him and other insurance agents as independent contractors and deducted certain expenses from their commissions in violation of the NJWPL. The appellate case is captioned as Fred Walfish v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 19-2105, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant FRED WALFISH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Lucas Buzzard, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (202) 215-5526 E-mail: lucas@jk-llp.com Defendants-Appellees NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. and NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL INVESTMENT SERVICES are represented by: Terry D. Johnson, Esq. Sean P. Lynch, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 919-6611 E-mail: terry.johnson@morganlewis.com sean.lynch@morganlewis.com OAKLEY INC: Accused by Haggar Suit of Violating Disabilities Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elia Haggar, Kyo Hak Chu and Valerie Brooks, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Oakley, Inc., a Washington corporation and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-03800-GW-E (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2019), is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oakley, Inc., was founded in 1975 and is based in Foothill Ranch, California. Oakley operates as a subsidiary of Luxottica Group S.p.A. The names and identities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown. Oakley manufactures and distributes sunglasses, prescription lenses and frames, goggles, apparel, footwear, and accessories in the United States and internationally. The Company offers apparel for men and women, including sweaters and hoodies, jackets and vests, polo t-shirts, pants, shorts, and board shorts; sunglasses, such as polarized, prizm, sports sunglasses, and youth sunglasses; and accessories, such as bags, snow helmets, footwear, gloves, belts, and footwear. Oakley also offers its products through retailers and online.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq. 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: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Aug. 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AFSHIN GALESTAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ONEMAIN HOLDINGS, INC., JAY N. LEVINE and SCOTT T. PARKER, Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-01016-VM CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF ONEMAIN HOLDINGS, INC. ("ONEMAIN") DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 25, 2016 TO NOVEMBER 7, 2016, INCLUSIVE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on August 9, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Victor Marrero, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the above-captioned Action, as set forth in the settlement agreement reached between the parties, consisting of Nine Million Dollars ($9,000,000.00) in cash, should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Members of the Class; (2) whether the release by Class Members of claims as set forth in the settlement agreement should be authorized; (3) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds (the "Plan of Allocation") is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (4) whether the application by Plaintiff's counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and any award to Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) should be approved; and (5) whether the Judgment, in the form attached to the settlement agreement, should be entered. Please note that the date, time and location of the settlement hearing are subject to change without further notice. If you plan to attend the hearing, you should check the docket or contact Lead Counsel (identified below) to be sure that no change to the date, time or location of the hearing has been made. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ANY OF THE COMMON STOCK OF ONEMAIN DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 25, 2016 TO NOVEMBER 7, 2016, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing to OneMain Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, P.O. Box 6006, Portland, OR 97228-6006, or on the internet at www.OneMainSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim by mail (postmarked no later than August 13, 2019) or submitted electronically (no later than August 13, 2019), establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless the deadline is extended, your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by the above deadline will preclude you from receiving any payment from the Settlement. If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked no later than July 19, 2019, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice, referred to above. All Members of the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds, or the fee and expense application must be mailed to each of the following recipients, such that it is received no later than July 19, 2019: CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP ROBERT M. ROTHMAN 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Defendants' Counsel: CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP JARED GERBER One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above. DATED: May 15, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PANALPINA WORLD: CCOIC Appeals Decision in Precision Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Objector China Chamber of International Commerce filed an appeal from a District Court order dated April 5, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Precision Associates, Inc., et al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et al., Case No. 08-cv-42, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case involves a lawsuit claiming that certain freight forwarding companies secretly agreed to prices for their freight forwarding services worldwide, including on routes in the U.S. and between the U.S. and China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, India, Germany, the UK and other parts of Europe. The appellate case is captioned as Precision Associates, Inc., et al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et al., Case No. 19-1312, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Precision Associates, Inc., et al., are represented by: W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com - and - Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com - and - Christopher Lovell, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP 61 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 608-1900 Facsimile: (212) 719-4775 E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com - and - Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 201-6820 E-mail: isiddiqui@cpmlegal.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Kiroku Kato and Masa Nakamura are represented by: Derek Howard, Esq. MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP 360 Post Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 788-9000 E-mail: dhoward@minamitamaki.com Plaintiff-Appellee NORMA Pennsylvania, Inc., is represented by: Sharon Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Class Plaintiffs are represented by: James Sabella, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8520 E-mail: jsabella@gelaw.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd., I-Pulse Co., Ltd., Sunward International, Inc., Yamaha Motor Distribution Latin America, Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation of America, Yamaha Jet Boat Manufacturing U.S.A., AKA Tennessee Watercraft, Inc., Yamaha Motor Powered Products Co., Ltd. and Yamaha Motor Engineering Co., Ltd., are represented by: Philip J. O'Beirne, Esq. STEIN MITCHELL MUSE CIPOLLONE & BEATO LLP 1100 Connecticut Avenue Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 661-0942 E-mail: pobeirne@steinmitchell.com Intervenor Hewlett-Packard Company is represented by: James Michael Altieri, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 248-3180 E-mail: james.altieri@dbr.com Intervenor Dell, Inc., is represented by: James B. Niehaus, Esq. FRANTZ WARD LLP 127 Public Square 2500 Key Center Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 515-1660 E-mail: jniehaus@frantzward.com Intervenors Sony Electronics, Inc., and Sony Supply Chain Solutions (Americas), Inc., are represented by: Gina Marie Bassi, Esq. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA CORPORATION 900 Ridgebury Road Ridgefield, CT 06877 Telephone: (203) 791-6836 Objector-Appellant China Chamber of International Commerce is represented by: Erica Oleszczuk Evans, Esq. GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C. 7475 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 362-0636 E-mail: eoevans@goldsteinrussell.com PANE EVINO: Gonzalez et al Seek Minimum Wage and OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------- The case, MANUEL SARABIA GONZALEZ, MARTIN PEREZ MORALES, RICARDO PALILLERO, JOSE TORRES MIGUEL, MAYNOR RIGOBERTO TOC PABLO, AUCAY PESANTEZ SEGUNDO VICTORIANO, DEIVIS DAVILA MELENDEZ AND EDWIN GUARDADO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ERVIN ROSENFELD AND PANE EVINO RESTAURANT, INC., the Defendants, Case No.: 1:19-cv-03015-LDH-RML (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs are current employees of Defendants. They were ostensibly employed as bussers, servers, runners, cooks and dishwashers. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. Further Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records to avoid paying Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate, and to enable them to pay Plaintiffs at the lower tip-credited rate by designating them bussers, servers, runners, cooks and dishwashers instead of non-tipped employees.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Robert J. Renna, Esq. ROBERT J. RENNA, P.C. 26 Court Street, Suite 303 Brooklyn, NY 11242 Telephone: (718) 422-1003 Facsimile: (718) 422-1156 PETLAND INC: Blumenauer Sues over Automated Marketing Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Petland, Inc. for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned JEREMY BLUMENAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PETLAND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61292 (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2019). Plaintiff Jeremy Blumenauer alleges that the Defendant is engaged in sending marketing text messages that provide different types of offers and savings for future purchases without first obtaining express written. These messages were sent using mass-automated technology through a third-party company hired by Defendant to send marketing text messages on Defendant's behalf en masse. Accordingly, Blumenauer seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct. He also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant. Petland, Inc. owns and operates 131 retail stores across the nation, particularly in Florida. These retail stores sell animal and/or pet goods and supplies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC. 110 SE 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com - and - Thomas J. Patti, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 E-mail: tom@jibraellaw.com PHELAM HALLIMAN: Johnson Files Appeal in Suit Sup. Ct. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------------- A notice of appeal has been filed in Johnson, Aplts v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg. in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on May 30, 2019. The case is captioned Johnson, Eric, Johnson, EdElla, Appellants v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg LLP, Appellee, Case No. 26WAP2019 The case type is stated as "Mortgage Foreclosure". Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP was founded in 1975. The Company's line of business includes providing full service legal advice.[BN] The Appellants are represented by: Malakoff, Michael P. 437 Grant Street, Suite 200, the Frick Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-4217 - and - Bart, Jonathan J. Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA 1500 John F Kennedy Blvd Ste 910 Philadelphia, PA 19102-1742 Phone: (215) 636-4466 PHH MORTGAGE: Cabral TCPA Case Goes to District of Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- PHH Mortgage Corporation removes the case, THOMAS CABRAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, the Defendant, from the Massachusetts Superior Court, Bristol County Case No. 1973CV00379 (Filed April 23, 2019), to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 30, 2019. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-11207 to the proceeding. The Defendant removes the case because there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The complaint alleges PHH initiated more than two calls per week to Plaintiff in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A, sections 2, 9 and 940 CMR sections 7.04(1)0.2. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages (including punitive damages), declaratory, and injunctive relief; as well as attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com Attorneys for the Defendant: Amv B. Hackett, Esq. Richard Briansky, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC Two International Place, 16th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617.342.6800 Facsimile: 617.342.6899 E-mail: rbriansky@eckertseamans.com ahackett@eckertseamans.com POSTMATES: Faces Class Action in New York Over Fees --------------------------------------------------- Carrie Bradon, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an individual is suing Postmates in a class action lawsuit alleging that it charged more than it claimed and failed to uphold its delivery guarantee. Jamie Feld, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated filed a complaint on in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Postmates Inc., alleging violation of New York's General Business Law, unjust enrichment. The plaintiff downloaded the defendant's application as she believed that it could deliver anything anytime anywhere, which is what the defendant claims, the suit says. However, the defendant's claims were not accurate, leading to the damage of the plaintiff, the suit says. The defendant has both a delivery and service fee, the latter of which is a hidden fee that is not clearly advertised, the suit claims. The plaintiff would not have downloaded the defendant's app had she known that the claims about delivery were false and that the service fee was a part of the service, the suit says. The plaintiff is seeking trial by jury, equitable relief, order certifying the action as class action, restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained, actual and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, court costs and relief deemed fit. The plaintiff is represented by Matthew N. Bobrow in New York. United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Case number 1:19-CV-03899 [GN] RALPHS GROCERY: McCorkle Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Angela McCorkle, on behalf of herself and all aggrieved employees v. Ralphs Grocery Company, Food 4 Less of California, Inc., and Does 1 to 50, Case No. 37-2019-00017163 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., April 02, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code. The Defendants failed to provide paid and lawful off-duty rest periods, timely meal periods, and accurate wage statements in violation with the labor code, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of California and worked for the Defendants in San Diego County. The Defendant Ralphs Grocery is an Ohio Corporation with its principle place of business located at 1100 W. Artesia Boulevard, Compton, California 90220. The Defendant FOOD 4 LESS is a California corporation, with its principle place of business located at 1100 W. Artesia Boulevard, Compton, California 90220. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Tel: (310) 824-3828 Fax: (310) 862-6851 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com - and - Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Tel: (310) 277-0614 Fax: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com REAL TIME: Berry Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------- Brett Charles Berry, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-02172 (D. Ariz., April 2, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant negligently, knowingly and willfully attempted to collect incorrect amounts from Plaintiff in violation of the FDCPA. The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in State of Arizona, and is a consumer as defined by the FDCPA. The Defendant is in the business of collecting debts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Tel: (602) 265-3332 Fax: (602) 230-4482 E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com RGS FINANCIAL: Tataru's Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr., has taken under advisement the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled Gabriel Tataru v. RGS Financial, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-06106 (N.D. Ill.). The Defendant's response to the Motion is due by June 18, 2019, and the Plaintiff's reply is due by July 9, 2019. Once the motion is fully briefed, the Court will rule via CM/ECF notice and set a future date as appropriate.[CC] ROBINS JEAN RETAIL: Haggar et al. Alleges ADA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Robins Jean Retail, Inc. for violations of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is captioned Elia Haggar et al v. Robins Jean Retail, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-04089-SVW-PLA (C.D. Cal., May 10, 2019). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson. Founded by Robin Chretien, Robins Jean Retail currently maintains ten flagship stores in the top shopping destinations Beverly Hills, CA. Soho, New York; Laguna Beach, CA; Garden State Plaza, Paramus, NJ; Park City, Utah, Orlando, Florida and the first Robin's Jean international store in Vancouver, Canada. In 2016, new locations have opened in Beverly Center in Los Angeles, CA and Telluride, CO and Roosevelt Field, Garden City, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 ROGAR MANAGEMENT: McGrath Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert McGrath, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Rogar Management & Consulting of Florida LLC and Javier Rodriguez, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-21998 (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2019), seeks to recover overtime premium pay, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rogar owned and operated a General Contractor, Highway and Street Construction business in Miami where McGrath worked as a laborer/machine operator. Rogar allegedly failed to compensate him at rate of one and one-half times his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a single work week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com S & H CONSTRUCTION: Salazar Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- HECTOR SALAZAR, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. S & H CONSTRUCTION BUILDER CORPORATION, a California Corporation, dba S & D DRYWALL; SERGIO HURTADO, an individual, dba S & D DRYWALL; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 12STCV15310 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 2, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, including overtime, and penalties under the California Labor Code. The Defendants operate a construction business that specializes in drywall installation. The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq. Brittaney D. de la Torre, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com bdelatorre@haineslaewgroup.com SCHENKER INC: Lane Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------ Schenker, Inc., removed on May 14, 2019, the class action lawsuit entitled Jerrod Lane, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Schenker, Inc., Case No. 2019L000512, from Madison County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis). The nature of suit is stated as other personal injury. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00507 to the proceeding. Plaintiff Jerrod Lane, of Chicago, Illinois, appears pro se.[BN] Defendant Schenker, Inc., is represented by: Lillian Theresa Talbot Manning, Esq. Patricia J. Martin, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON L.P. 600 Washington Ave., Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 659-2000 Facsimile: (314) 659-2099 E-mail: lmanning@littler.com pmartin@littler.com SCHWANS COMPANY: Miller PI Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Miller v. Schwans Company, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02551, was transferred on May 2, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00501-TJC-JBT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as health care/pharmaceutical personal injury product liability.[BN] Plaintiff Joanne Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. One Penn Plaza, Suite 2527 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (516) 343-0542 E-mail: joshua@levinepstein.com - and - Michael J. Duggar, Esq. MICHAEL J. DUGGAR, PA PO Box 192 Christmas, FL 32709-0192 Telephone: (321) 251-7766 Facsimile: (321) 206-5090 E-mail: mduggar@cfl.rr.com - and - Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com Defendants Schwan's Company, Schwan's Consumer Brands, Inc., Schwan's Food Service, Inc., and SFC Global Supply Chain, Inc., are represented by: August Theodore Horvath, Esq. FOLEY HOAG LLP 1540 Broadway, 23rd floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (646) 927-5544 E-mail: ahorvath@foleyhoag.com - and - Michele Leo Hintson, Esq. Thomas McDonnell, Esq. SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP 101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2800 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 229-7600 Facsimile: (813) 229-1660 E-mail: mhintson@slk-law.com tmcdonnell@slk-law.com SEDANOS MARKET: Garcia Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------ Eduardo Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sedanos Market, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-22014 (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sedanos Market, Inc. operates as "Sedanos Supermarket" where Shaikh worked as a non-exempt employee. He claims to be denied overtime wages for hours rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Arthur Mesa, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MESA & ASSOCIATES, P.A. The Concord Building 66 West Flagler Street, PH 1 Miami, Florida 33130 Telephone: (305) 863-1000 Fax: (305) 863-1022 Email: mesalaw@aol.com jessy@mesalaw.net toledo@meslaw.net SEQUIUM ASSET: Activities on Howard's Bid to Certify Class Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William E. Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit titled CAROL HOWARD v. SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00719-WED (E.D. Wisc.). According to the order, the parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. On May 14, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this motion, the Plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation."[CC] SERVIS ONE: Maryland Court OKs Class Notice in Dolphus Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RE: Anthony Dolphus, et al., v. Servis One, Inc. D/B/A BSI Financial Services, Civil Action No. GLR-16-1075 (D. Md.), Judge George L. Russell, III of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Class Notice and approved the Plaintiffs' Notice for mailing to the putative class members. Judge Russell concludes that the Plaintiffs' Notice comports with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and the Court's March 11, 2019 Order, and provides fulsome information to the potential class members regarding the claims and procedure involved in the case. Within 14 days, Servis One will produce to the third-party Administrator a list containing the full name, last known residential address, and last known e-mail address of every person who worked as an Asset Manager for Servis One from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the present. Within seven days of receiving that list, the Administrator will distribute the Plaintiffs' Notice to the people on the list. Any request for exclusion must be submitted to the Administrator within 30 days of the distribution of the Plaintiffs' Notice. Despite the informal nature of the Memorandum, it will constitute an Order of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/RNMpFP from Leagle.com. Christopher Smith, Paul Dickson, Reginald Smith, Danielle Hannah, Gregory E. Sherrard, Ifedolapo Daramola, Paul A. McCarthy, Justin Meyer, Cheryl Graham, Jacqueline Wyndham, Richard Adams, Laura Goodman & Jacqueline Dolphus, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin L. Davis, III, Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl & Kelly Anne Burgy, Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl. Servis One, Inc. D/B/A BSI Financial Services, Defendant, represented by Justin C. Eller -- Justin.Eller@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.. SGS NORTH AMERICA: Tamimi Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned JD Tamimi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SGS North America, Inc., and Does 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01064123 (Cal. Super., April 16, 2019), was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 17, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-04319. Tamimi seeks compensatory damages, economic and/or special damages, penalties, restitution, unpaid wages and benefits, attorneys' fees, costs and interest pursuant to California Labor Code.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L Campbell, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Samuel A. Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 2618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 SGS is represented by: Bradley Schwan, Esq. Rachael Lavi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 Email: bschwan@littler.com rlavi@littler.com SMART & FINAL STORES: Shahandeh Hits Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------- Sodabeh Shahandeh, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, Smart & Final Stores LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00949 (C.D. Cal., May 17, 2019), seeks redress for failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of business-related expenses resulting from unfair business practices, waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due upon termination and for violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Shahandeh worked for Smart & Final Stores, as a cashier and general grocery stores assistant at their facilities located at 34091 Doheny Park Road, Capistrano Beach, California from April 2016 to May 17,2018. Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Alexander Perez, Esq. Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd.,Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net aperez@mahoney-law.net kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net SQUARE INC: Ruark Sues over Mishandling of Patient's Medical Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Square, Inc. for negligence and violations of the California Customer Records Act and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act under the California Civil Code. The case is captioned A. TRENT RUARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SQUARE, INC. a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00024742-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., May 14, 2019. Plaintiff A. Trent Ruark brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other individuals whose protected personal and medical information has been compromised as a result of Square's negligent approach to medical billing. Ruark asserts that the Square's acts and practices constitute unlawful and unfair business practices, in violation of the Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff alleges that Square failed to adequately secure the privacy of patients' medical information. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Square to implement and maintain effective security practices that comply with regulations designed to prevent and remedy these types of data breaches, as well as restitution, damages, and other relief. Square is a payment processing company based in San Francisco, California. The company markets several software and hardware point-of-sale solutions and credit card processing services for small to mid-size businesses. It provides credit card processing services to healthcare providers and provides electronic invoices for those healthcare providers which contains protected personal and medical information. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 550 West C St., Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1333 Facsimile: (619) 238-5425 STAGE STORES: Bid for Corrective Notice in Crosby FLSA Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MAYA CROSBY and DENEEN PATTON, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STAGE STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00503 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Corrective Notice. The Plaintiffs initially sought certification of a collective class, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), consisting of all past and present employees of Stage who held various associate-level positions at Stage stores. On Dec. 5, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLS, and ordered Stage to: (1) provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of the contact information (names, addresses, and email addresses) for putative class members; and (2) confer with the Plaintiffs' counsel to arrive at an agreeable proposed Notice and Consent form. The parties filed a proposed Notice and Consent form, which informed putative class members, among other things, that: (1) federal law prohibited an employer (i.e., Stage) from firing or in any way retaliating against them because of their participation in the lawsuit; and (2) any questions or additional information should be directed to the Plaintiffs' counsel. The Court approved the proposed Notice and Consent form and it was disseminated among the putative class members. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking: (1) authorization to provide corrective notice to the putative collective class; (2) prohibition of further discussion between Stage and putative collective members regarding the lawsuit; (3) a requirement that Stage issue a corrective communication to its managers; and (4) extension of the opt-in period by thirty (30) days from the issuance of the corrective notice. In support, their counsel filed three declarations: (1) her own declaration; (2) a declaration from Susan Gilson; and (3) a declaration from Taylor Washington. The Plaintiffs contend that Stage's unilateral communications with putative class members have undermined the Court's ability to control the ongoing collective action. They argue that, as relief, the Court should first order that Stage, its District Managers, and other agents cease communications with both the putative class members and the opt-in Plaintiffs. In addition to banning further communications between Stage and its agents and the class members, the Plaintiffs seek corrective notices to be issued by Stage to its managers and putative opt-in Plaintiffs. Stage responds that the Plaintiffs' motion is a transparent attempt to market the litigation and wrongfully extend the opt-in period. It argues that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated clear evidence of abuse or coercion sufficient to justify a restriction on its communications with employees. Further, Stage contends that the Plaintiffs' allegations of retaliation are speculative at best. It maintains that the communications described in the Plaintiffs' motion, particularly its HR Department's calls to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs, were appropriate and do not justify the extraordinary relief that the Plaintiffs seek. Accordingly, Stage requests that the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion. Judge Crenshaw holds that abusive practices that have been considered sufficient to warrant a protective order include communications that coerce prospective class members into excluding themselves from the litigation; communications that contain false, misleading or confusing statements; and communications that undermine cooperation with or confidence in the class counsel. In the instant case, notwithstanding Miller's questions to Gilson, there is insufficient evidence that Stage engaged in the type of abusive practices that would warrant a protective order from the Court. Further, although the Judge acknowledges that a past or present employment relationship between the parties increases the risk that communications between them will have a coercive effect, there is no evidence that the alleged improper communications actually resulted in eligible employees electing not to opt-in. Indeed, the supporting declarations from actual employees indicates that they both decided to opt in to the lawsuit. At bottom, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs' scant evidentiary support, at most, demonstrates that there is a mere possibility of abuse, which is insufficient for the Court to impose the extraordinary relief they seek. Therefore, she will decline to exercise its discretion to issue a corrective notice. However, the Judge does not condone, and Stage should address, Miller's impropriety noted. Accordingly, for the reasons set out, Judge Crenshaw denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Corrective Notice. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/RU2zu1 from Leagle.com. Maya Crosby & Deneen Patton, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles P. Yezbak, III , Yezbak Law Offices, Deirdre Anne Aaron , Outten & Golden LLP, Elizabeth Stork -- estork@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP, Laura Iris Mattes -- imattes@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP & Molly Brooks -- mb@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP. Stage Stores Inc., Defendant, represented by John H. Lassetter -- jlassetter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Lyndsey M. Marcelino -- lmarcelino@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Malcolm Levy Leatherman -- lleatherman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.. STELARIS FOODS: Shortchanges Drivers' Wages, Rivera Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Stelaris Foods 369, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01470, (D. P.R., May 17, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, damages, costs, attorneys' fees, civil penalties, declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or any such other relief as mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Stelaris operates Papa John's franchise locations in Puerto Rico where Rivera worked as a delivery driver. Defendants failed to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery expenses, thereby rendering their compensation below the minimum wage rate, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: FRANCISCO E. COLON-RAMIREZ, Esq. COLON RAMIREZ LLC PO Box 361920 San Juan, PR 00936-1920 Tel.: (888) 760-1077 Fax: (305) 507-1920 Email: fecolon@colonramirez.com - and - Keith Altman, Esq. EXCOLO LAW, PLLC 26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401 Southfield, MI 48033 Tel: (516)456-5885 Email: kaltman@excololaw.com STURM FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Relabel Subclass in Suchanek Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, LINDA SUCHANEK, RICHARD McMANUS, CAROL CARR, PAULA GLADSTONE, EDNA AVAKIAN, CHARLES CARDILLO, BEN CAPPS, DEBORAH DIBENEDETTO, and CAROL RITCHIE, Plaintiffs, v. STURM FOODS, INC. AND TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 11-CV-565-NJR-RJD (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Illinois denied the Defendants' Motion to Relabel, Decertify and Dismiss Modified Package Subclass. On Nov. 3, 2015, the Court certified a class as to, all persons or consumers that during the Class Period, from September of 2010, up through the date the case is certified and notice is disseminated, who purchased the Defendants' Grove Square Coffee ("GSC") products in Alabama, California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The Plaintiffs assert two theories of liability: (1) by affirmative statements, the GSC packaging misleads purchasers into believing GSC is all ground coffee; and (2) by omission, the GSC packaging misleads purchasers as to the ratio of instant and microground coffee in GSC. In 2011, the Defendants released a different version of the packaging at issue. The first version stated the product was "Soluble & Microground," while the second version stated the product was "Instant & Microground." In January 2015, the Defendants moved to decertify the class, arguing, in part, the class definition is overly broad, and certification should have been denied, because the class is not limited to consumers who purchased the Original Packaging. At that time, and to date, the Plaintiffs have not identified any class member who purchased the Modified Packaging. On July 3, 2018, the Court issued an Order laying out the trial plan, dividing the class into 18 subclasses, to account for the two versions of packaging and the nine different laws governing the Plaintiffs' claims proceeding to jury trial. On April 18, 2019, the Defendants filed a Motion to Relabel, Decertify and Dismiss Modified Package Subclass. They argue the Plaintiffs have not identified any class member who purchased the Modified Packaging and, thus, do not have standing to bring those claims. Also, the Defendants argue the Named Plaintiffs' claims are not typical of absent class members who purchased the Modified Packaging. The Plaintiffs object, and contend that the Modified Packaging was similarly misleading to the Original Packaging, so they have standing to assert claims of the absent class members. Judge Rosenstengel finds that the Original and Modified Packaging contained the same product, had virtually identical packaging, and allegedly contained the same misrepresentation and/or omission regarding the amount of instant coffee in GSC. The Court has already held that Plaintiffs have standing to represent absent class members who purchased the Modified Packaging, and that the class meets the typicality requirement under Rule 23. The Court's July 2018 Order was not intended to imply otherwise. Instead, the Judge finds that the Court's creation of various subclasses in its July 2018 Order was merely for trial management purposes, pursuant to the Court's broad authority under Rule 23(d) to issue orders that determine the course of proceedings or prescribe measures to prevent undue repetition or complication in presenting evidence or argument odeal with r similar procedural matters. Rule 23(d) authorizes the Court to create subclasses for management purposes when there is no fundamental conflict underlying the class claims, and the subclasses are created to expedite resolution of the case by segregating certain factual and legal questions which are common to some members of the larger class. When a subclass is appropriate under Rule 23(d), it is unnecessary to evaluate it under Rule 23(c)(4) for commonality, numerosity, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Accordingly, the class does not need a new named subclass representative. For these reasons, Judge Rosenstengel denied the Defendants' Motion to Relabel, Decertify and Dismiss Modified Package Subclass. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/YtxnyQ from Leagle.com. Linda Suchanek, Plaintiff, represented by Randy L. Gori -- randy@gorijulianlaw.com -- Gori Julian and Associates P.C.. Linda Suchanek, Plaintiff, represented by Chelsea Lauren Fischer -- cfischer@gorijulianlaw.com -- Gori Julian and Associates P.C., D. Todd Mathews -- todd@gorijulianlaw.com -- Gori, Julian & Associates, PC, David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl -- david@hrw-law.com -- Hershenson Rosenberg-Wohl, Megan Myers Arvola, Gori -- mmyers@gorijulianlaw.com -- Julian & Associates, PC & Peter H. Burke -- pbourke@burkeharvey.com -- Burke Harvey LLC. Richard McManus, Plaintiff, represented by D. Todd Mathews, Gori, Julian & Associates, PC, David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl, Hershenson Rosenberg-Wohl, Joseph Allen Schreiber, Burke Harvey LLC, Peter H. Burke, Burke Harvey LLC & W. Todd Harvey, Burke Harvey LLC. Carol Carr, Plaintiff, represented by D. Todd Mathews, Gori, Julian & Associates, PC, David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl, Hershenson Rosenberg-Wohl, & Peter H. Burke, Burke Harvey LLC. Paula Gladstone, individually, and on behalf of all others similarily situated. Consolidated from case 11-1068-GPM, Plaintiff, represented by D. Todd Mathews, Gori, Julian & Associates, PC, David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl, Hershenson Rosenberg-Wohl A Professional Corporation, Michael H. Maizes, Maizes & Maizes LLP & Peter H. Burke, Burke Harvey LLC. Edna Avakian, Charles Cardillo, Ben Capps, Deborah Dibenedetto & Carol J. Ritchie, Plaintiffs, represented by D. Todd Mathews, Gori, Julian & Associates, PC, David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl, Hershenson Rosenberg-Wohl A Professional Corporation, Michael H. Maizes, Maizes & Maizes LLP & Peter H. Burke, Burke Harvey LLC. Sturm Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron J. Weinzierl, Foley & Lardner, Craig S. Fochler -- cfockler@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, Jaclyne D. Wallace -- jwallace@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, Patrick G. Walker -- pwalker@farris-law.com -- Farris Bobango Branan, PLC & Richard Spencer Montei -- rmontei@folwy.com -- Foley & Lardner. Treehouse Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron J. Weinzierl, Foley & Lardner, Craig S. Fochler, Foley & Lardner, Jaclyne D. Wallace, Foley & Lardner & Richard Spencer Montei, Foley & Lardner. TD AMERITRADE: Illinois Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on May 13, 2019, Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed with prejudice a putative class action against TD Ameritrade and an investment advisory company as barred by the Securities Litigation and Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA"). Gray v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., No. 18 C 00419, 2019 WL 2085136 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2019). Plaintiffs asserted state common law and statutory claims based on allegations that defendants had placed investors into trading strategies that had been misrepresented as conservative. The Court held that because plaintiffs' claims coincided with a covered securities transaction, they were prohibited under SLUSA. Plaintiffs alleged that a TD Ameritrade representative recommended an investment advisor and endorsed that advisor's options trading strategy. In particular, plaintiffs alleged that defendants made a series of false representations, including that the options trading strategy could be expected to produce a 4-6% return on investment net of all fees, that the strategy "works in both up and down markets," that even if there were down months the strategy "will make an annual profit," and that the strategy would realize profits "[a]s sure as a clock ticks." Id. at *1-2. Plaintiffs alleged that the strategy, in fact, resulted in "staggering losses" to themselves and the putative class, thereby giving rise to claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, money had and received, and a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Id. at *2. SLUSA prohibits bringing (1) a covered class action (2) based on state law (3) that alleges a misrepresentation or omission of material fact, or the use of any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance (4) in connection with the purchase or sale of (5) a covered security. Id. at *3. Plaintiffs conceded that the first three elements were present, so the Court focused exclusively on whether the challenged conduct was "in connection with the purchase or sale of" a "covered security." Id. The Court rejected plaintiffs' arguments that defendants' alleged misrepresentations were made in connection with plaintiffs' decision to retain defendants, as opposed to plaintiffs' purchase of a security, and that plaintiffs had not been capable of making decisions "in connection with" the purchase of securities because defendants had complete discretion to make trading decisions. To the contrary, the Court held, a plaintiff need not personally make an investment decision to satisfy the "in connection with" requirement; the alleged fraud merely has to coincide with a covered securities transaction. Id. at *4 (citing, inter alia, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 81 (2006)). The Court concluded that plaintiffs' allegations "certainly coincide with a securities transaction because such a transaction is the foundation for their claim" and the alleged misrepresentations were the "catalyst" for plaintiffs to hire the investment advisor to engage in securities transactions on their behalf. Id. The Court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the "covered security" element of SLUSA was not met because the allegations were with regard to an investment strategy as a whole. Citing the same Supreme Court precedent, the Court emphasized that SLUSA should not be read too narrowly. Considering the "practical implications" of plaintiffs' argument, the Court held that any misrepresentation regarding the success or failure of a trading strategy, where that strategy involves transactions in covered securities, satisfies the "covered securities" element for SLUSA preclusion of state-law claims. Id. at *5. The Court further determined that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate where SLUSA preclusion applies, although it noted that SLUSA would not prevent plaintiffs from pursuing non-class claims against defendants, which in this case would be subject to arbitration under the parties' agreement. [GN] TELUS COMMS: Business Members Can't Be Part of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Annie (Qurrat-ul-ain) Tayyab, Esq. -- atayyab@agmlawyers.com -- of Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in a close, 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada recently reinforced the primacy of arbitration agreements. The Court held that if businesses are parties to a standard form contract containing an arbitration provision, they cannot join a class action relating to that contract, even with consumers against whom the same arbitration provision cannot be enforced. In TELUS Communications Inc. v Wellman, the Court held that business members of a proposed class action were required to arbitrate their disputes. They could not litigate their cases in court as part of a class action brought on behalf of consumers. [GN] TRANS BAY CABLE: Coleman et al. Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, GREG COLEMAN and RICHARD BOU, on behalf of their own and on behalf of former employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRANS BAY CABLE LLC, STEVEN POWELL, and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No. C19-00312 (Filed on Feb. 14, 2019), was transferred from the Contra Costa County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 22, 2019. The complaint asserts four causes of action against Trans Bay Cable LLC: -- wrongful discharge in violation of Labor Code; -- wrongful termination in violation of public policy; -- violation of the Unfair Competition Law under the California Business and Professions Code; and -- intentional infliction of emotional distress. The material transactions set forth in this complaint occurred within the boundaries of the Presidio, a federal enclave. Such reason gives rise to federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Pursuant to Section 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Trans Bay Cable LLC operates a 53-mile direct current electrical transmission cable with fiber optic communication cables buried in the San Francisco Bay. Its headquarters and principal place of operation is located in the Presidio of San Francisco, with an address of One Letterman Drive, C5-100 San Francisco, California. [BN] Attorneys for Defendant: Todd K. Boyer, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 660 Hansen Way Palo Alto, CA 94304-1044 Telephone: +1 (650) 856 2400 Facsimile: +1 (650) 856 9299 E-mail: todd.boyer@bakermckenzie.com TRI-CITY MEDICAL: Faces Gerson Labor Suit over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against the Tri-City Medical Center ASC Operators, LLC and the Tri-City Hospital Foundation for their failure to timely pay wages to terminated employees and for their failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code. The case is captioned MARGOT GERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER ASC OPERATORS, LLC, dba TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER, a California Limited Liability Company; TRI-CITY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00024821-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., May 14, 2019). Accordingly, Plaintiff Margot Gerson seeks relief including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. The Defendants are all California corporations and/or limited liability companies with their principal place of business in San Diego County, California, with their headquarters located at 4002 Vista Way, Oceanside, CA 92056. They employ hourly employees, including nurses, social workers, and clerical and technical staff. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Singer, Esq. J. Jason Hill, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com jhill@ckslaw.com UNITED STATES: Two Immigrants Classes Certified in Jimenez Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Mark L. Wolf allowed the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit titled LILIAN PAHOLA CALDERON JIMENEZ AND LUIS GORDILLO, ET AL., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners-Plaintiffs v. KEVIN McALEENAN, ET AL., Respondents-Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10225-MLW (D. Mass.). Kevin K. McAleenan is the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security. More specifically, for the purposes of Counts 1 (Immigration and Nationality Act and Applicable Regulations), 3 (Equal Protection under the United States Constitution), and 4 (Administrative Procedure Act), the court certifies a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), defined as: [A]ny United States citizen and his or her noncitizen spouse who (1) has a final order of removal and has not departed the United States under that order; (2) is the beneficiary of a pending or approved 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, filed by the United States citizen spouse; (3) is not "ineligible" for a provisional waiver under 8 C.F.R. Section 212.7(e)(4)(i) or (vi); and (4) is within the jurisdiction of Boston Immigration and Customs Enforcement-Enforcement and Removal Operations ("ICE-ERG") field office (comprising Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine). The representatives of the class are Oscar Rivas, Celina Rivera Rivas, Lucimar De Souza, Sergio Francisco, Deng Gao, and Amy Chen. For the purposes of Count 2 (Due Process under the United States Constitution, other than detention), the court certifies a sub-class, defined as: [A]ny United States citizen and his or her noncitizen spouse who (1) has a final order of removal and has not departed the United States under that order; (2) is the beneficiary of an approved 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, and conditionally approved 1-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal; (3) is not "ineligible" for a provisional waiver under 8 C.F.R. Section 212.7 (e)(4)(i) or (vi) ; and (4) is within the jurisdiction of Boston ICE-ERO field office (comprising Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine). The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied with respect to Counts 1 (Immigration and Nationality Act and Applicable Regulations), 3 (Equal Protection under the United States Constitution), and 4 (Administrative Procedure Act) of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. The Court reserves judgment on the contention that citizen spouses have a liberty interest in remaining in the United States with their alien spouses and, therefore, a right to Due Process before their alien spouses are removed. Judge Wolf also ruled that the parties shall confer and report regarding whether they have agreed to settle this case or to request jointly that it be stayed. The parties may also request more time to confer. If the case is to proceed, the parties shall address: whether notice should be directed to class members under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) (A) and, if so, how; when the Court should decide the appropriate definition of a class with respect to the Plaintiffs' detention-related claims (Counts 5 and 6); and the nature of the limited discovery to be conducted by July 31, 2019. If there are disagreements concerning the scope of such limited discovery, the parties shall explain their respective positions. The parties shall order the transcript of the May 16, 2019 hearing and lobby conference.[CC] VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Roper Moves to Certify Class Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled ANGELA ROPER and RENEE JOHNSON, for themselves and all others similarly situated v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VERIZON PENSYLVANIA LLC and CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Case No. 5:18-cv-05270-EGS (E.D. Pa.), move the Court under the "opt-in" mechanism for collective actions provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act to enter their proposed order: -- granting conditional certification; -- authorizing the dissemination of their proposed Class Notice to all full-time, hourly, phone-based Customer Service or Sales employees who have worked for Defendants in any week during the maximum limitations period; and -- providing additional relief.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 873-4836 E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com VERSUM MATERIALS: Robert Files Suit Over Merck Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------------- Maury Robert, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Versum Materials, Inc., Seifollah Ghasemi, Jacques Croisetiere, Guillermo Novo, Yi Hyon Paik, Thomas J. Riordan, Susan C. Schnabel and Alejandro D. Wolff, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00922 (D. Del., May 17, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Versum by Merck KGaA through Merck's wholly owned subsidiary EMD Performance Materials Holding, Inc., and rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger. The Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Versum stockholders will receive $53.00 in cash for each share of Versum common stock they own. According to the complaint, the registration statement for the merger failed to include critical financial analysis performed by its financial advisor, Lazard Freres & Co. LLC including all the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinions in order to make a fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal needed by the shareholders to make an informed decision on the merger deal. Versum is a global specialty materials company providing high-purity chemicals and gases, delivery systems, services and materials expertise in the global semiconductor and display industries. Merck is a German corporation into healthcare, life science and performance materials. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC 901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 778-4000 Email: rernst@oelegal.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. Kelly K. Moran, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, New York 10036 Tel: (212) 682-3025 - and - Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 Email: fortunato@bespc.com VIEGA LLC: Prime Source Sues Over Copper Press Fitting Price-fixing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Prime Source Plumbing and Heating Corp., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Viega LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00842, (M.D. Pa., May 15, 2019), is an antitrust action directed at Viega's anti-competitive conduct in the markets for copper press fittings and carbon steel press fittings, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act. Viega is a privately-owned company that manufactures, imports and sells fittings in the United States. Viega has allegedly coerced wholesale distributors not to buy copper press fittings from competition and refuses to sell its carbon steel press fittings unless a wholesale distributor also purchases its copper press fittings and agrees not to purchase copper press fittings from other competitors. Prime Source is a Wisconsin business located in La Crosse, Wisconsin who has made purchases of Viega copper press fittings from one or more Viega wholesale distributors in the last four years. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Dianne M. Nast, Esq. Daniel Gallucci, Esq. Joseph N. Roda, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel: 215-923-9300 Fax: 215-923-9302 Email: dnast@nastlaw.com dgallucci@nastlaw.com JNRoda@NastLaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. Mickey Stevens, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 220 South Sixth Street #2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 333-8844 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com mstevens@gustafsongluek.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: Medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD W-1050 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: (651) 287-2100 Fax: (651) 287-2103 Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com - and - Kevin Landau, Esq. Evan Rosin, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 931-0704 Email: klandau@tcllaw.com erosin@tcllaw.com - and - Charles Kocher, Esq. Simon Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT BENDESKY, PC 120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218 Horsham, PA 19044 Tel: (215) 575-3985 Email: ckocher@smbb.com sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com VIKING CRUISES: Faces Viking Sky Class Action in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Nick Blenkey, writing for MarineLog, reports that Viking Cruises faces a class action lawsuit claiming punitive damages following the March 24 incident in which some 479 passengers were evacuated by helicopter from the cruise ship Viking Sky when it lost power in gale force winds off the Norwegian coast. The suit has been filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, by Miami law firm Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman on behalf of plaintiffs Axel and Lauren Freudmann, representing a potential class of up to 1,000 plaintiffs. In its complaint, the law firm asserts that Viking "negligently sailed through notoriously perilous waters into the path of a Bomb Cyclone where, due to the Defendant's negligence, the vessel lost power leaving the vessel adrift to be battered by high seas and winds as it drifted towards dangerous reefs." The complaint asserts that the cruise ship departed on its voyage "despite the consensus by numerous weather forecasting agencies' warning of extremely severe winds of Storm 10 gale force capabilities expected in the vessel's intended and actual path." "As forecasted by numerous weather forecasting agencies," says the complaint, "by the early morning of Saturday, March 23, 2019, the Storm 10 gale force winds and rough seas were battering the vessel so severely that passengers were unable to stand in their staterooms and were being thrown out of their beds; causing various injuries to passengers, including Plaintiffs FREUDMANN." "Hundreds of passengers, including Plaintiffs FREUDMANN, were subjected to hours of terror, unsanitary conditions, lack of ventilation, and trauma as they feared for their lives a result of the cruise traveling through extremely severe -- all of which could have been easily avoided if Defendants VIKING simply waited to sail until after the severe winter storm passed or rerouted the ship so that the passengers were not exposed to the dangerous weather conditions," asserts the complaint." As a result of Defendant's VIKING's negligence, passengers sustained physical and emotional injuries" "Tellingly," says the complaint, "two Hurtigruten cruise ships delayed their departure from their respective port of calls on March 22, 2019, in order to avoid sailing through the worst of the bomb cyclone the Viking Sky sailed through." [GN] VITALE'S ITALIAN: Court Refuses to Certify Torres' FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Magistrate Judge Ray Kent denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act filed in the lawsuit captioned EMILIO TORRES v. VITALE'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT, INC., SALVATORE VITALE, and BELINDA PIERSON, Case No. 1:18-cv-00547-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.). Judge Kent notes that the Plaintiff has provided three different definitions of the proposed class for conditional certification. In the plaintiff's memorandum filed in support of the Motion refers to the employees of all of the Defendants (i.e., Vitale's Italian Restaurant, Inc., Salvatore Vitale, and Belinda Pierson) before the filing of the complaint on May 15, 2018: All of Defendants' current and former employees who are not or were not paid time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess of 40 hours during a workweek before the filing of this Complaint up to the present. The Court concludes that the Plaintiff's claim is not substantially similar to other employees identified in any of the proposed class definitions. The Plaintiff's claim is different from the other members of the proposed class.[CC] VORTENS INC: Court Grants Prelim Approval of Cone Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEVEN CONE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. VORTENS, INC., SANITARIOS LAMOSA S.A. DE C.V. and PORCELANA CORONA DE MEXICO, SA. DE C.V., Defendant, MARK AND AMBER FESSLER, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. VORTENS, INC., SANITARIOS LAMOSA S.A. DE C.V. and PORCELANA CORONA DE MEXICO, SA. DE C.V., Defendant, Case Nos. 4:17-CV-001-ALM-KPJ, 4:19-CV-248-ALM-KPJ (S.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Memorandum in Support. The action arises from alleged manufacturing and/or marketing defects in certain ceramic Vortens toilet tanks. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and Class Action is the operative complaint. The toilet tanks at issue were manufactured, designed, produced, and distributed by Sanitarios Lamosa, now known as Porcelana Corona. As a result of their claimed damages, the Plaintiffs have alleged four causes of action against the Defendant: (1) strict products liability; (2) breach of implied warranty; (3) negligence; and (4) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"). They seek injunctive relief and monetary damages against the Defendant, including exemplary damages, treble damages under the Texas DTPA, and attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs also seek to represent a putative class defined as all owners of Vortens toilet tank models #3464, #3412, #3404, #3425, and #3436 manufactured by the Defendant between 2004 thorugh 2012. After a mediation conference on Aug. 28, 2018, the parties reached a partial settlement with respect to past and current owners of Vortens tank model #3412 and #3464 manufactured between Jan. 1, 2011, through Dec. 31, 2011, who previously expended funds to repair and replace tanks. However, no agreement was reached regarding tank owners that experienced property damage as a result of a cracked 2011 tank, or as to tanks manufactured in years other than 2011, or as to any other tank models. After a mediation conference on Oct. 16, 2018, the parties further resolved claims brought by owners of tank models #3412 and/or #3464 manufactured between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2011, providing relief to class members that incurred property damage other than to the product itself. The parties were unable to reach agreement regarding the remaining claims, and the Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Class Certification with respect to those remaining claims is currently pending before the Court. In the pending Motion for Preliminary Approval, the parties seek Preliminary Approval of a proposed partial class action settlement comprised of owners of tank models #3412 and/or #3464, manufactured between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2011. On April 2, 2019, the Court entered an order severing the claims in the 2011 Settlement, from the remaining claims which are pending conditional certification. Following entry of the Magistrate Judge's Report, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Waiver of Written Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Regarding the preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement. In the Joint Notice of Waiver, all parties waived the 14-day objection period pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C). Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in the action, the matter having been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636. On April 25, 2019, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered, containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval. Having received the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been timely filed, Judge Mazzant is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge's report as the findings and conclusions of the Court. He granted preliminary approval of the Stipulated Settlement, as he finds the terms fair, reasonable and adequate. He provisionally certified the matter as a class action, for the purposes of settlement only, of the claims asserted on behalf of certain owners of Affected Toilet Tanks manufactured in 2011, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which class is defined as a ll owners of Vortens toilet tank models #3464 or #3412 manufactured between Jan. 1, 2011 - Dec. 31, 2011. The Class Definition is further refined pursuant to the following relief eligibility: a. Replacement and Installation Subclass: All owners of a Vortens tank model #3412 or #3464 manufactured between Jan. 1, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2011 that (1) have not cracked; or (2) experienced a crack from which no other property damage occurred. b. Damages Subclass: All owners of a Vortens tank model #3412 or #3464 manufactured between Jan. 1, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2011 that fractured between date of manufacture and present (date of certification) and resulted in property damages. With respect to the 2011 Class Representatives, the Judge appointed Plaintiffs Charles and Michelle Handly and Kevin Reuss as the representatives of the proposed 2011 Settlement Class. He approved the proposed Service Award to each 2011 Class Representative. With respect to the Class Counsel, he appointed N. Scott Carpenter, Esq., and Rebecca Bell-Stanton, Esq., of Carpenter & Schumacher, 2701 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 570, Plano, Texas 75093, as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) to represent the interests of the proposed 2011 Settlement Class. The Judge has reviewed the Notice Plan and procedure for disseminating notice of the proposed settlement to the 2011 Settlement Class as set forth in the Stipulated Settlement and approved the Notice Plan. As set forth in the Stipulated Settlement, Settlement Administration, which includes the costs and expenses incurred in providing notice to the 2011 Settlement Class in addition to claims administration, will be paid by the Defendant. The Class Counsel are awarded reasonable costs incurred in the prosecution of the Action and pursuit of the Settlement and must timely file sufficient proof of such costs in accordance with the Deadlines assigned. The Class Counsel are furthermore required to submit proper Application for payment of attorneys' fees in accordance with the terms of the Stipulated Settlement in a timely manner as provided. The Judg authorized the Parties to retain Epiq to effectuate the Notice Plan as the Notice Provider and further as the Claims Administrator. Epiq will provide all the forms of Notice within21 days of the order. The Notice Provider will provide a Certificate Statement of Substantial Completion of the initial launch of the Notice Plan 30 days after the Notice Date. No later than 45 days after Preliminary Approval, the Class Counsel will file with the Court and post on the Settlement Website their application for payment of attorneys' fees and expenses. This filing may be updated no later than 10 days prior to the Final Fairness Hearing. No later than 110 days after Preliminary Approval, the Court will schedule the Final Approval Hearing. Any 2011 Settlement Class Member who intends to object to the proposed settlement must do so no later than 60 days after the Notice Date. A Settlement Class Member who wishes to opt out of the Damages Settlement Class must do so not later than 45 days after the Notice Date. In Accordance with the Stipulated Settlement and exhibits attached thereto, the preliminarily approved 2011 Settlement will be administered according to its terms pending the Final Approval Hearing. The deadlines arising under the Stipulated Settlement and include but are not limited to: 1. The Notice Plan will be initiated within 21 days after Preliminary Approval. 2. The Class Counsel will file with the Court and post on the Settlement Website their application for payment of attorneys' fees and proof of expenses within 45 after Preliminary Approval. 3. All Opt-Out Forms requesting exclusion from the 2011 Settlement Class must be postmarked and sent to the Claims Administrator, the Class Counsel and the Counsel for the Defendant within 45 days of the Notice Date. 4. All Objections to the Settlement must be filed with the Court and sent to the Claims Administrator, the Class Counsel and the Counsel for the Defendant within 60 days of the Notice Date. Objecting individuals must make themselves available for deposition in their county of residence within 10 days of the service of the Objection. 5. No later than 15 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the Parties will file all papers in support of the application for final approval of the settlement and/or opposition to any timely Objections received. 6. A Final Fairness Hearing will be scheduled within approximately 110 days after Preliminary Approval, or as the Court's schedule permits. Based on the foregoing, Judge Mazzant granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval, and the 2011 Settlement Class is preliminarily approved as set forth. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/LNDl9u from Leagle.com. Mark Fessler, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, Amber Fessler, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, Andrew Hocker, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, Kevin Reuss, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, Matthew Carreras, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, Charles Handly, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, Michelle Handly, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, Aaron Stone, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, Stacey Stone, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, Daniel Sousa, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated & Sharon Sousa, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Nathan Scott Carpenter -- scarpenter@cstriallaw.com -- Carpenter & Schumacher PC & Rebecca Elizabeth Bell Stanton -- rstanton@cstriallaw.com -- Carpenter & Schumacher PC. Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., formerly known as Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V., Defendant, represented by Melissa Dorman Matthews -- mmatthews@hartlinebarger.com -- Hartline Barger LLP, Angela Skaggs Gordon -- agordon@hartlinebarger.com -- Hartline Barger LLP, Darrell Lee Barger -- agordon@hartlinebarger.com -- Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP & Lauren Abigail Foreman -- aforeman@hartlinebarger.com -- Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer, LLP. WABCO HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on May 13 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:19-cv-00729-CFC, on behalf of shareholders of WABCO Holdings Inc. ("WABCO" or the "Company") (WBC) who have been harmed by WABCO's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger (the "Proposed Merger") of the Company with ZF Friedrichshafen AG ("ZF"). On March 28, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which WABCO shareholders will have the right to receive $136.50 in cash for each share of WABCO stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"). The complaint alleges that the Form PREM14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the Proposed Merger, including information concerning the Company's financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to recommend the Proposed Merger as fair to WABCO shareholders. If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/WABCO Take Action Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from May 13, 2019, the date of this notice. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN] WELLCARE HEALTH: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on May 14 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of holders of WellCare Health Plans, Inc. ("WellCare") (NYSE: WCG) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of WellCare by Centene Corporation ("Centene") announced on March 27, 2019 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against WellCare, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Centene, is captioned Kent v. WellCare Health Plans, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00865 (D. Del.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/ On March 26, 2019, WellCare entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Centene. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of WellCare will receive 3.38 shares of Centene stock and $120.00 per share in cash (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement omits material information with respect to, among other things, WellCare's and Centene's financial projections and the analyses performed by WellCare's financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of WellCare common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. With offices in Delaware, New York, and California, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholderclass actions, and shareholder derivative actions. [GN] WEST PARK HD: Oberg Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Scott Oberg and William Wunsch, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. West Park HD, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01120 (N.D. Ohio, May 17, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and for costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio Prompt Pay Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. West Park HD operate a FedEx delivery service where Oberg worked as a driver. He claims that he did not receive proper overtime wages within the last three years. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Chris P. Wido, Esq. Tina M. Scibona, Esq. THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC 25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (216) 291-4744 Fax: (216) 291-5744 Email: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com WEST VIRGINIA: Richards Sues Human Resources over ADA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed by Kenneth Richards against West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (WVDHHR) and Bill Crouch for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is captioned Richards v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00397 (S.D.W. Va., May 15, 2019). WVDHHR is a state government agency tasked to provide effective health and human services in West Virginia. The agency promotes advances in medicine, public health, and social services. Bill Crouch currently serves as the Director of WVDHHR. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Smith, Esq. MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE 325 Willey Street Morgantown, WV 26505 Telephone: (304) 326-0188 Facsimile: (304) 326-0189 E-mail: gary@msjlaw.org WESTERN REFINING: Schmidtberger Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Delmar Schmidtberger, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Western Refining Retail, LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04300 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, reimbursement of business-related expenses, failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Launa Adolph, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com ladolph@maternlawgroup.com WILLIS, TX: Court Affirms Dismissal of Garcia's Claims ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, LUIS GARCIA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. CITY OF WILLIS, LEONARD REED, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS [MAYOR] OF THE CITY OF WILLIS, JAMES NOWAK IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF WILLIS, HECTOR FORESTIER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF WILLIS, Respondents, Case No. 17-0713 (Tex.), Judge Jeffrey V. Brown of the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' judgment dismissing Garcia's claims. Garcia sued the City of Willis on behalf of himself and "others similarly situated." All members of the putative class paid a civil penalty for violating a city ordinance that created a photographic traffic-signal enforcement system that penalizes red-light infractions caught on camera. Garcia's suit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief holding that (1) the ordinance and its enabling state statutes are unconstitutional, (2) the ordinance violates statutory requirements for local red-light camera enforcement, and (3) the city acted ultra vires in levying a fine against Garcia and the other plaintiffs. He further seeks a refund of the citation he paid through either a claim for reimbursement or a constitutional-takings claim. The city answered, filed a plea to the jurisdiction, and argued Garcia's claims are barred by governmental immunity, official immunity, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, and that exclusive jurisdiction rests in the municipal court. The trial court denied the city's jurisdictional plea, and the city took an interlocutory appeal. It then re-urged its argument that Garcia was required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. Garcia responded that exhaustion is not required due to the constitutional nature of his claims and because the city acted ultra vires in collecting red-light camera fines without first conducting a statutorily required traffic-engineering study. The court of appeals rejected Garcia's arguments, relying on Edwards v. City of Tomball, in holding that Transportation Code chapter 707 directs cities to establish an "exclusive" administrative regime that claimants must exhaust before filing suit in district court. Because Garcia did not seek relief through an administrative hearing, the court of appeals reasoned, the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear his claims. It further held that Garcia's reimbursement claim is barred by governmental immunity -- notwithstanding that it was raised in a request for declaratory relief -- because Garcia's claim seeks reimbursement for the fines he and the other petitioners had paid. Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, rendered judgment dismissing Garcia's claims, and denied Garcia's request to replead. The Court granted Garcia's petition for review. On appeal to the Court, Garcia and the City maintain their respective positions. But the State of Texas, appearing as amicus curiae, urges a third approach. The state argues that Garcia lacks standing to bring claims for prospective relief -- his declaratory and injunctive claims -- because he has fully resolved his citation by paying the civil penalty and faces no future injury from the law he challenges. And while Garcia does have standing to pursue his reimbursement claims, the state continues, those claims cannot overcome governmental immunity because he cannot allege he paid his fine under duress. Specifically, the state argues that Garcia could have invoked an administrative-hearing process that would have automatically delayed enforcement of his fine. Judge Brown agrees with the state. He holds that because Garcia paid his fine and does not argue he will likely continue to incur red-light violations, he lacks standing to bring his claims for prospective relief. As to his reimbursement claim, the Judge holds governmental immunity applies because Garcia is unable to show he paid the fine under duress. Based on these holdings, he need not resolve whether Garcia was generally required to exhaust his administrative remedies. But the Judge holds that Garcia was at least required to seek administrative relief before filing a takings claim in district court. He further agrees with the court of appeals' conclusion that an amended pleading would not cure the defects in Garcia's claims. He affirmed the court of appeals' judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/Rfyf2t from Leagle.com. Jared Fox, for Amicus Curiae, Pro Se. George A. Staples, Jr. , Wayne K. Olson, James Donovan, for City of Round Rock, City of Irving, City of Elgin, City of El Paso, City of Watauga, City of Haltom City, City of Amarillo, City of Sugar Land, City of Bastrop, City of Longview, League City, City of Killeen City of Grand Prairie, City of Richland Hills, City of Balcones Heights, City of Mesquite, City of Marshall, City of Denton, City of Burleson, City of Balch Springs, City of North Richland Hills and City of Hutto, Amicus Curiae. Todd B. Marshall, for Amicus Curiae, Pro Se. Patricia LeCompte Hayden, Eric C. Farrar, Larry L. Foerster, Scott Bounds, for Leonard Reed, City of Willis, James Nowak and Hector Forestier, Respondents. Terry K. Cox, for Amicus Curiae, Pro Se. Morelia Banuelos, for Amicus Curiae, Pro Se. Edwin P. Voss, Jr., for The City of Roanoke, Texas, Amicus Curiae. John D. Stone, Patricia A. Stone , for Stone & Stone Texas Lawyers, Amicus Curiae. Gregory Ronald Cook, for Amicus Curiae, Pro Se. Atty. Gen. W. Kenneth Paxton, Jr., Jeffrey C. Mateer, Kyle D. Hawkins, Andrew B. Davis, for State of Texas, Amicus Curiae. Edwin P. Voss, Jr., for The Town of Little Elm, Texas, Amicus Curiae. Russell J. Bowman, Scott A. Stewart, for Luis Garcia, Petitioner. WORK-MODE INC: Trego Sues over Late Termination Notice ------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Wood-Mode Inc. for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act). The case is captioned CURTIS TREGO on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WOOD-MODE INC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00852-MWB (M.D. Fla., May 15, 2019). Plaintiff Curtis Trego was an employee of the Defendant until he was terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant closing ordered by the Defendant. As such, Plaintiff alleges that Wood-Mode Inc. is liable under the WARN Act for the failure to provide the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated former employees at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act. Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for 60 days following their respective terminations and failed to make 401(k) contributions and provide them with health insurance coverage and other employee benefits. Wood-Mode, Inc. is a manufacturer of luxury custom cabinets for kitchens, bath rooms, living rooms, entertainment areas, offices and hobbies, and others. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Huggett, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 888-1112 Facsimile: (302) 888-1119 E-mail: jhuggett@margolisedelstein.com - and - Michael R. Miller, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 170 S. Independence Mall W., Suite 400E Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 922-1100 Facsimile: (215) 922-1772 E-mail: mmiller@margolisedelstein.com WORLD WIDE TECHNOLOGY: Young Suit Transferred to S.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Young v. World Wide Technology LLC, Case No. 2019L 000337 (Filed on March 11, 2019), was transferred from the Madison County Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on May 10, 2019. In this complaint, Plaintiff Connie Young cites the Defendant's violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Staci M. Yandle. Moreover, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00496-SMY-GCS to the proceeding. Founded in 1990, World Wide Technology LLC has grown from a small product reseller into a technology solution provider with $11.2 billion in annual revenue and more than 5,000 employees. The company serves the technology needs of large public and private organizations around the globe, including many of the world's best-known brands. [BN] Attorneys for Defendant: Darci F. Madden, Esq. BRYAN CAVE - ST. LOUIS 211 North Broadway One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 E-mail: dfmadden@bryancave.com - and - Robert T. Ebert BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON, ET AL. - ST. LOUIS One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 Facsimile: (314) 259-2020 E-mail: rtebert@bryancave.com - and - Lauren J. Caisman, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON, ET AL. - CHICAGO 161 North Clark Street Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 602-5000 Facsimile: (312) 698-7479 E-mail: lauren.caisman@bclplaw.com ZILLOW GROUP: Correa Suit Transferred to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case, NICOLE CORREA on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC., a Washington Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01057872-CU-OE-CXC (Filed on March 18, 2019), was transferred from the Orange County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 15, 2019. In the complaint, Plaintiff Nicole Correa asserts six violations of the California Labor Code: unlawful deductions of wages; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to furnish and timely and accurate itemized wage statements; failure to keep required payroll records; and failure to pay all compensation due upon discharge. The United States District Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00921 to the proceeding. Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, Zillow Group, Inc. is an online database that houses a portfolio of the largest and most vibrant real estate and home-related brands on the web and mobile. [BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Aashish Y. Desai, Esq. Adrianne De Castro, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C. 3200 Bristol St., Suite 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 614-5830 Facsimile: (949) 271-4190 E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com adrianne@desai-law.com Attorneys for Defendant: Karin Morgan Cogbill, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 50 W San Fernando St, 7th Fl San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 998-4150 Facsimile: (408) 288-5686 E-mail: kcogbill@littler.com [*] AdvoFin Builds Class Action Against Online Casinos ------------------------------------------------------ Litigation Finance Journal reports that AdvoFin, an Austrian litigation funder, is building a class action against online casinos on behalf of customers who lost more than EUR3,000 over the past 2.5 years. [GN] [*] Insurers Respond to Rising Levels of Securities Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Chiglinsky, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that stung by near-record levels of federal securities class-action lawsuits, firms that insure company executives are taking action. Rates for directors-and-officers policies are rising in response to heightened levels of litigation that typically involve allegations of misleading investors. American International Group Inc. estimates that the industry took in about $4 billion in premiums from public-company clients in the U.S. for such policies last year, which is dwarfed by the estimated $6.1 billion in losses that insurers faced from them. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 43,200 Claims v. Goodyear Tire Pending at Mar. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company has 43,200 pending asbestos-related claims 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, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. To date, we have disposed of approximately 147,500 claims by defending, obtaining the dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately US$542 million through March 31, 2019 and US$541 million through December 31, 2018." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/4kpvyt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Defends 3,688 Claims at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp. is defending 3,688 asbestos-related claims 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, "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. |We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts already accrued for pending or future claims. "While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of March 31, 2019 we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,759 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was US$10.3 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has confirmed that we have approximately US$140 million of remaining coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/3cTVN8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Still Faces Mount Vernon Mills Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------ Albany International Corp. is still defending in some asbestos cases as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills, 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 some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/3cTVN8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Defends Lawsuits at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- AMETEK, Inc. still defends itself in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, 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. AMETEK states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits. Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with these lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). "The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future. "To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend them vigorously." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/UicEz4 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns Confirmed for Mill Residents --------------------------------------------------------------- In March, residents of Lupton City, a neighborhood of Chattanooga, Tennessee, that live near an abandoned yarn mill had their fears confirmed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA established that asbestos is indeed present in the partially demolished industrial site that had sat vacant for years and is surrounded by homes on three sides and a golf course on the other. The contaminated site became the property of the city and Hamilton County just a few years ago when the previous owner lost it due to property tax issues. Local media reports announced that local, state, and federal authorities were working on plans to clean-up the site soon, but some local residents have expressed concerns over possible exposure to asbestos in the air in their neighborhood. Asbestos was frequently used in many older buildings constructed up until the late 1970s. It can be found in building materials ranging from insulation, roofing, and siding to vinyl floor tiles, cement sheets, and adhesives to name just a few of the many common asbestos-containing materials. "Old buildings and industrial sites frequently contain asbestos and other hazards that may include lead-based paints and even PCBs," said Joe Frasca, Senior Vice President of Marketing at EMSL Analytical, Inc. "An active or abandoned demolition site could be an exposure risk for anyone who enters the property and even for neighbors living nearby if winds blow these materials or contaminated dust onto their properties if the proper safety precautions are not in place. At EMSL, we offer environmental testing services for asbestos, lead, PCBs, and other potential hazards that may be present in these situations. Testing can be conducted not only in the facilities in question, but also from surrounding areas, such as nearby neighborhoods." EMSL Analytical has also sponsored an educational video about demolition projects and air quality concerns that can be seen at: http://youtu.be/iEc924Xq3ds To learn more about testing for asbestos, lead, PCBs, or other air quality, environmental, occupational, health and safety issues, please visit www.EMSL.com, call (800) 220-3675 or email info@EMSL.com . For access to test kits, visit www.EMSLTestKits.com About EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Analytical is one of the leading testing laboratories with over 46 locations throughout the United States and Canada. EMSL is a nationally recognized and locally focused provider specializing in fast laboratory results for mold, bacteria, Legionella, USP 797, pathogens, asbestos, lead, soot, char and ash from fires, VOC’s, odors, radon, formaldehyde, indoor air quality, microbiology, environmental, industrial hygiene, radiological, food, beverage, and consumer products and material testing services for the identification of unknown substances. EMSL services both professionals and the general public. EMSL maintains an extensive list of accreditations from leading organizations as well as state and federal regulating bodies including, but not limited to A2LA, AIHA LAP, LLC. (AIHA EMLAP, AIHA IHLAP, AIHA ELLAP), NVLAP, CDC ELITE, CPSC, CA ELAP, NY ELAP, TX DOH, NJDEP, and multiple other state accrediting agencies. Please visit our website at www.EMSL.com for a complete listing of accreditations. In addition, EMSL carries a wide range of Sampling Equipment and Investigative Products for environmental professionals. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beaver Falls Couple Sues Over Asbestos Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Bradon, writing for PennRecord, reported that a Beaver Falls couple are suing a mine safety company alleging that the husband was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease because of exposure during his career. David Malcolm Eaton and Phyllis Rosalie Allice Eaton recently filed a complaint in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas against Mine Safety Appliance Co. alleging negligence. According to the complaint, David Malcolm Eaton was exposed to asbestos dust while working for the defendant from 1968 to 1989. The suit states David Malcolm Eaton was diagnosed with asbestosis in March 2018 and the plaintiffs allege the diagnosis is the result of his occupational exposure to asbestos during his career. The plaintiffs allege the defendant failed to require the use of appropriate precautions to minimize exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs are seeking $35,000, attorneys' fees and court costs. The plaintiffs are represented by Michael J. Gallucci of Savinis, Kane & Gallucci LLC in Pittsburgh. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,709 Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., continues to face 7,709 asbestos-related claims 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. Albany International states, "The Company's subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant, despite never having manufactured any fabrics containing asbestos. While Brandon was defending against 7,709 claims as of March 31, 2019, only eleven claims have been filed against Brandon since January 1, 2012, and no settlement costs have been incurred since 2001. Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999, and has its own insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999. Since 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a standard reservation of rights." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/3cTVN8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Action Signals Asbestos-Level Health Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------------ Anna Horan, writing for The Saturday Paper, reported that at least 135 stonemasons have been diagnosed with the potentially deadly lung disease, silicosis, prompting fears of an asbestos-level health crisis. Silicosis occurs when silica dust particles are inhaled during the "dry cutting" of the engineered stone product, used for stone benchtops, and damage the lungs. Stonemasons from Queensland and Victoria have joined a national class action by Slater and Gordon against manufacturers of the stone product. The Slater and Gordon spokesperson said benchtop suppliers did not adequately convey risks or implement safety precautions. At least one person involved in the class action has died from the disease, and 15 more cases are considered terminal. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Firm Fined GBP176,500 for Removal --------------------------------------------------------------- PBC Today reported that a construction company and its director have been fined over GBP170,000 after failing to ensure the safe removal of asbestos during demolition work Greater Manchester Magistrates' Court heard how Sherwood Homes Limited was the client responsible for the demolition of Crowton Mill in Northwich. Peter Kiely was a director of the company when the results of an asbestos survey conducted in January 2017 were received that identified the presence of asbestos containing materials on the site. The extra work required to remove the asbestos increased the estimated costs and timescale for the completion of the demolition. An investigation carried out by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) discovered that Sherwood Homes Limited failed to ensure suitable contractors were used to carry out the asbestos removal work and demolition of the mill in February 2017. No record of a notification to HSE to remove asbestos had been received for the site. No details of how the asbestos containing materials were removed or how they were disposed of were provided to HSE. Sherwood Homes Limited had previous enforcement by HSE, including prosecution in 2018 in relation to their role as a construction client. Sherwood Homes Limited was found guilty to breaching regulation 4(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. The company was fined GBP170,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP10,406. Company director Peter Kiely pleaded guilty to breaching section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, in relation to the company's failure of regulation 4(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. Peter Kiely was fined GBP6,500 and ordered to pay costs of GBP700. HSE Inspector David Norton said: "Asbestos is responsible for thousands of deaths in the UK every year but it only becomes dangerous when it is broken up and fibres are released into the air. Asbestos should only be removed by specialist contractors. "Sherwood Homes Ltd and Peter Kiely put workers at risk by not following the correct safety procedures. Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards." ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA to Remove Asbestos Debris From Tire Plant -------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Barker, writing for Joplin Globe, reported that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will begin working to remove asbestos-tainted debris piles from the former B.F. Goodrich tire plant in Miami as part of an emergency action. In partnership with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, the EPA is hosting a community meeting from 6:30 to 8 p.m. in the Miami Civic Center, 129 Fifth Ave. NW, to discuss the cleanup and removal of tons of asbestos-containing debris at the plant site. The goal is to remove the debris over the next three to four months, which will be disposed of at an approved landfill. Rebecca Jim, executive director of the LEAD Agency nonprofit organization in Miami, said everyone within a mile radius of the plant received a letter informing them of the meeting. "They're going to tear down two buildings and get rid of all of the rubble piles," Jim said. "The rubble piles all have friable asbestos, which means it could become airborne and hurt people. It's slow, but it's going to be thorough. If we can get the immediate work done on removing exposure to asbestos, it's really important." The plant began operating in the mid-1940s and shut down in 1986. The EPA completed an assessment of approximately 60-acres at the site in search of asbestos-containing material in the demolition piles, utility pits and buildings in late 2018. Asbestos removal at the site was halted in late 2014 after the property owner declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy the following year. Several debris piles and structures at the plant site contain asbestos and have become a human health issue as trespassers continue to break into the site. The oven building, the powerhouse and the small brick office at the front property have high levels of asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Cleared of Negligence in Mechanic's Death --------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reported that a Washington state federal court found no evidence that Ford Motor Co. or Dana Companies LLC was negligent in the mesothelioma death of a former automotive mechanic and shipyard inspector who used the companies' asbestos-laden products. U.S. District Judge James L. Robart said in his opinion that there is no evidence that shows that Patrick Jack could have saved his own life from the mesothelioma that killed him had the suppliers of the asbestos-containing equipment publicized the potential health dangers, even following his employment with them. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Defends Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand 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 more than 75 percent of the open and active claims against the Company at March 31, 2019 are non-malignant or unspecified disease claims. The Company states, "Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries and former companies of ours are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those claims have been filed against either Ingersoll-Rand Company or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane) and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by Ingersoll-Rand Company or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. None of our existing or previously-owned businesses were a producer or manufacturer of asbestos. "The Company engages an outside expert to perform a detailed analysis and project an estimated range of the Company's total liability for pending and unasserted future asbestos-related claims. In accordance with ASC 450, the Company records the liability at the low end of the range as it believes that no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. Asbestos-related defense costs are excluded from the liability and are recorded separately as services are incurred. The methodology used to prepare estimates relies upon and includes the following factors, among others: * the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally exposed to asbestos; * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer; * the Company's historical experience with the filing of non-malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of malignant diseases filed against the Company relative to the number of lung cancer claims filed against the Company; * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the Company based on such epidemiological and historical data and the Company's claims history; * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of disease claimed and by year filed; * an analysis of the Company's history to determine the average settlement and resolution value of claims, by type of disease claimed; * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted downward to 1.0% to take account of the declining value of claims resulting from the aging of the claimant population; and * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the future (currently projected through 2053). "At March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, over 75 percent of the open and active claims against the Company are non-malignant or unspecified disease claims. In addition, the Company has a number of claims which have been placed on inactive or deferred dockets and expected to have little or no settlement value against the Company." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/jQPcXx ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Ordered to Pay $300MM in Olson Case -------------------------------------------------------- Berkeley Lovelace Jr., writing for CNBC, reported that Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $300 million in punitive damages to a woman who blamed her rare asbestos-related cancer on the company's talc-based products, the company confirmed. The decision brings the total award in the case to $325 million. The New York state jury earlier this month awarded $25 million to the woman, Donna Olson, 66, and her husband in compensatory damages. That same day jurors in a similar case in South Carolina cleared the company of liability. "With this verdict, yet another jury has rejected J&J's misleading claims that its talc was free of asbestos," said Jerome Block, the lead trial attorney in the New York case. "The internal J&J documents that the jury saw, once more laid bare the shocking truth of decades of cover-up, deception and concealment by J&J of the asbestos found in talc baby powder." J&J faces more than 13,000 talc-related lawsuits. The consumer products company, which makes everything from Tylenol to Aveeno lotions, denies allegations that its talc causes cancer. It said numerous studies and tests by regulators worldwide have shown that its talc is safe and asbestos-free. "This trial suffered significant legal and evidentiary errors which Johnson & Johnson believes will warrant a reversal on appeal," J&J said in a statement to CNBC. "Decades of tests by independent experts and academic institutions repeatedly confirm that Johnson's Baby Powder does not contain asbestos or cause cancer." "Of all the verdicts against Johnson & Johnson that have been through the appellate process, every one has been overturned," the company added. J&J relaunched its iconic namesake baby product line last summer to reverse a decline in J&J's baby care unit. While trusted for decades, the 124-year-old brand had fallen out of touch with consumers, namely millennial moms, who opted instead for cleaner, natural products from trendy upstart brands. ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J, Colgate Created "Severe Health Hazard" ------------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reported that attorneys representing a woman alleging Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive's talcum products caused her mesothelioma asked a California jury to award her tens of millions of dollars during trial closings, arguing the companies knew cancer-causing asbestos was in their products for decades and they posed a "severe health hazard." During trial in Oakland, California, Patricia Schmitz's attorney, Joseph Satterley of Kazan McClain Satterly & Greenwood, argued that internal documents show that J&J tried to suppress, remove or destroy asbestos in its baby powder and Shower to Shower talc products since the 1960s. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Still Faces Suits at March 29 ---------------------------------------------------------- Kaman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2019, that based on information currently available, it does not believe that the resolution of any currently pending asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, the Company and/or one of its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into certain products sold or distributed by the Company and/or the named subsidiary. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The rest have been resolved for amounts that are not material to the Company, either individually or in the aggregate. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/adsi3I ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lanier Law's $4.69-Bil. Win Named 2018 Top Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Lanier Law Firm's $4.69 billion trial win on behalf of 22 women who alleged that decades of daily use of Johnson & Johnson's asbestos-laden talcum powder caused their ovarian cancer is the largest verdict delivered in the U.S. in 2018, The National Law Journal reports. Each year the legal publication's VerdictSearch research affiliate compiles court records to determine the nation's largest verdicts, based on actual jury awards. National Law Journal editors also search online news sources and databases to ensure the accuracy of the list. "We are honored to receive this recognition on behalf of our clients," said Mark Lanier, founder of The Lanier Law Firm. "We continue to believe that public awareness and scrutiny will inspire government regulators, the cosmetics industry, and Johnson & Johnson itself to acknowledge the inherent dangers of talc products. We hope that will lead to warning labels on these products or their removal from store shelves." While there have been other trials in which juries have determined that talc products tainted with asbestos caused mesothelioma cancer, this case marked the first talc-related ovarian cancer verdict in the United States. Jurors heard evidence that Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower brands have been laced with asbestos for decades, challenging representations J&J made to the Food and Drug Administration and other national and international agencies. In addition to Mr. Lanier, the trial team included firm attorneys Rachel Lanier, Dr. Robert Leone, Michael Akselrud, and Monica Cooper. Co-counsel Eric D. Holland of the Holland Law Firm in St. Louis, Missouri, was also integrally involved in the trial. The Lanier Law Firm has offices in Houston, Oklahoma City, New York, and Los Angeles. For close to 30 years, the firm has worked tirelessly to find unique solutions to its clients' unique needs. The firm is composed of more than 60 skilled attorneys, practicing in a broad array of areas, including business fraud, asbestos exposure, commercial litigation, personal injury, oil and gas litigation, among others. Visit http://www.lanierlawfirm.com Media Contact: J.D. Cargill Tel: (713) 659-5200 Email: jdc@lanierlawfirm.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mineralogist Says No Asbestos in J&J Baby Powder ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Sammon, writing for Northern California Record, reported that a mineralogist called by attorneys defending Johnson & Johnson said there was no asbestos found in the baby powder he tested from talc mines in Italy and Vermont. "Do you have an opinion whether asbestos was found in Cashmere Bouquet containers?" asked Peter Mularczyk, attorney for Johnson & Johnson. "Asbestos has not been found," responded Matthew Sanchez, mineralogist with the R.J. Lee Group, a Pennsylvania materials testing lab. The trial in the Alameda County Superior Court is being streamed live via Courtroom View Network. Plaintiff Patricia Schmitz sued Johnson & Johnson for its baby powder and Colgate-Palmolive for its Cashmere Bouquet, an adult face powder product, claiming her 40-year use of the products allegedly tainted with asbestos caused her to develop mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lungs. Sanchez has been called by defendant lawyers in part to counter the testimony of William Longo, a Georgia microscope researcher who testified for plaintiff lawyers saying he had found asbestos in samplings of the powder. "What have you been asked to do?" Mularczyk asked. "To look at source mines used for talc in both Cashmere Bouquet and Johnson & Johnson," Sanchez said. "Do you have an opinion of the mines Colgate-Palmolive used?" Mularczyk asked. "You would not expect to find asbestos in those mines," Sanchez said. Talc powder for use in the products was acquired in Italy, North Carolina, Vermont and since 2003 in China. Sanchez said asbestos had not been found from samples taken from Cashmere Bouquet containers. He agreed that testing was done with a variety of tools, including the use of X-ray diffraction to determine crystal structure, a polarized light microscope (PLM), transmission electron microscope (TEM), and scanning electron microscope (SEM). "Can a non-asbestos rock be crushed and form asbestos?" Mularczyk asked. "No," Sanchez answered. An issue in the trial and in past asbestos trials has been that of cleavage fragments, crushed rock particles generated in the milling process of talc, a mined mineral. Defendant attorneys claim cleavage particles are not asbestos and not toxic. Plaintiff attorneys contend they can be asbestos. Sanchez disputed Longo's findings, saying because cleavage fragments can be long and thin in size and shape like asbestos fibers, Longo had misidentified cleavage fragments as asbestos fibers. "If it was greater than 3-to-1 (length to width) in ratio, they (Longo) called it asbestos," Sanchez said. "If it was less than 3-to-1 they called it cleavage fragments." "Can you misidentify?" Mularczyk asked. "Yes, you will get false positives," Sanchez said. Sanchez said Longo had also misidentified cummingtonite, a non-asbestos amphibole mineral, as anthopolite, a form of asbestos. In addition, he agreed Longo had misidentified fibers as bundles common in asbestos when they were actually not bundles. Alex Calfo, attorney for Johnson & Johnson, asked Sanchez if asbestos had been found in mines in Italy or Vermont. "No," Sanchez said. Sanchez said he had found non-asbestos serpentine minerals and chloride, which are not dangerous. Calfo asked if Longo and another plaintiff witness, Lee Poye of the J3 Resources testing lab in Houston, were geologists or mineralogists. Sanchez agreed they were not. "Is it your understanding that Longo and Poye have not been to the talc mines?" "That's correct," Sanchez said. During his testimony, Longo touted use of the concentration method of testing talc powder. The testing, developed in the 1970s, uses talc powder spun in a tube filled with heavy liquid to separate talc from heavier materials, which sink to the bottom and can be analyzed by a microscope. Officials of Johnson & Johnson declined to use the method saying it was ineffective, while critics of the company alleged that J&J officials were disturbed the technique was too sensitive and might find asbestos in the powder. Sanchez said the heavy liquid separation method had flaws, for example an inability to spot chrysotile, a form of asbestos. He agreed with Calfo's statement that not a single government agency had adopted concentration as a testing technique, nor had a number of scientists. "Yes," Sanchez said. "You need to identify what you separate correctly. If you try to separate chrysotile (using concentration) you ignore amphiboles. If you try to separate amphiboles you ignore chrysotile." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pollution Exemption Clears Insurer from Obligation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for the St. Louis Record, reported that a federal judge has determined Insurance Co. of North America (INA) owes no money to Zurich American Insurance Co. stemming from the settlement of an asbestos claim. Both companies provided coverage for Anheuser-Busch during the time period in which the underlying plaintiff's asbestos exposure allegedly occurred. It was Zurich that settled and paid the claim on behalf of Anheuser-Busch in 2014, after which it sued INA over allegations of equitable contribution, subrogation and unjust enrichment. INA asserted a defense of failure to include all necessary parties, prompting Zurich to add the beer company as a defendant, only for it to be dismissed from the suit on May 8, 2018. In an opinion issued May 21, Judge Catherine Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri said both parties moved for summary judgment. She explained the underlying lawsuit, Cotter v. Am. Insulation Corp., was a 2008 wrongful death claim from the wife of a former brewery employee who alleged she contracted mesothelioma from asbestos fibers her husband carried home from work on his clothing. Perry pointed to a 2017 Missouri Court of Appeals opinion in Nooter Corp. v. Allianz Underwriters Insurance holding a "targeted insurer" that covers an entire loss can seek contributions from other "trigged insurers," as well as recovery standards allowing one insurer to recover the excess it may have paid from another. INA maintained the policies it wrote for Anheuser-Busch had a pollution exclusion, but Zurich said INA waived its right to assert that exclusion when failed to plead it as an affirmative defense. INA said it made such a pleading in its 12th affirmative defense. Perry noted the burden of proving the exclusion lies with INA, then explained how it met that burden. "There is no ambiguity in the terms of the policy, which plainly bars coverage for the types of asbestos claims raised in the Cotter case," Perry wrote, adding Zurich's arguments about the ambiguity of the policy regarding whether asbestos is an irritant or a contaminant fail because "the policy is not rendered ambiguous as a matter of law merely because asbestos is not explicitly listed in the exclusion." Perry said the Missouri Supreme Court, in a 2017 opinion in Doe Run Residential Corp. v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance, said an insurer's pollution exemption precluded coverage connected to alleged lead pollution even though the exemption language didn't explicitly mention lead. Zurich also argued INA's exemption was insufficient because it addresses pollutants discharged in the atmosphere, whereas the wrongful death suit alleged contact with asbestos fibers on clothing. Perry said that argument failed because the type of contaminant release alleged "clearly and unambiguously constitutes a release 'in the atmosphere' because it occurred outside the confines of the brewery's building. (Zurich) offers no explanation -- nor could it -- of how the asbestos could travel from inside the brewery and come into contact with the decedent without also being released into the "atmosphere.'" INA also had to demonstrate how the alleged discharge of asbestos fibers was neither sudden nor accidental, but Zurich didn't contest whether INA demonstrated its burden of proof on that issue. Further, Perry wrote, the Anheuser-Busch "allegedly had knowledge of the dangers posed by the toxic dust when it released from the brewery and of the need for hygienic procedures to protect from these dangers, but failed and refused to implement any safety procedures, such as laundry services, to protect those at risk from these dangers." Finding the pollution exemption meant INA had no obligation to contribute to the policy, regardless of the timing of the underlying complaint or exposure, Perry granted INA's motion for summary judgment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Estimates $70.2MM Liability --------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation estimates US$70.2 million liability as of March 31, 2019, for all current and future asbestos-related claims through 2058, 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. As of March 31, 2019, the projected asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$63.8 million. The Company states, "We recognize a liability for asbestos-related contingencies that are probable of occurrence and reasonably estimable. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, we record asbestos-related insurance receivables that are deemed probable. "The liability projection period covers all current and future claims through 2058, which represents the expected end of our asbestos liability exposure with no further ongoing claims expected beyond that date. This conclusion was based on our history and experience with the claims data, the diminished volatility and consistency of observable claims data, the period of time that has elapsed since we stopped manufacturing products that contained encapsulated asbestos and an expected downward trend in claims due to the average age of our claimants, which is approaching the average life expectancy. "To date, the defense and settlement costs of our asbestos-related product liability litigation have been substantially covered by insurance. We have identified continuous coverage for primary, excess and umbrella insurance from the 1950s through the mid-1980s, except for a period in the early 1960s, with respect to which we have entered into an agreement for primary, but not excess or umbrella, coverage. In addition, we have entered into a cost sharing agreement with most of our primary, excess and umbrella insurance carriers to facilitate the ongoing administration and payment of claims by the carriers. The cost sharing agreement may be terminated by any party, but will continue until a party elects to terminate it. As of the filing date for this report, the agreement has not been terminated, and no carrier had informed us it intended to terminate the agreement. During 2018, we received notices that primary coverage for a period of eight years and excess coverage for a period of three years had been exhausted. In the three months ended March 31, 2019, we incurred an immaterial amount of indemnity and defense costs, primarily related to the period. We expect to exhaust individual primary, excess and umbrella coverages over time, and there is no assurance that such exhaustion will not accelerate due to additional claims, damages and settlements or that coverage will be available as expected. "The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the related insurance receivables are based on facts known at the time and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time it takes to dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual liability and insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those projected or recorded." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/454TFF ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 789 Pending Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation continues to face 789 asbestos-related product liability claims 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, "We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts across the country by persons alleging personal injury from exposure to products containing asbestos. We have never mined, milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and provided to industrial users a limited number of products that contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s. Most of the claims filed against us involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred. "For the three months ended March 31, 2019, 34 claims were dismissed and 4 claims were settled. Settlements totaled approximately US$0.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2019." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/454TFF ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 9 Claims at March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that nine plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana against the Company's subsidiaries at March 31, 2019. The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants in complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi, and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were filed in Louisiana. The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants, generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages. "At March 31, 2019, nine plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana, in which we have or may have an interest. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as to the outcome. We historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the 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: Workers Diagnosed with Cancer Secure Cash Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leeville Daily Leader reported that plant workers employed before 1981 diagnosed with various cancers are entitled to special benefits. Lung cancer, esophageal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer, stomach cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, and mesothelioma are frequently caused by asbestos exposure. Asbestos-laced products were used for decades at Dow Chemical. Neither employees nor management were aware of the asbestos risk. Asbestos is a mineral that in its natural state is harmless. It becomes harmful when it is pulled apart or ground up into flexible fibers. Then, when inhaled or swallowed, microscopic asbestos fibers may be permanently affixed to body tissue. Over many years, these fibers may cause genetic changes that can lead to cancer. According to the National Cancer Institute, "It can take from 10 to 40 years or more for asbestos-related cancers to appear." To compensate cancer victims and the families of deceased cancer victims, Federal Bankruptcy Courts have required asbestos manufacturers to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars in private trusts. Through these trusts, cancer victims can receive money damages by the filing of timely, detailed, and accurate claims. Norris Injury Lawyers has announced a specific initiative to assist Dow Chemical employees in recovering money set aside for them in these asbestos trusts. Cancer victims or the families of deceased victims who worked at the plant before 1981 may call 800-478-9578 for a free evaluation of their claim. Additional information is available at getnorris.com/asb ********* 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 ***