/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190618.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 18, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 121 Headlines ACAPULCO MEXICATESSEN: Juarez Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage AKORN INC: Data Integrity Securities Litigation Ongoing ALASKA AIR: Appeals Ruling in Flight Attendants' Suit AMNEAL PHARMA: Appeal in Williams Class Suit Ongoing AMNEAL PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Digoxin-Related Class Suit Pending AMNEAL PHARMA: Opposition in Opana ER(R) Suit Due Aug. 8 AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement Reached in Sergeants Benevolent Suit ANGI HOMESERVICES: Bid to Amend Costello Complaint Pending ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Gamboa Seeks to Recover Unlawful Deductions AQUANTIA CORP: Sabatini Balks at Merger Deal with Marvell ASTEC INDUSTRIES: City of Taylor General Employees Suit Ongoing BABCOCK & WILCOX: Kent Seeks More Info on Revised Credit Agreement BIOTIME INC: Continues to Defend Lampe Class Action BLOOMFIELD, MI: Youmans Appeals Cir. Ct. Order to Mich. App. Ct. BLUE SKY: Enters Receivership Amid Class Actions CAPITAL ONE: Rodriguez Sues over Unauthorized Credit Inquiries CARDINAL HEALTH: Bellwether Trial in Opioid Suits Set for October CARTUS CORPORATION: Pereltsvaig Seeks Unpaid Wages CATALDO 54: Escorcia Suit Alleges NYLL and FLSA Violations CELLULAR SALES: Proskauer Rose Discusses Class Certification Denial CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces WildHorse Merger-Related Class Suits CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settlement of Oklahoma Suits Approved CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suit v. FTS International in Texas Ongoing CIOX HEALTH: Court Grants Bids for Judgment on Pleadings in Ortiz CONAM MANAGEMENT: Bid to Modify Discovery Order in Cuevas Denied CONCENTRIX CORP: Knight Moves to Certify Call Center Agents Class CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE: Slam Dunk Sues over Breach of Contract COOK COUNTY, IL: Dismissal of 1st Amended Acevedo Suit Affirmed COUSINS PROPERTIES: Investors Challenge TIER REIT Merger COVIA HOLDINGS: Consolidated Class Suit over Merger Deal Dismissed CROSS TIMBERS: Trustee to Review Chieftain Royalty Suit Settlement DELIVERCLUB INC: Warren Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages DOMINION ENERGY: Awaits Court's Decision on Fairness Hearing DOMINION ENERGY: Metzler Lawsuit on SCANA Merger Remains Pending DOMINION ENERGY: RICO Class Action Remains Pending DOMINION ENERGY: Santee Cooper Ratepayers Class Suit Still Pending DUKE ENERGY: Denies Employee Benefit Plans, Pridy et al., say EMC INSURANCE: Faces Class Action in Iowa State Court ENDO INT'L: Settlement in Principle Reached in Miss. PERS Suit FIRST BANCORP: Next Hearing in Torres Suit Set for September 2019 FIRST DATA: Skulsky Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duty FISHER-PRICE: Wray Files Suit Over Dangerous Sleepers FLOWERS FOODS: FLSA Class in Carr Suit Gets Final Certification FORD MOTOR: Lied About Fuel-Efficiency Testing Practices GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Corvette Faulty Wheels GHS INTERACTIVE: Miholich Sues over Unwanted Cellular Phone Calls GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Transient Tax-Related Suit Ongoing GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: June 2019 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing HAIN CELESTIAL: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit HAIN CELESTIAL: Agrees to Stay Consolidated Stockholder Class Suit HERTZ LOCAL: Removes Moore Case to S.D. California HOLLISTER CO: Haggar et al. Sue over Website's Limited Access HOMEFED CORPORATION: Wolf Sues Over Exchange Act Violation HUDSON'S BAY: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Rudolph Suit HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action Over Elantra Piston Defect IDT ENERGY: Bid to Quash Subpoena in Mackey TCPA Suit Partly Okayed IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Consolidate Odeh & Choi Suits Pending IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Wins Dismissal of Consolidated Fergus Suit IMPAC MORTGAGE: Amended Complaint Filed in Batres Class Action IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal Ongoing in Timm Class Action IMPAC MORTGAGE: Bid to Arbitrate Riggin's Class Suit Granted IMPAC MORTGAGE: Continues to Defend McNair Class Action IMPAC MORTGAGE: Notice of Appeal Filed in Marentes Class Suit IMPAC MORTGAGE: Parties in Baker Suit Ink Settlement INNOVATIVE COURIER: Rutledge Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wilson Talc Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania JONES BENITEZ: Rios Sues over Pregnancy Discrimination LAMP PLUS: Mintz Attorney Discusses Supreme Court Ruling LOCK HAVEN: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in Robb Suit Denied MASSAGE ENVY: Lapa Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. MASSAGE ENVY: Lapa Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. MCCLATCHY CO: Third Phase Trial in Sawin Case to Start June 20 MDL 1566: Court Remands Arandell and New Page Claims to W.D. Wis. MDL 2244: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order in Cardoza Suit MDL 2493: Court Denies Bid to Remand Bank v. Alliance Security MDL 2626: Alcon Vision Lawsuit Moved to Middle District of Florida MDL 2669: Court Remands Doe Suit to Southern Dist. of Mississippi MDL 2672: Feinman Suit Moved to Northern District of California MDL 2738: Kannady, et al. Suit Moved to District of New Jersey MDL 2750: Goodwin and Lo Re Suits Moved to District of New Jersey MDL 2768: Lakeland Regional vs. Howmedica Moved to Massachusetts MDL 2800: Luciano vs. Equifax Informational Moved to N.D. Georgia MDL 2801: Avnet v. Panasonic Moved to Northern Dist. of California MDL 2804: 13 Suits Transferred to Northern District of Ohio MDL 2807: 2 Suits vs. Sonic Corp. Moved to Northern Dist. of Ohio MDL 2873: 3 Suits vs. 3M Co., et al. Transferred to South Carolina MDL 2879: Mann Suit v. Starwood Hotels Moved to Maryland District MDL 2885: Norman Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation MDL 2887: 6 Suits vs. Hill's Pet Nutrition Moved to Kansas MDL 2888: Court Denies Motion to Centralize 3 ABMS Antitrust Suits MDL 2889: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 5 Equinor Royalty Suits MDL 2890: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Pay Discrimination Suit MDL 2892: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Suits vs. GemCap Lending MDL 2893: Enginuity Withdraws Bid for Centralization MDL 2894: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 4 Grille Trademark Suit MEDICAL GUARDIAN: Perrong Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Action Over Defective Radiators Tossed MERCK: Fosamax Case Decision Expected to Set Precedent MONSANTO CO: Brizendine Seeks Damages for Roundup-related Injuries MONSANTO CO: Faces Kendrick Suit Over Roundup-related Injuries MONSANTO CO: Faces Thirstrup Suit Over Damages From Using Roundup MONSANTO CO: Indelicato Sues Over Injuries From Roundup Exposure MONSANTO CO: Martin Sues Over Injuries From Roundup Exposure MONSANTO CO: Ponzini Sues Over Lymphoma From Using Roundup MONSANTO CO: Roundup Caused Lymphoma, Reed Suit Says MOVIE GRILL CONCEPTS: Tate Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Class Actions Over Commissions Pending NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Cal. App. Flips Timlick FDCPA Suit Dismissal NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending NATIONAL VISION: Remand of Cal. Wage & Hour Class Action Sought NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Mulquin Class Action in Calif. Ongoing NERDWALLET INC: Bunting Suit Alleges ADA Violation NEW YORK, NY: Removes Reaves Harassment Suit to E.D. New York OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Appeal in Securities Class Action Underway OSMOTICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shumacher Class Suit PERRIGO CO: Baton Class Suit in Tel Aviv Stayed PERRIGO CO: Settlement of Eltroxin Litigation Wins Court Approval PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend IV Saline Solution Class Suit PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits PFIZER INC: Faces Class Suits Related to Adalimumab Biosimilars PFIZER INC: Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action Ongoing PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit over Effexor XR Sales PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: 9th Cir. Grants Petition for Leave to Appeal PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Appeal in TX Consolidated Class Suit Pending POOL & PATIO: Bobola Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime PORSCHE: Wants Cayenne Coolant Leak Class Action Dismissed PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Putnam Sues over Debt Collection Practices PROFESSIONAL TRANS: Removes Oglesby Case to D. South Carolina PULMAN CAPPUCINO & PULLEN: Faces White's FDCA Suit in Texas QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vieyra Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info QUINTANA ENERGY: Unit Still Defends Class Suit over FLSA Violation RADIUS GLOBAL: Reyes Sues over Debt Collection Practices RAYMOND JAMES: Agreement in Principle Reached in Wistar Class Suit RAYMOND JAMES: Settlement Reached in Brink Class Suit RENT-A-CENTER INC: Hall Settlement Finally Approved RENT-A-CENTER INC: Russell Suit v. Acceptance Now Ongoing RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settlement Reached in Blair Class Action ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Still Defends Too & Spock Consolidated Suit SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in Parmelee Suit SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Mexican Govt Bonds Suit Pending SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Merits Discovery in Deka Suit Remains Stayed SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Ponsa-Rabell Suit v. SSLLC Ongoing SGS NORTH AMERICA: Tamimi Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. SKECHERS USA: Continues to Defend Wilk Class Action SKECHERS USA: Court Sets Briefing Schedule on Dismissal Bid SKECHERS USA: Faces Guzman Class Suit in California SKECHERS USA: Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan Suit Ongoing SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Hartsock Class Suit SWAN FINANCIAL: Guillory Seeks OT, Minimum Pay for Loan Officers TG THERAPEUTICS: Reinmann Suit Voluntarily Dismissed THINK FINANCE: Scheff Declaration Struck from Gibbs RICO Suit TIDELANDS HEALTH: Sawyer Asserts Medical Leave Act Breach TIME TO EAT DINER: Thomas' Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot TIVITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Weiner Class Suit Ongoing TRU-FLEX METAL: Adams Moves to Certify Classes of Pro-Flex Buyers UNITED STATES: Kowalski Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois UNITED STATES: Passut Sues Dept. of Education Over ACICS Fiasco UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Judge Scola Recuses Himself from Class Action VAN RU CREDIT: Horvath Sues over Debt Collection Practices VENATOR MATERIALS: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS: Martinez Faces Labor Suit in Calif. VOYA RETIREMENT: Bid to Drop Goetz Class Suit Still Pending WASTE MANAGEMENT: Ayala Suit Moved From S.D. Texas to D. Arizona WELTMAN WEINBERG: Gardner Sues over Debt Collection Practices WESLEY APARTMENT: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Ruling in Whelan Suit WOOD-MODE: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violation ********* ACAPULCO MEXICATESSEN: Juarez Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage -------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Acapulco Mexicatessen, Inc. for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from its failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to its terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The case is captioned ANA JUAREZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ACAPULCO MEXICATESSEN, INC. a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV17974 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 23, 2019). Plaintiff Ana Juarez seeks to recover unpaid wages, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the court may deem equitable and appropriate. Established in 1945, Acapulco Mexicatessen, Inc. offers a complete line of fresh tortillas available in a variety of flavors including Flour and Traditional (Mexican corn) style, along with tostadas and chips made with real premium quality Nixtamal. The company is based in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com AKORN INC: Data Integrity Securities Litigation Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Akorn, 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 Court has held that the Data Integrity Securities Litigation and Wickstrom action are related and extended the discovery and pretrial deadlines. On March 8, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint entitled Joshi Living Trust v. Akorn, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint named as defendants the Company, Chief Executive Officer Rajat Rai, Chief Financial Officer Duane Portwood and Chief Accounting Officer Randall Pollard. The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions by failing to disclose sooner the existence of investigations into data integrity at the Company. The Complaint sought, among other things, an award of damages, attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company disputes these claims. On May 31, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing Gabelli & Co. Investment Advisors, Inc. and Gabelli Funds, LLC as lead plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), approving their selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel and amending the case caption to In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities Litigation (the "Data Integrity Securities Litigation"). On June 14, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the PSLRA stay of discovery. On June 22, 2018, the Company filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to lift the PSLRA stay. On June 26, 2018, the Court denied the motion to lift the PSLRA stay, subject to entry of a preservation order. On September 5, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Company, Rajat Rai, Duane A. Portwood, Mark M. Silverberg, Alan Weinstein, Ronald M. Johnson, Brian Tambi, John Kapoor, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Adrienne L. Graves, Steven J. Meyer and Terry A. Rappuhn. The amended complaint asserts (i) claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Fraud Claims") against Defendants Akorn, Rai, Portwood, Silverberg, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi; and (ii) claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Proxy Claims") against defendants Akorn, Rai, Kapoor, Weinstein, Abramowitz, Graves, Johnson, Meyer, Rappuhn and Tambi. The amended complaint alleges that, during a class period from November 3, 2016, to April 20, 2018, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded widespread institutional data integrity problems at Akorn's manufacturing and research and development facilities, while making or causing Akorn to make contrary misleading statements and omissions of material fact concerning the Company's data integrity at its facilities. The amended complaint alleges that corrective information was provided to the market on two separate dates, causing non-insider shareholders to lose over $1.07 billion and $613 million in value respectively. The amended complaint seeks an award of equitable relief and damages. On October 29, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation and joint motion providing for the dismissal of certain claims and defendants. On October 30, 2018, the Court granted the parties' motion, dismissing the Proxy Claims without prejudice; dismissing defendants Kapoor, Abramowitz, Graves, Meyer and Rappuhn without prejudice; and dismissing Defendant Silverberg with prejudice. On December 19, 2018, the remaining defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint, disputing the plaintiffs' remaining allegations. On February 21, 2019, Plaintiff Johnny Wickstrom, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint names as defendants the Company, Rajat Rai and Duane Portwood. The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning its compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations and that those misstatements were corrected when the Company disclosed its receipt from the FDA of a warning letter at the Company's facility in Decatur, Illinois. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages, attorneys' fees and expenses. On March 8, 2019, the parties in the Data Integrity Securities Litigation filed a proposed stipulation which sought, among other things: (i) leave to file a second amended class action complaint, which would extend the end date of the alleged class period from November 3, 2016, through September 28, 2018; (ii) to consolidate the Wickstrom complaint into the Data Integrity Securities Litigation for all purposes; and (iii) to extend the existing discovery schedule in order to permit time to mediate lead plaintiffs' claims and to conduct additional discovery related to the expanded class period. On March 12, 2019, counsel for Wickstrom filed a letter with the Court seeking leave to file an opposition to the lead plaintiffs' request to consolidate the Wickstrom complaint into the Data Integrity Securities Litigation. On March 25, 2019, counsel for Wickstrom filed a memorandum in opposition to the lead plaintiffs' stipulation. On March 26, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a reply in further support of their request for consolidation. During a March 27, 2019 conference, the Court found that the Wickstrom action was related to the Data Integrity Securities Litigation and ordered oral argument for April 22, 2019, on lead plaintiffs' requests to file a second amended complaint and to consolidate the Wickstrom complaint. Following the March 27, 2019 hearing, the Court entered an order finding the Data Integrity Securities Litigation and Wickstrom action to be related and requesting the reassignment of the Wickstrom action. The Court also extended the discovery and pretrial deadlines. Akorn, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and markets generic and branded prescription pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter (OTC) consumer health products, and animal health pharmaceuticals in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Prescription Pharmaceuticals and Consumer Health. Akorn, Inc. was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois. ALASKA AIR: Appeals Ruling in Flight Attendants' Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Alaska Air 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 the Company is seeking an appellate court ruling in the flight attendants' class action suit. In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San Francisco wage and hour laws. The court certified a class of approximately 1,800 flight attendants in November 2016. The Company believes the claims in this case are without factual and legal merit. In July 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding Virgin America, and Alaska Airlines, as a successor-in-interest to Virgin America, responsible for various damages and penalties sought by the class members. On February 4, 2019, the Court entered final judgment against Virgin America and Alaska Airlines in the amount of approximately $78 million. It did not award injunctive relief against Alaska Airlines. The Company is seeking an appellate court ruling that the California laws on which the judgment is based are invalid as applied to national airlines pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and federal law and for other employment law and improper class certification reasons. Alaska Air said, "The Company remains confident that a higher court will respect the federal preemption principles that were enacted to shield inter-state common carriers from a patchwork of state and local wage and hour regulations such as those at issue in this case and agree with the Company's other bases for appeal. For these reasons, no loss has been accrued." Alaska Air Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company operates through three segments: Mainline, Regional, and Horizon. The company was founded in 1932 and is based in Seattle, Washington. AMNEAL PHARMA: Appeal in Williams Class Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 appeal in the class action suit initiated by Emielou Williams is ongoing. On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff Emielou Williams filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Alameda on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by violating various California wage and hour laws, and seeking, among other things, declaratory judgment, restitution of allegedly unpaid wages, and disgorgement. On October 10, 2017, Impax filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations. On December 12, 2017, the Court overruled Impax's Demurrer to Plaintiff's individual claims. However, it struck all of Plaintiff's class allegations. On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint once again including the same class allegations. The Company filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations on April 12, 2018. On September 20, 2018, the Court again struck Plaintiff's class allegations; Plaintiff has appealed this most recent order to the California State Court of Appeal. Plaintiff filed her opening appellate brief on February 22, 2019, and Impax's brief in response was filed on April 18, 2019. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Digoxin-Related Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 are awaiting a court's decision on a motion to dismiss the class action suit related to the price fixing of the generic drug digoxin. On April 17, 2017, Lead Plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against Impax and four current or former Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiff asserts claims regarding alleged misrepresentations about three generic drugs. Its principal claim alleges that Impax concealed that it colluded with competitor Lannett Corp. to fix the price of generic drug digoxin, and that its digoxin profits stemmed from this collusive pricing. Plaintiff also alleges that Impax concealed from the market anticipated erosion in the price of generic drug diclofenac and that Impax overstated the value of budesonide, a generic drug that it acquired from Teva. On June 1, 2017, Impax filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 7, 2018, the Court granted Impax's motion, dismissing plaintiffs' claims without prejudice and with leave to amend their complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint October 26, 2018. Impax filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 6, 2018; plaintiffs' opposition thereto was filed on January 17, 2019; and Impax's reply in support of its motion to dismiss was filed on February 7, 2019. A hearing before the Court on the motion to dismiss took place on May 2, 2019. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Opposition in Opana ER(R) Suit Due Aug. 8 -------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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' oppositions to class certification and rebuttal expert reports in Opana ER(R) Antitrust, are due to be filed by August 8, 2019. From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints styled as class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (also known as end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") were filed against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and Impax. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise Value Drug Company; Meijer Inc. The end-payor plaintiffs comprise the Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund; Massachusetts Bricklayers; Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund; Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Kim Mahaffay; and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund. The opt-out plaintiffs comprise Walgreen Co.; The Kroger Co.; Safeway, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P.; Albertson's LLC; Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.; and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") ordered the pending class actions transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2580). (Actions subsequently filed in other jurisdictions also were transferred by the JPML to the Northern District of Illinois to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings, and the District Court likewise has consolidated the opt-out plaintiffs’ actions with the direct purchaser class actions for pretrial purposes.) In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Discovery, including expert discovery, is ongoing. On March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification and opening expert reports. Defendants' oppositions to class certification and rebuttal expert reports are due to be filed by August 8, 2019. No trial date has been scheduled. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement Reached in Sergeants Benevolent Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 has reached a settlement in principle with plaintiffs in Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC, et. al., subject to execution of definitive documentation. In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis plc) and numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic versions of Forest's Namenda IR product. The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly purchased Namenda(R) IR or its generic equivalents in various states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants' allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims pending factual development or resolution of claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct purchasers (in which the Company is not a defendant). On September 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay, referred the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of supplemental, non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to be scheduled in 2019. The parties thereafter participated in supplemental discovery, as well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss briefing. On December 26, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims. On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs informed the Magistrate Judge that they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019. The Company has reached a settlement in principle with plaintiffs, subject to execution of definitive documentation. The amount of the settlement is not expected to be material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. ANGI HOMESERVICES: Bid to Amend Costello Complaint Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- ANGI Homeservices 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 motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., is still pending. In July 2016, a putative class action, Airquip, Inc. et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. l:16-cv-1849, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint, as amended in November 2016, alleges that our HomeAdvisor business engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service professionals who join its network, including charging them for substandard customer leads or failing to disclose certain charges. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting of all HomeAdvisor service professionals since October 2012, asserts claims for fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the federal RICO statute and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA"), and seeks injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount. In December 2016, HomeAdvisor filed a motion to dismiss the RICO and CCPA claims. In September 2017, the court issued an order granting the motion and dismissing those claims. In October 2017, HomeAdvisor filed an answer denying the material allegations of the remaining claims in the complaint. In May 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint that would add nine new named plaintiffs, five new defendants (including ANGI Homeservices), and 55 new claims, most of them for various alleged violations of the laws of nine separate states. In June 2018, HomeAdvisor opposed the motion on grounds including that it was filed more than one year after the court’s deadline to amend pleadings. In July 2018, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-1802, on behalf of the same nine proposed new plaintiffs in the Airquip case, naming as defendants HomeAdvisor, ANGI Homeservices and IAC (as well as an unrelated company), and asserting 45 claims largely duplicative of those asserted in the proposed second amended complaint in the Airquip case. In November 2018, the judge presiding over the Airquip case issued an order consolidating the two cases to proceed before him under the caption In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation. In January 2019, the plaintiffs renewed their motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. In February 2019, the defendants filed their opposition to the motion on various grounds. The motion remains pending, discovery in the case is well under way and the issue of class certification remains to be litigated. ANGI Homeservices said, "The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them." ANGI Homeservices Inc. operates a digital marketplace for home services, connecting millions of homeowners with home service professionals in North America and Europe. The company was formerly known as Halo TopCo, Inc. and changed its name to ANGI Homeservices Inc. in May 2017. ANGI Homeservices Inc. was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado. ANGI Homeservices Inc. is a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Gamboa Seeks to Recover Unlawful Deductions ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against GOLDEN ROAD BREWERY for violations of the California Labor Code and relevant California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The case is captioned ALEX GAMBOA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV WORLDWIDE, INC. D/B/A GOLDEN ROAD BREWERY, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV17429 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.) Plaintiff Alex Gamboa alleges that the Defendant failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed to pay all wages and overtime, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and made unlawful deductions to the wages of its employees. Defendant has allegedly implemented a practice of requiring employees to perform work during their legally mandated meal and rest periods without premium compensation. The Defendants has also maintained policies and procedures designed to reduce labor costs by reducing or minimizing the amount of compensation paid to its employees, especially overtime compensation. Anheuser-Busch Inbev Worldwide, Inc. d/b/a Golden Road Brewery is a Delaware Corporation with a headquarters and service of process address listed as 818 W. 7th Street, Los Angeles, California. The company is engaged in the restaurant and brewery business. [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 E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com trk@classactionlaw.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 436-8453 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Jessica R. Doogan, Esq. Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER LLP 250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com AQUANTIA CORP: Sabatini Balks at Merger Deal with Marvell --------------------------------------------------------- ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AQUANTIA CORP., LIP-BU TAN, FARAJ AALAEI, DMITRY AKHANOV, BAMI BASTANI, KEN PELOWSKI, GEOFFREY G. RIBAR, SAM SRINIVASAN, and ANDERS SWAHN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01020-UNA (D. Del., May 31, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a Proxy Statement. The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 6, 2019, pursuant to which Aquantia Corp. will be acquired by Marvell Technology Group Ltd. and Antigua Acquisition Corp. On May 6, 2019, Aquantia's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Marvell. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Aquantia's stockholders will receive $13.25 in cash for each share of Aquantia common stock they own. On May 29, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says. Aquantia considers itself a leader in the design, development, and marketing of advanced, high-speed communications ICs for Ethernet connectivity in the Data Center, Enterprise Infrastructure, Access, and Automotive markets. The Company's products are designed to cost-effectively deliver leading-edge data speeds for use in the latest generation of communications infrastructure to alleviate network bandwidth bottlenecks caused by the growth of global IP traffic.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com ASTEC INDUSTRIES: City of Taylor General Employees Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Astec Industries, 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 class action suit entitled, City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al. The Company and certain of its current and former executive officers have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on February 1, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The action is styled City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00024-PLR-CHS. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading statements and that the individual defendants are control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's stock between July 26, 2016 and October 22, 2018 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss at this time. Astec Industries, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and markets equipment and components for the road building, aggregate processing, geothermal, water, oil and gas, and wood processing industries in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1972 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. BABCOCK & WILCOX: Kent Seeks More Info on Revised Credit Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BABCOCK & WILCOX ENTERPRISES, INC., MATTHEW E. AVRIL, HENRY E. BARTOLI, KENNETH SIEGEL, CYNTHIA S. DUBIN, BRIAN R. KAHN, ALAN HOWE, BRYANT RILEY, and KENNETH YOUNG, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01032-UNA (D. Del., June 3, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on April 5, 2019, pursuant to which the Board of Directors of Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. caused the Company to amend its credit agreement with its current lenders, whereby B. Riley FBR, Inc., which owns 6.5% of the Company's outstanding shares, has joined the facility and has arranged an additional $150 million in secured financing through a last out term loan, and has agreed to provide an uncommitted incremental credit facility of up to another $15 million. In connection with the amendment, the Company agreed to seek shareholder approval to increase the number of its authorized shares, execute within six months a $50 million rights offering at $0.30 per share (the proceeds of which will be used for repayment of a portion of the new debt) and, immediately thereafter, exchange $35.1 million of the last out term loan held by Vintage Capital Management LLC ("Vintage"), which owns 17.8% of the Company's outstanding shares, for common stock at $0.30 per share, issue approximately 16.7 million warrants, each to purchase one share of common stock for $0.01 per share, and execute a 1:10 reverse stock split. On May 13, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which seeks stockholder approval of the Proposed Transaction and scheduled a stockholder vote for June 14, 2019. The complaint asserts that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statementt. Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times relevant hereto, the owner of Babcock common stock. Babcock is a global leader in energy and environmental technologies and services for the power and industrial markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com BIOTIME INC: Continues to Defend Lampe Class Action --------------------------------------------------- BioTime, 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 class action suit entitled, Lampe v. Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. On March 8, 2019, the company acquired the remaining ownership interests in Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc. via merger. On February 19, 2019, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed (captioned Lampe v. Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. RG19007391) in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda challenging the Asterias Merger. On May 3, 2019, an amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") was filed. The Amended Complaint names BioTime, Patrick Merger Sub, Inc., the Asterias board of directors, one member of BioTime's board of directors, and certain stockholders of both BioTime and Asterias. The action was brought by two purported stockholders of Asterias, on behalf of a putative class of Asterias stockholders, and asserts breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims under Delaware law. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the process leading up to the Asterias Merger was conflicted and inadequate, and that the proxy statement filed by Asterias with the Securities and Exchange Commission omits certain material information, which allegedly renders the information disclosed materially misleading. The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, is that a class be certified, the recovery of monetary damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. BioTime believes that the allegations lack merit and intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted. BioTime, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company, focuses on developing and commercializing therapies for the treatment of degenerative diseases in the United States and internationally. BioTime, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Alameda, California. BLOOMFIELD, MI: Youmans Appeals Cir. Ct. Order to Mich. App. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jamila Youmans filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled JAMILA YOUMANS v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD, Case No. 2016-152613-CZ, in the Oakland Circuit Court. The appellate case is titled JAMILA YOUMANS v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD, Case No. 348791, in the Michigan Court of Appeals. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 7, 2019, Defendant Charter Township of Bloomfield filed an appeal from a Court order issued in the lawsuit. That appellate case is captioned as JAMILA YOUMANS v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD, Case No. 348614. The Class Action Reporter previously reported that both sides of the class action lawsuit, which arises from water and sewer bills in Bloomfield Township, are declaring victory after an Oakland County Circuit Court judge issued an opinion in July 2018. Bill Hampton, Esq., township attorney, said Judge Daniel O'Brien sided with the Plaintiffs in four of seven issues raised in the case. But the judge did not order the township to give water and sewer customers a refund for bills that the Plaintiffs claim were inflated over a period of several years. And the judge did not order the township to substantially change the way it calculates water and sewer charges, he added.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant YOUMANS, JAMILA/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED is represented by: Edward F. Kickham, III, Esq. KICKHAM HANLEY PLLC 300 Balmoral Centre 32121 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48073-0943 Telephone: (248) 544-1500 Facsimile: (248) 544-1501 E-mail: ekickham@kickhamhanley.com Defendant-Appellee CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD is represented by: Rodger D. Young, Esq. YOUNG & ASSOCIATES Orchards Corporate Center 27725 Stansbury Boulevard, Suite 125 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 Telephone: (248) 353-8620 Facsimile: (248) 479-7828 E-mail: young@youngpc.com BLUE SKY: Enters Receivership Amid Class Actions ------------------------------------------------ David Chau, writing for ABC, reports that Blue Sky Alternative Investments has fallen into receivership and been suspended from trading on the Australian share market. The Brisbane-based fund manager, which manages $2.8 billion in investments, appointed Pilot Partners as its voluntary administrators on May 20. It came after the former market darling breached the conditions of a $50 million lifeline provided by US hedge fund Oaktree Capital Management -- which then led to Oaktree appointing KordaMentha as Blue Sky's receivers. Blue Sky was required to maintain a minimum level of cash earnings (before interest and tax). In February, the company reported a half-year loss of $26 million and warned shareholders that it was at risk of breaching the terms of its Oaktree loan. At its peak, Blue Sky was worth almost $1.2 billion, when its share price was $14.70 in late December 2017. But its market value plummeted to just $14 million within one-and-a-half years, with its shares last trading at 18 cents. "Our objective during the first phase of the receivership is to stabilise the business as a strategic assessment is undertaken," Mark Korda, one of the receivers, said. "The appointment will not affect the day-to-day operating activities of Blue Sky and its investment management business subsidiaries." Why is Blue Sky in trouble? "The appointment follows a period of significant instability and uncertainty for all stakeholders, including further commentary regarding possible class actions, turnover of senior corporate executives and departure of certain limited partners," KoredaMentha wrote in a statement. Over the past year, short-sellers and market analysts expressed serious concerns about Blue Sky charging its customers excessive fees and exaggerating the value of assets that it has managed, including Vinomofo and Shoes of Prey -- a footwear retailer that collapsed earlier this year. It led to Blue Sky shedding $800 million in market value within months in early-2018. This also prompted an investigation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), about whether the fund manager had breached its continuous disclosure obligations. The corporate regulator, however, issued Section 33 notices under the ASIC Act, requiring Blue Sky to hand over documents as part of the investigation. "The company has received confirmation from ASIC that it does not propose to take any further action in respect of the section 33 notice," Blue Sky told investors on May 15. But there is still the possibility ASIC may re-open its investigations. "ASIC has reserved its rights to take further action if further information concerning the matter comes to ASIC's attention," Blue Sky said. Potential class actions Several major law firms including Shine Lawyers, Gadens and Piper Alderman are trying to recruit disgruntled investors to be plaintiffs in potential class actions against the fund manager. "In a report published by Glaucus Research Group on 27 March 2018 . . . Blue Sky has been accused of grossly exaggerating its assets under management, misrepresenting the performance of its investments and collecting management fees far in excess of its entitlements," Gadens partner Simon Theodore said. "These are serious allegations which raise grave concerns about possible breaches of the Corporations Act, ASIC Act and the ASX Listing Rules. "Gadens is currently investigating whether Blue Sky and/or any of its officers have failed to comply with their statutory obligations and have misled the market." The fund manager's related entity -- the Blue Sky Alternative Access Fund (BSAAF) -- is not in receivership or administration. However, BSAAF shares tumbled on May 20, closing 5.8 per cent lower at 73 cents. [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Rodriguez Sues over Unauthorized Credit Inquiries -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, GLORIA RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01021-CAB-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 31, 2019), seeks to recover damages arising out of Defendant's systematic unauthorized credit inquiries. According to the complaint, the Defendant acquired Plaintiff's credit information through an unauthorized inquiry of Plaintiff's "consumer reports" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d)(1). Sometime before December 1, 2017, Plaintiff incurred a financial obligation (the "Debt") to Defendant. This financial obligation arose from a loan that 15 Defendant extended to Plaintiff. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in San Diego. On or around December 1, 2017, the Debt was discharged pursuant to a court order that was mailed to Defendant by the bankruptcy court. The order advised Defendants that the Debt had been discharged. Following the bankruptcy, Plaintiff no longer had an account with Defendant. Despite the fact that Plaintiff did not have an account with Defendant and Plaintiff's Debt was ordered discharged on December 1, 2017, on December 23 27, 2017, Defendant submitted an unauthorized account review credit report inquiry to Experian. Upon review of Plaintiff's Experian credit report, Plaintiff discovered Defendant's unauthorized credit inquiry. Accordingly, Defendant's inquiry was unauthorized and illegal. After Plaintiff received the above referenced discharge order, there was no debt owed to Defendant and no account with Defendant by operation of the bankruptcy. Defendant accessed Plaintiff's private and confidential information without Plaintiff's consent or a permissible purpose. Much like trespassing on real property, an invasion of privacy may not cause monetary damages, but it is an invasion none the less. Privacy is a long-protected right in the United States and Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm resulting from Defendant's willful invasion of privacy, the lawsuit says. The United States Congress has also found the banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence, which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system. The Fair Credit Reporting Act seeks to insure fair and accurate reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy. The FCRA seeks that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer's right to privacy because consumer reporting agencies have assumed such a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Facsimile: (866) 431-3292 E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com CARDINAL HEALTH: Bellwether Trial in Opioid Suits Set for October ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cardinal Health, 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 a bellwether trial in the Opioid-related suits is set to begin in October 2019. Pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including the company, have been named as defendants in over 2,000 lawsuits relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. These lawsuits have been filed in various federal, state, and other courts by a variety of plaintiffs, primarily counties, municipalities and other political subdivisions. Plaintiffs also include unions and other health and welfare funds, hospital systems and other healthcare providers, as well as individuals. Of these lawsuits, 63 are purported class actions. The lawsuits seek equitable relief and monetary damages based on a variety of legal theories including various common law claims, such as negligence, public nuisance and unjust enrichment as well as violations of controlled substance laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and various other statutes. These lawsuits also name pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail pharmacy chains and other entities as defendants. The vast majority of these lawsuits were filed in U.S. federal court and have been transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The court, among other things, has ordered that a bellwether trial begin in October 2019. In December 2018, the court denied distributor defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints associated with the bellwether case. In addition, 15 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against distributors, including the company, in various state courts, and 43 state attorneys general, including 8 that have filed suit, have formed a multi-state task force to investigate the manufacturing, distribution, dispensing and prescribing practices of opioid medications. The company has received requests related to this multi-state investigation, as well as separate civil investigative demands, subpoenas or requests for information from these and other state attorneys general offices. The company is cooperating with the offices conducting these investigations. In connection with these proceedings, distributors continue to engage in discussions with various parties, including state attorneys general and representatives of the MDL plaintiffs, regarding possible resolution. The company is vigorously defending itself in all of these opioid-related matters. Cardinal Health said, "Given the uncertainty surrounding these lawsuits and investigations, we are unable to predict their outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses." Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services and products company in the United States and internationally. It provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ohio. CARTUS CORPORATION: Pereltsvaig Seeks Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- ASYA PERELTSVAIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CARTUS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 19CV348335 (Cal. Super., May 31, 2019), seeks damages including unpaid wages and unreimbursed business expenses; statutory penalties for the failure to issue itemized wage statements or failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements under the California Labor Code. During the Class Period, the Defendant was Plaintiff's and Class Members' employer. However, Defendant willfully misclassified Plaintiff and Class Members as independent contractors in violation of Labor Code section 226.8. As a result, Defendant failed to compensate Class Members for all of their time spent performing work-related activities in violation of Labor Code section 1194 and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, section 4; and failed to reimburse Class Members for their necessarily incurred business expenses in violation of Labor Code section 2802 and the express terms of their contracts with Defendant.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Julian Hammond, Esq. Polina Brandler, Esq. Ari Cherniak, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (310) 601-6766 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 E-mail: JHammond@hammondlawpc.com pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com ACherniak@hammondlawpc.com CATALDO 54: Escorcia Suit Alleges NYLL and FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Eulalio Ayala Escorcia aka Gonzalo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Cataldo 54 Inc. dba Cataldo's, Salvatore Cataldo and Cecilia Cataldo, Case No. 1:19-cv-01940 (E.D. N.Y., April 03, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants failed to provide accurate wage statements, minimum wage, spread of hours compensation and timely payment of wages. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker by the Defendants from approximately June 2015 until on or about March 22, 2019. The Defendants own and manage an Italian restaurant, located at 554 Vanderbilt Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11238 under the name "Cataldo's". [BN] The 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 Fax: (212) 317-1620 CELLULAR SALES: Proskauer Rose Discusses Class Certification Denial ------------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Shear, Esq. -- sshear@proskauer.com -- and Nicole Eichberger, Esq. -- neichberger@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that on April 26, 2019, the Northern District of New York held that a group of Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden to establish commonality and predominance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and failed to sustain their burden that they were similarly situated to continue as a FLSA collective with respect to their misclassification claims under state and federal law. Jan P. Holick Jr., et al. v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC, Case No. 1:12 CV-584 (NAM/DJS), 2019 WL 1877176 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2019). The Court determined that individualized issues predominated the resolution of the question as to whether a group of merchants, who contracted with Cellular Sales of New York to sell cellular service plans, devices, and accessories through various corporate entities, were independent contractors under New York law and the FLSA. In 2010 and 2011, Cellular Sales of New York (CSNY), an authorized dealer that markets and sells cellular phone products and services in New York State, contracted with more than three hundred corporate entities, owned by many of the Named and Opt-in Plaintiffs, to sell cell phone service plans, devices, and accessories. These corporate entities and individuals who performed services for those entities were classified as independent contractors. CSNY paid commissions to those corporate entities for products and services sold under the contracts. Plaintiffs' claimed that they were incorrectly classified as independent contractors. In order to determine whether the merchants had indeed been misclassified, discovery was conducted into the degree of control, if any, CSNY exercised over the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs gave varying accounts of their ability to set their own work schedules, ability to work outside the retail stores, tax classifications, investment in equipment, supplies, and advertising, and use and hiring of other individuals. In resolving Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and CSNY's motion to decertify the collective, the Court held that Plaintiffs could not satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the amount of control CSNY exerted over each Plaintiff was highly individualized. Although the Court noted that Plaintiffs' failure to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement was lethal to Plaintiffs' motion, the Court also held that Plaintiffs' individualized proof failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)'s predominance requirement. The Court then turned to whether Plaintiffs could sustain their FLSA collective action, determining that in light of the highly individualized, plaintiff-specific analysis required to adjudicate each claim, Plaintiffs and the collective were not similarly situated. The Court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that a common scheme of uniform classification under the Sales Agreements was enough to satisfy the FLSA's similarly situated standard. The Court stated: "[B]lanket classification decisions and uniform corporate policies do not on their own render plaintiffs similarly situated." The Court's ruling underscores the necessity of class discovery, even following an initial collective certification under FLSA Sec.216(b). It is plaintiffs' burden to show that class and collective certification are warranted. As the Supreme Court stated in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011): "[t]he class action is an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties." [GN] CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces WildHorse Merger-Related Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy 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 WildHorse Resource Development Corporation has been named as a defendant in merger-related class action suits. On February 1, 2019, the company acquired WildHorse Resource Development Corporation ("WildHorse"), an oil and gas company with operations in the Eagle Ford Shale and Austin Chalk formations in southeast Texas for approximately 717.4 million shares of the company's common stock and $381 million in cash. The company funded the cash portion of the consideration through borrowings under the Chesapeake revolving credit facility. In connection with the closing, the company acquired all of WildHorse's debt. In January 2019, putative class action lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York against WildHorse and other defendants. The lawsuits generally allege various violations of the Exchange Act in connection with the disclosure contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection with the Merger. The lawsuits seek rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages and, in each case, attorney's fees, costs and interest. Chesapeake said, "We intend to vigorously defend these claims." Chesapeake Energy Corporation engages in the acquisition, exploration, and development of properties for the production of oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids (NGL) from underground reservoirs in the United States. Chesapeake Energy Corporation was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settlement of Oklahoma Suits Approved -------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy 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 the settlement in all Oklahoma civil class action antitrust cases has been approved. In 2016, putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and in Oklahoma state courts, and an individual lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Kansas, in each case against the company and other defendants. The lawsuits generally allege that, since 2007 and continuing through April 2013, the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress the market for the purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold interests and properties in the Anadarko Basin containing producing oil and natural gas wells. The lawsuits seek damages, attorney's fees, costs and interest, as well as enjoinment from adopting practices or plans that would restrain competition in a similar manner as alleged in the lawsuits. On April 12, 2018, the company reached a tentative settlement to resolve substantially all Oklahoma civil class action antitrust cases for an insignificant amount. The final fairness hearing was held on April 25, 2019 and the settlement was approved. Chesapeake Energy Corporation engages in the acquisition, exploration, and development of properties for the production of oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids (NGL) from underground reservoirs in the United States. Chesapeake Energy Corporation was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suit v. FTS International in Texas Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy 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 the company and FTS International, Inc. continue to defend a putative class action suit in Texas. In February 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas against FTS International, Inc. ("FTSI"), certain investment banks, FTSI's directors including certain of the company's officers and certain shareholders of FTSI including the company. The lawsuit alleges various violations of Sections 11 (with respect to certain of the Company's officers in their capacities as directors of FTSI) and 15 (with respect to such officers and the company) of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with public disclosure made during the initial public offering of FTSI. The suit seeks damages in excess of $1,000,000 and attorneys' fees and other expenses. Chesapeake said, "We intend to vigorously defend these claims." Chesapeake Energy Corporation engages in the acquisition, exploration, and development of properties for the production of oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids (NGL) from underground reservoirs in the United States. Chesapeake Energy Corporation was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. CIOX HEALTH: Court Grants Bids for Judgment on Pleadings in Ortiz ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HECTOR ORTIZ, in his capacity as the Temporary Administrator for the Estate of VICKY ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CIOX HEALTH LLC, as successor in interest of IOD INC., and THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No. 17cv4039 (DLC) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' Oct. 31, 2018 motions for judgment on the pleadings. Ortiz brings the proposed class action against CIOX and the New York and Presbyterian Hospital ("NYPH"). He seeks damages and injunctive relief arising out of the Defendants' alleged violations of New York Public Health Law Section 18, which prohibits health care providers from charging qualified persons more than $0.75 per page for copies of their medical records. The facts as alleged in the First Amended Complaint have been described in an Opinion of Feb. 22, 2018. Ortiz, through her attorney, made a written request to NYPH for her medical records in October 2016. The request indicated that, pursuant to Section 18(2)(e), NYPH could not charge Ortiz more than $0.75 per page. NYPH's contractor, a predecessor in interest to CIOX, charged Ortiz $1.50 per page for her medical records. Ortiz paid the bill and subsequently filed the class action. Shortly thereafter, CIOX unilaterally refunded Ortiz's credit card the amount charged above the $0.75 statutory maximum. The February 2018 Opinion dismissed several counts of the FAC but allowed a single claim, for a violation of Section 18(2)(e), to go forward. On May 14, 2018, Ortiz's counsel informed the Court that Ortiz had died. An Order of October 16 granted the Plaintiff's application to substitute Hector Ortiz, in his capacity as temporary administrator of the Ortiz estate, as the party Plaintiff. On October 31, CIOX and NYPH filed motions for judgment on the pleadings or to dismiss the remaining cause of action. NYPH and CIOX assert that the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue either damages or injunctive relief, that Section 18(2)(e) does not accord a private right of action, that the Plaintiff's proposed class is overbroad, and that CIOX's copying costs are not at issue in the litigation. Because Section 18(2)(e) does not accord a private right of action, only the first two claims are addressed. Judge Cote finds that the Defendants are correct. Section 18 does not contain any express grant of a private right of action. Where a statute does not expressly provide for a private right of action, a plaintiff can seek civil relief in a plenary action based on a violation of the statute only if a legislative intent to create such a right is fairly implied in the statutory provisions and their legislative history. It is for the courts to determine, in light of those provisions, particularly those relating to sanction and enforcement, and their legislative history what the Legislature intended. At issue is whether, by prohibiting health care providers from charging more than $0.75 per page in connection with inspecting or copying medical records, the Legislature implied a private right of action. The text, structure, and legislative history of Section 18(2)(e) do not permit a finding that New York's Legislature intended to create a private right of action. Because there is no private right of action under Secton 18, Judge Cote granted the Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed the case. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/k1Qwqi from Leagle.com. Hector Ortiz, in his capacity of Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Vicky Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by George Volney Granade -- mreese@reesellp.com -- Reese Richman LLP, Lowell Jay Sidney, Lowell J Sidney & Michael Robert Reese, Reese Richman, LLP. IOD Inc. & CIOX HEALTH LLC, successor in interest, Defendants, represented by Jodyann Galvin jgalvin@hodgsonruss.com, Hodgson Russ LLP & Kathryn Anne Tiskus -- ktiskus@hogsonruss.com -- Hodgson Russ, LLP. The New York And Presbyterian Hospital, Defendant, represented by John Houston Pope -- jhpope@ebglaw.com -- Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C.. CONAM MANAGEMENT: Bid to Modify Discovery Order in Cuevas Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELIZABETH CUEVAS, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONAM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation; and does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18cv1189-GPC (LL) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (i) overruled the Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's discovery order filed on March 14, 2019, and (ii) denied her motion to modify or set aside the discovery order. On June 6, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees of Defendant ConAm for its failure to pay overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and failure to timely pay overtime wages as required by 29 C.F.R. Section 778.106. She filed the case as a collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA on behalf of the class of a ll persons who are or have been employed by the Company in the United States as non-exempt employees at any time from June 6, 2015, through the present, who received overtime pay and nondiscretionary incentive pay, including without limitation, bonuses. On Dec. 21, 2017, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a non-exempt leasing agent/professional at a residential property located in Reno, Nevada. The Defendant is a property management and real estate investment company with locations throughout the United States. The Plaintiff claims that she and the collective action members who opt-in to the lawsuit worked in excess of 40 hours per work week and were entitled to overtime pay which Defendant does not dispute. She claims the that Defendant willfully failed to pay her and the collective action members their full overtime pay. In addition, the Complaint asserts that the Defendant failed to properly calculate the correct regular rate of pay for purposes of paying overtime. Specifically, it did not calculate and/or factor non-discretionary bonuses into the Plaintiff and the collective action members' regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime pay. The non-discretionary bonuses include, but are not limited to, the "Winner's Circle" bonus. According to the Complaint, the Plaintiff and collective action members are due additional overtime pay. On Feb. 21, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel seeking further written responses and documents to her discovery requests. The Defendant filed a response on Feb. 28, 2019. A reply was filed by the Plaintiff on March 7, 2019. On March 14, 2019, the Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses. On March 28, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the Magistrate Judge's ruling denying her discovery requests as they relate to her First Set of Requests for Production of Documents ("RPD") Nos. 1, 5-10, and her First Set of Requests for Admissions ("RFA") Nos. 9-11. The Defendant filed an opposition on April 18, 2019. A reply was filed by the Plaintiff on April 26, 2019. Judge Curiel holds he need not make a determination on which pre-certification discovery rule to applies because the Plaintiff does not seek the identity of putative members but instead primarily seeks policy documents related to the Defendant's other bonus programs. The First Set of RPD seeks policy documents applicable to non-exempt employees relating to the calculation of any and all bonuses or any other non-discretionary incentive pay, the timing of payment of the bonuses and when they are calculated. The RFA's seek an admission that Defendant does not use the U.S. Department of Labor's formula for calculating overtime, that it does not pay its employees either overtime adjustment timely and does not pay its employees their overtime true-ups. These discovery requests concern the merits of the Plaintiff's claims which courts have held are not relevant during pre-certification discovery. Her requests are not relevant to limited pre-certification discovery seeking to identify similarly situated employees or to define the class. Therefore, the Judge concludes that the discovery the Plaintiff now seeks is premature and denied without prejudice her motion to compel discovery responses to the Plaintiff's First Set of RFP Nos. 1, 5-10 and First Set of RFA Nos. 9-11 which may later be sought if the class is conditionally certified. A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/oRDPff from Leagle.com. Elizabeth Cuevas, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Majed Dakak -- mdakak@kbslaw.com -- Kesselman Brantly Stockinger LLP & Dennis Sangwon Hyun -- dhyun@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal. ConAm Management Corporation, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam P. KohSweeney -- akohsweeney@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Meyers LLP. CONCENTRIX CORP: Knight Moves to Certify Call Center Agents Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JACQLYN KNIGHT, AQUANETTA WRIGHT, and LAPRINCESS JUNE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. CONCENTRIX CORPORATION, a wholly-owned subsidiary of SYNNEX CORPORATION, Case No. 4:18-cv-07101-KAW (N.D. Cal.), move the Court to enter an order, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act: 1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action for a class defined as: All current and former Call Center Agent employees, or other job titles performing the same or similar job duties, who worked more than forty hours per week for Concentrix at any time in the last three years and were not paid overtime for every hour worked. "At Home" Call Center Agents are excluded from the Class; 2. approving the proposed Court-Authorized Notice and Consent to Sue form; 3. compelling Concentrix Services US, Inc. to produce, within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion, the full name, last known address, and last known email address (work email address if a current employee of Concentrix, personal e-mail address if a former employee of Concentrix) to Plaintiffs' Counsel; 4. permitting the Plaintiffs' Counsel to send, within 14 days of receipt of the Class List from Concentrix, the Court-Authorized Notice and Consent to Sue form via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail to putative Class Members; 5. permitting Opt-in Plaintiffs to file their Consents to Sue using an electronic signature service; 6. allowing 90 days for putative Class members to return their Consent to Sue form to the Plaintiffs' Counsel for filing with the Court; and 7. allowing the Plaintiffs' Counsel to send U.S. Mail and/or Electronic Mail reminder notice at the 45th day of the Notice Period. The Court will commence a hearing on July 18, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy J. Becker, Esq. Molly E. Nephew, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com mnephew@johnsonbecker.com jrusch@johnsonbecker.com - and - Mark E. Burton, Jr., Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102-3229 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: mburton@audetlaw.com CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE: Slam Dunk Sues over Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Connecticut General Life Insurance Company for breach of contract and for common law conversion. The case is captioned SLAM DUNK, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21996-MGC (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2019). Plaintiff Slam Dunk, LLC alleges that Defendant breached the contract by deducting cost of insurance (COI) charges calculated from COI rates not based on expectations of future mortality experience. These overcharges include, but are not limited to, the excess COI charges that Defendant deducted by not reducing COI rates based on improved mortality. In addition, Plaintiff claims that the Defendants' failure to decrease COI rates also violated the contracts' requirement that Defendant review COI rates at least once every year because any such review would have shown the need to decrease COI rates based on the improved mortality. Slam Dunk, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Florida, with a principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Connecticut, having its principal place of business in Bloomfield, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward M. Mullins, Esq. R. Hugh Lumpkin, Esq. Matthew B. Weaver, Esq. Christina D. Olivos, Esq. Esq. REED SMITH LLP 1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 786-747-0200 Facsimile: 786-747-0299 E-mail: hlumpkin@reedsmith.com mweaver@reedsmith.com colivos@reedsmith.com - and - Richard Giller, Esq. Douglas C. Rawles, Esq. Ashley Jordan, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 Facsimile: (213) 457-8080 E-mail: rgiller@reedsmith.com drawles@reedsmith.com ajordan@reedsmith.com kellena@reedsmith.com - and - Casey Laffey, Esq. Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 E-mail: jmccarroll@reedsmith.com claffey@reedsmith.com COOK COUNTY, IL: Dismissal of 1st Amended Acevedo Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSEPH ACEVEDO, ENRIQUE MEZA, and TAMARA WUERFFEL, as Individuals and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S MERIT BOARD; JAMES P. NALLY, Chairman; BYRON BRAZIER, Vice-Chairman; JOHN J. DALICANDRO, Secretary; GRAY MATEO-HARRIS, Board Member; VINCENT T. WINTERS, Board Member; JENNIFER BAE, Board Member; PATRICK BRADY, Board Member; KIM R. WIDUP, Board Member; THOMAS J. DART, Sheriff of Cook County in His Official and Individual Capacity; and THE COUNTY OF COOK, a Unit of Local Government and Indemnor, Defendants-Appellees, (Joseph Acevedo, Plaintiff-Appellant), Case No. 1-18-1128 (Ill. App.), Judge Aurelia Pucinski of the U.S. Appellate Court of Illinois for the First District, Second Division, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Acevedo's first amended complaint with prejudice. In the putative class action, Acevedo, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, alleges that employment termination decisions issued by the Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board were void because the Board was illegally constituted at the time it issued those decisions. On Jan. 12, 2015, the Board issued a decision terminating Acevedo's employment as a Cook County correctional officer. Acevedo filed an action for direct review under the Review Law, and on Feb. 24, 2016, the trial court affirmed the Board's decision. Over a year later, on May 18, 2017, Acevedo instituted the present action. Five months later, on Oct. 3, 2017, he, joined by Meza and Wuerffel, filed their FAC. In that FAC, Acevedo alleged that he was a former Cook County correctional officer, whose employment was terminated by Board decision on Jan. 12, 2015. He further alleged that his Board decision terminating his employment was null and void because the Board was illegally constituted at the time, in that former Board member John R. Rosales had not been properly appointed under the Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board Act. Meza alleged that he was also a former Cook County correctional officer, whose termination by the Board was null and void because the Board was illegally constituted at the time, in that Defendants Gray Mateo-Harris and Patrick Brady had been appointed for terms of less than six years. Wuerffel alleged that she was a former Cook County Sheriff's police sergeant, whose termination by the Board was null and void because the Board was illegally constituted at the time, in that Brady had been appointed for a term of less than six years. The three named Plaintiffs also alleged, on behalf of those unnamed class members similarly situated, that any other terminations or suspensions by the Board in which Rosales, Mateo-Harris, and Brady participated were null and void, as were any terminations or suspensions by the Board in which defendants Byron Brazier, John J. Dalicandro, and Kim R. Widup participated, as their appointments were improperly retroactively approved. The Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Board's decisions were null and void and that they were entitled to "make-whole relief," including reinstatement and back pay. They also sought declarations that their terminations by an illegally constituted board violated their rights to due process and equal protection, damages, attorney fees, and costs. Shortly after the filing of the first amended complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the trial court entered and continued. In December 2017, Meza and Wuerffel voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Defendants. On Jan.y 12, 2018, Defendant Dart filed an amended motion to dismiss the FAC pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code. Defendants the County of Cook and the Board joined in Dart's motion to dismiss. A hearing was held on the Defendants' motion to dismiss. After hearing arguments from the parties, the trial court issued its ruling, granting the Defendants' motion. In doing so, it acknowledged that its jurisdiction over administrative review cases is strictly limited to that permitted by the Review Law and that it lacked original jurisdiction over any action seeking any form of administrative review, such as Acevedo's class action claims for declaratory judgment. Concluding that Acevedo's claims were, at their core, claims for administrative review and that they were not brought pursuant to the Review Law, the trial court determined that it lacked jurisdiction. Not seeking to remedy the defects found by the trial court but instead wanting only to include additional allegations of fact regarding improper appointments to the Board for purposes of appeal, Acevedo requested that he be granted leave to amend his complaint. The trial court granted his request. Thereafter, Acevedo filed a second amended complaint, which removed certain Board members as Defendants, added different Board Defendants, and modified its allegations regarding appointments. The Defendants moved to strike or dismiss the SAC. At the hearing on that motion, the trial court concluded that it would confuse the record to allow the matter to go up on appeal with two complaints naming different parties and containing different allegations. Therefore, it granted the Defendants' motion to strike the SAC and modified its dismissal of the FAC to be with prejudice. Thereafter, Acevedo instituted this appeal. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his FAC on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction because all actions taken by the illegally constituted Board were void and void actions may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally. He also argues that the Defendants' other arguments raised in support of their motion to dismiss are without merit. In addition to reiterating the arguments they made in the trial court, the Defendants respond on appeal by arguing that Acevedo's claims are barred by the de facto officer doctrine. Judge Pucinski agrees with the Defendants that the de facto officer doctrine bars Acevedo's claims. Because the putative class was never certified and because no other named Plaintiffs remained after the dismissal of Acevedo's claims, dismissal of the entire complaint was appropriate. She concludes that Acevedo's claim that the Board's decision terminating his employment was null and void due to Rosales' improper appointment is barred by the de facto officer doctrine, and thus, he was unable to state a cause of action against the Defendants. In turn, because Acevedo does not have a valid cause of action against the Defendants, and because the other named Plaintiffs -- Meza and Wuerffel -- voluntarily dismissed their claims, the trial court properly dismissed the FAC in its entirety. For these reasons, Judge Pucinski affirmed the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/7azlxg from Leagle.com. COUSINS PROPERTIES: Investors Challenge TIER REIT Merger -------------------------------------------------------- Cousins Properties Incorporated 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 has been named as a defendant in lawsuits related to its merger deal with TIER REIT, Inc. On March 25, 2019, the Company and TIER REIT, Inc. entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which TIER will merge with and into a subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger"). On May 1, 2019, a purported TIER, stockholder filed a putative stockholder class action against TIER and the members of the TIER board of directors challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger. The lawsuit is captioned Martin v. TIER REIT, INC., et al., No. 1:19-CV-01292, and is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On May 3, 2019, a purported TIER stockholder filed a putative stockholder class action against TIER, the members of the TIER board of directors, and the Company also challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger. The lawsuit is captioned Franchi v. TIER REIT, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-CV-01310, and is also pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaints generally allege that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger of which this joint proxy statement/prospectus forms a part fails to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The alleged omissions relate to (i) the existence of certain provisions in confidentiality agreements entered into between TIER and alternative bidders during the strategic sales process; (ii) certain financial projections and GAAP reconciliations for TIER and the Company; and (iii) certain financial analyses performed by TIER's financial advisor. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Defendants from proceeding with the Merger and seek damages in the event the transaction is consummated. TIER and the Company are reviewing the complaints and have not yet formally responded to them, but believe that Plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. Cousins said, "However, litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance regarding the likelihood that TIER's and the Company's defense of the actions will be successful. Accordingly, at this time, the Company is not able to determine if the outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the liquidity, results of operations, business, or financial condition of the Company. Additional lawsuits arising out of the Merger may also be filed in the future." Cousins Properties Incorporated is a fully integrated, self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company, based in Atlanta, GA and acting through its operating partnership, Cousins Properties LP, primarily invests in Class A office towers located in high-growth Sun Belt markets. Founded in 1958, Cousins creates shareholder value through its extensive expertise in the development, acquisition, leasing and management of high-quality real estate assets. COVIA HOLDINGS: Consolidated Class Suit over Merger Deal Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Covia Holdings 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 the Court has granted final approval of a settlement and dismissed the consolidated class action suit against Fairmount Santrol. On June 1, 2018 (the "Merger Date"), Unimin Corporation ("Unimin") completed its previously announced merger transaction (the "Merger") with Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Fairmount Santrol"). Upon closing of the Merger, Fairmount Santrol was merged into a wholly owned subsidiary of Unimin and ceased to exist as a separate corporate entity. The combined entities began operating as Covia. Fairmount Santrol common stock was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") prior to the market opening on June 1, 2018 and Covia commenced trading under the ticker symbol "CVIA" as of that date. Beginning on April 24, 2018, alleged stockholders of Fairmount Santrol filed class actions against Fairmount Santrol and its directors in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Ohio and for the District of Delaware. The lawsuits generally alleged that Fairmount Santrol and its directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing misleading disclosures in connection with the Merger. The lawsuits sought, among other things, to enjoin the special meeting at which stockholders of Fairmount Santrol were scheduled to vote on, among other items, a proposal to adopt the Merger agreement. The Delaware lawsuit was transferred to the Northern District of Ohio and all lawsuits were consolidated. On May 15, 2018, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the defendants, Fairmount Santrol disseminated additional information to Fairmount Santrol stockholders through a Current Report on Form 8-K. Also on May 15, 2018, the plaintiffs withdrew their pending motions for a preliminary injunction. On June 1, 2018, after the holders of the majority of the outstanding shares of Fairmount Santrol voted to approve the Merger, the Merger was effected pursuant to the Merger agreement. On November 9, 2018, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement. On May 3, 2019, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and dismissed the litigation. Covia Holdings Corporation provides diversified mineral-based and material solutions for the industrial and energy markets. The company operates through two segments, Energy and Industrial. The company also operates mining facilities in the United States, Mexico, Canada, China, and Denmark. Covia Holdings Corporation was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Independence, Ohio. CROSS TIMBERS: Trustee to Review Chieftain Royalty Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cross Timbers Royalty Trust 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 Trustee intends to review any claimed reductions in payment to the Trust based on the facts and circumstances of the settlement in the class action suit entitled, Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. A federal district court approved the settlement of a royalty class action lawsuit against XTO Energy Inc. (Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc.) in March 2018. In July 2018, the class plaintiffs submitted their plan to allocate the settlement funds among members of the class. After that plan of allocation was approved, XTO Energy advised the Trustee that, based upon that plan, approximately $40,000 should be allocated to the Trust as additional production costs. The Trustee has objected to similar claims relating to the Chieftain settlement with respect to another trust for which it serves as trustee (the Hugoton Royalty Trust) pursuant to a demand for arbitration styled Simmons Bank (successor to Southwest Bank and Bank of America, N.A.) vs. XTO Energy Inc. through the American Arbitration Association seeking a declaratory judgment that the Chieftain settlement is not a production cost and that XTO Energy is prohibited from charging the settlement as a production cost under the conveyance or otherwise reducing the Hugoton Royalty Trust's payments now or in the future as a result of the Chieftain litigation. Therefore, the Trustee and XTO have agreed that XTO will defer making the accounting entries to allocate to the Trust its proportional share of the Chieftain settlement until the panel in the pending arbitration issues its final award on the Trustee's request for a declaratory judgment. The Trustee intends to review any claimed reductions in payment to the Trust based on the facts and circumstances of the settlement. Cross Timbers Royalty Trust operates as an express trust in the United States. It holds 90% net profits interests in certain producing and nonproducing royalty and overriding royalty interest properties in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico; and 75% net profits interests in certain working interest properties in Texas and Oklahoma. The company was founded in 1991 and is based in Dallas, Texas. DELIVERCLUB INC: Warren Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT WARREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DELIVERCLUB INC., a Delaware Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01328-CEH-AEP (M.D. Fla., May 31, 2019), seeks to secure redress for Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is an online food delivery service. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. On or about January 29, 2019, Defendant sent the following telemarketing text message to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 3384. The Defendant's text message was transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and within the time frame relevant to this action. Defendant's text message constitutes telemarketing because it encourages the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., promoting its delivery service to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com DOMINION ENERGY: Awaits Court's Decision on Fairness Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------ Dominion Energy South Carolina, 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 Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) and SCANA Corporation (SCANA) are awaiting the court's approval of a class action settlement. In May 2018, a consolidated complaint against Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC), SCANA Corporation (SCANA) and the State of South Carolina was filed in the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the DESC Ratepayer Case). In September 2018, the court certified this case as a class action. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that DESC was negligent and unjustly enriched, breached alleged fiduciary and contractual duties and committed fraud and misrepresentation in failing to properly manage the NND Project, and that DESC committed unfair trade practices and violated state anti-trust laws. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that DESC may not charge its customers for any past or continuing costs of the NND Project, sought to have SCANA and DESC's assets frozen and all monies recovered from Toshiba and other sources be placed in a constructive trust for the benefit of ratepayers and sought specific performance of the alleged implied contract to construct the NND Project. In December 2018, the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County entered an order granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement and a stay of pre-trial proceedings in the DESC Ratepayer Case. The settlement agreement, contingent upon the closing of the SCANA Combination, provided that SCANA and DESC would establish an escrow account and proceeds from the escrow account would be distributed to the class members, after payment of certain taxes, attorneys' fees and other expenses and administrative costs. The escrow account would include (1) up to $2.0 billion, net of a credit of up to $2.0 billion in future electric bill relief, which would inure to the benefit of the escrow account in favor of class members over a period of time established by the South Carolina Commission in its order related to matters before the South Carolina Commission related to the NND Project, (2) a cash payment of $115 million and (3) the transfer of certain DESC-owned real estate or sales proceeds from the sale of such properties, which counsel for the DESC Ratepayer Class estimate to have an aggregate value between $60 million and $85 million. At the closing of the SCANA Combination, SCANA and DESC funded the cash payment portion of the escrow account. The court has scheduled a fairness hearing on the settlement in May 2019. Dominion Energy said, "Any distribution from the escrow account is subject to court approval. As a result, in the first quarter of 2019, DESC recorded a charge of $157 million ($118 million after-tax), reflected in impairment of assets and other charges in the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss). Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electricity. It owns gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, and solar generating facilities. The company also purchases, sells, and transports natural gas. The company was formerly known as South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and changed its name to Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. in April 2019. The company was founded in 1924 and is based in Cayce, South Carolina. Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. is a subsidiary of SCANA Corporation. DOMINION ENERGY: Metzler Lawsuit on SCANA Merger Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dominion Energy South Carolina, 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 Metzler lawsuit over a merger transaction remains pending. In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against certain former directors of SCANA Corporation (SCANA) and the company (DESC) and Dominion Energy in the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina (the Metzler Lawsuit). The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted these actions. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin and/or rescind the merger. In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In August 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County. Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal has been consolidated with another lawsuit regarding the Merger Agreement to which DESC is not a party. This case is pending. DESC cannot currently estimate the financial statement impacts of this matter, but there could be a material impact to its results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electricity. It owns gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, and solar generating facilities. The company also purchases, sells, and transports natural gas. The company was formerly known as South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and changed its name to Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. in April 2019. The company was founded in 1924 and is based in Cayce, South Carolina. Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. is a subsidiary of SCANA Corporation. DOMINION ENERGY: RICO Class Action Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------- Dominion Energy South Carolina, 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 that the purported class action against SCANA Corporation, Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) and certain former executive officers, are still pending. In January 2018, a purported class action was filed, and subsequently amended, against SCANA Corporation (SCANA), Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) and certain former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that SCANA, DESC and the individual defendants participated in an unlawful racketeering enterprise in violation of The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and conspired to violate RICO by fraudulently inflating utility bills to generate unlawful proceeds. The DESC Ratepayer Class Action settlement contemplates dismissal of claims by DESC ratepayers in this case against DESC, SCANA and their officers. This case is pending. DESC cannot currently estimate the financial statement impacts of this matter, but there could be a material impact to its results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electricity. It owns gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, and solar generating facilities. The company also purchases, sells, and transports natural gas. The company was formerly known as South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and changed its name to Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. in April 2019. The company was founded in 1924 and is based in Cayce, South Carolina. Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. is a subsidiary of SCANA Corporation. DOMINION ENERGY: Santee Cooper Ratepayers Class Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dominion Energy South Carolina, 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 purported class action suit initiated by Santee Cooper is still pending. In September 2017, a purported class action was filed by Santee Cooper ratepayers against Santee Cooper, ominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC), Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case). The allegations are substantially similar to those in the DESC Ratepayer Case. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants may not charge the purported class for reimbursement for past or future costs of the NND Project. In March 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including as additional named defendants certain then current and former directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA. In June 2018, Santee Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. In December 2018, Santee Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint and filed cross claims against DESC. This case is pending. DESC cannot currently estimate the financial statement impacts of this matter, but there could be a material impact to its results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electricity. It owns gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, and solar generating facilities. The company also purchases, sells, and transports natural gas. The company was formerly known as South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and changed its name to Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. in April 2019. The company was founded in 1924 and is based in Cayce, South Carolina. Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. is a subsidiary of SCANA Corporation. DUKE ENERGY: Denies Employee Benefit Plans, Pridy et al., say ------------------------------------------------------------- DARRELL PRIDY, GREGORY NABORS, MICHAEL SANDERS, and RANDALL ABSTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00468 (M.D. Tenn., May 31, 2019), alleges that Defendant wrongfully denied Plaintiffs' accrued sick leave and short-term disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security. Act. The Plaintiffs also sue Defendant under the Tennessee Human Rights Act for discrimination on the basis of age. The Plaintiffs were employees of Duke Energy and/or its predecessors and has participated in various employee benefit plans, including welfare benefit plan for Duke Energy employees providing sick leave and short-term disability benefits. According the complaint, the Defendant was and continues to be a party to a collective bargaining agreement with Local 702. The collective bargaining agreements over the years have created or incorporated a number of employee benefit plans. ne such benefit is a sick leave and short-term disability benefit. The collective bargaining agreement in effect from 1989 to 1992 between the Company and Local 702 established a sick leave and short-term disability benefit plan. The Plan allowed a participant to accrue sick leave days as they worked for the Company and bank those accumulated days. The 1989 CBA refers to this accrued leave account as a "sickness allowance." Upon information and belief, employees participating in the Plan actively accrued sick leave time until December 31, 2004. The collective bargaining agreement between the Company and Local 702 in effect from August 1999 to August 2004 is the last agreement to provide for accrual of banked Plan hours, which is also contained in Section X, the lawsuit says. Duke Energy is one of the largest electric power holdings companies in the United States, providing electricity to 7.6 million retail customers in the United States. Duke Energy owns and operates numerous diverse power generation assets in North America. As of December 31, 2017, Duke Energy had operating revenues of $23.6 billion, owned assets of $138 billion, and employed 29,060 individuals.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. Karla M. Campbell, Esq. BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com karlac@bsjfirm.com EMC INSURANCE: Faces Class Action in Iowa State Court ----------------------------------------------------- EMC Insurance 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 the company has been named as a defendant in a class action suit in the state court in Iowa. On March 22, 2019, a lawsuit was filed in state court in Iowa relating to the November 15, 2018 proposal by Employers Mutual to acquire all outstanding shares of stock in the Company not already owned by Employers Mutual. The lawsuit was filed as a purported class action, and names as defendants Employers Mutual and the five individual directors of the Company. The lawsuit alleges that the proposal is unfair to the Company's minority shareholders, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Employers Mutual and the Company and its directors deny all allegations of wrongdoing set forth in the lawsuit. The Company believes that Directors, Officers and Organization Liability Coverage is in place that should be sufficient to cover any finding of liability. EMC Insurance Group Inc., an insurance holding company, provides property and casualty insurance, and reinsurance products in the United States. It operates through two segments, Property and Casualty Insurance, and Reinsurance. The company was founded in 1974 and is based in Des Moines, Iowa. EMC Insurance Group Inc. is a subsidiary of Employers Mutual Casualty Company. ENDO INT'L: Settlement in Principle Reached in Miss. PERS Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International plc 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 case, Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo International plc, informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. In February 2017, a putative class action entitled Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo International plc was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania by an institutional purchaser of shares in the Company's June 2, 2015 public offering, on behalf of itself and all similarly situated purchasers. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against Endo, certain of its current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters who participated in the offering, based on certain disclosures about Endo's generics business. In March 2017, defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In August 2017, the court remanded the case back to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. In October 2017, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In December 2017, defendants filed preliminary objections to the amended complaint. The court denied those preliminary objections in April 2018. Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification in July 2018. In April 2019, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. The settlement in principle would provide the investor class $50 million in exchange for a release of their claims; the settlement is subject to court approval. As a result, during the first quarter of 2019, the Company recorded an increase of approximately $50 million to its accrual for loss contingencies. As the Company's insurers have agreed to fund the foregoing settlement, the Company also recorded a corresponding insurance receivable of approximately $50 million during the first quarter of 2019, which is included in Prepaid expenses and other current assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. FIRST BANCORP: Next Hearing in Torres Suit Set for September 2019 ----------------------------------------------------------------- First BanCorp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court overseeing the case, Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., has scheduled the next hearings for September 2019. FirstBank Puerto Rico has been named defendant in a punitive class action complaint, filed in February 2017 at the Court of First Instance in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Complaint seeks damages and preliminary injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and other financial institutions with insurance agency subsidiaries in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have been unjustly enriched by failing to reimburse them for "good experience" commissions allegedly paid by Antilles Insurance Company and Puerto Rico Home Insurance Company. In March 2017, FirstBank Puerto Rico filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Third-Party Complaint against Antilles Insurance Company and the Insurance Commissioner's Office. All other co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive relief. Antilles Insurance Company filed a Motion against the Third-Party Complaint filed by FirstBank Puerto Rico, which FirstBank Puerto Rico opposed. The Insurance Commissioner's Office filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. In July 2017, the Court issued a Judgment granting the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants, dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, except the Third-Party Complaint filed by FirstBank Puerto Rico which was dismissed without prejudice. In August 2017, Plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals and FirstBank Puerto Rico and other co-defendants filed their Oppositions to Plaintiffs appeal. In March 2018, the Court of Appeals entered a Judgment revoking the lower court's Judgment. One co-defendant filed for reconsideration, which was denied, and all other co-defendants filed their respective Petitions of Certiorari before the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which also denied review. Co-defendants have filed for reconsideration. All Motions for Reconsideration were denied, and the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance for the continuation of proceedings. A Class certification hearing scheduled for May 2, 2019 was changed to a status hearing. Parties discussed their respective positions, specifically that prior to celebrating any other hearing, it is imperative that the Court enters to resolve FirstBank's suit seeking Declaratory Judgment. The Court has scheduled next hearings for September 2019. First BanCorp. is a diversified financial holding company headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico offering a full range of financial products to consumers and commercial customers through various subsidiaries. First BanCorp. is the holding company of FirstBank Puerto Rico ("FirstBank" or the "Bank") and FirstBank Insurance Agency. The company is based in Santurce, Puerto Rico. FIRST DATA: Skulsky Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------- Alan Skulsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Frank Bisignano, Joseph Plumeri, Henrique de Castro, Henry R. Kravis, Heidi G. Miller, James E. Nevels, Scott C. Nuttal, Tagar C. Olson, and Barbara A. Yastine, Case No. 2019-0255 (Del. Ch., April 03, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties. This is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of similarly situated First Data stockholders against the First Data Board for breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law arising out of their efforts to effectuate the merger of First Data with Fiserv pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price. On January 16, 2019, First Data announced that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement, pursuant to which a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Fiserv will merge with and into First Data with First Data surviving as a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Fiserv. According to the complaint, First Data stockholders will receive only 0.303 of a share of Fiserv common stock for each share of First Data common stock that they own. The Proposed Merger fails to maximize shareholder value and to protect the interests of First Data's stockholders. Instead, Defendants engaged in a process that was designed to benefit controlling stockholder KKR & Co. Inc. The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of First Data. The Defendants are the members of the Board of Directors of First Data Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 984-3800 FISHER-PRICE: Wray Files Suit Over Dangerous Sleepers ----------------------------------------------------- RENEE WRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FISHER-PRICE, INC.; and MATTEL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01603 (D. Colo., June 4, 2019) seeks damages and all other relief available under law and equity from Fisher-Price and its corporate parent Mattel, including punitive damages for their appalling and unconscionable misconduct. The Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper is an inclined infant "sleeper" that Defendants FISHER-PRICE, INC. , and MATTEL, INC., until April 12, 2019, marketed as suitable for all-night or prolonged sleep. Not only is "Sleeper" in the name of the product, but the boxes in which the Rock 'n Play Sleepers were sold, and other materials used to promote them, prominently exclaim, "Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!" and make similar statements about its fitness for prolonged and nighttime sleep. This marketing was dangerously false and misleading, as the product is not safe for all-night or prolonged sleep for infants, asserts the complaint. The Defendant contends that the Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently unsafe as a sleeper and unfit for its intended use. Its use poses a number of serious safety risks that have led to many documented instances of infant deaths and injuries. By positioning an infant at a 30-degree incline, the Rock 'n Play Sleeper significantly increases the risk that the infant's head will slip into a dangerous position, tilt to constrict the windpipe and/or cause the infant's face to become pressed against the padded fabric in the sleeper and block airflow, which the infant may be unable to correct. This increases the risk of death by asphyxiation. In addition, because Defendants advise parents to keep babies strapped in restraints overnight while sleeping on an incline, the Rock 'n Play Sleeper increases the infant's risk of developing flat head (plagiocephaly) and twisted neck (torticollis) syndromes, conditions that often require babies to wear expensive head-molding helmets and undergo physical therapy. In fact, the Rock 'n Play Sleeper is so dangerous and has caused so many infant deaths, that, on April 12, 2019, Defendants, after making an incomplete disclosure on April 5, 2019, were forced to recall approximately 4.7 million Rock 'n Play Sleepers units in the United States. Had parents like Plaintiff Renee Wray been aware of the potentially fatal dangers posed by the Rock 'n Play Sleeper, or the serious risks of injury such as flat head and twisted neck syndrome, they would not have purchased and/or used the product, says the complaint. Defendants' false and misleading marketing of this dangerous product, and knowing failure to disclose the grave risks of its use as a sleeper for overnight or prolonged sleep, allowed Defendants to reap vast profits at the expense of consumers who erroneously believed they were obtaining a safe place for their babies to sleep, the complaint adds. Plaintiff received as a gift or purchased a Rock 'n Play Sleeper to use as a "sleeper" for overnight or prolonged sleep for her infant. Defendant Fisher-Price manufactures and markets products for the care of infants and preschool children to consumers throughout the United States, including in the State of Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Savastano, Esq. Duthie Savastano Brungard, PLLC PO Box 219 Durango, CO 81302 Phone: 970-247-4545 Fax: 970-247-4546 Email: asavastano@trialdurango.com - and - Daniel E. Smolen, Esq. Lauren Lambright, Esq. Smolen & Roytman 701 S. CIN Ave. Tulsa, OK 74119 Phone: (918) 585-2267 Fax: (918) 585-2669 Email: danielsmolen@ssrok.com laurenlambright@ssrok.com - and - Mark A. Smith, Esq. Caruso Law Firm, P.C. 1325 East Fifteenth Street, Suite 201 Tulsa, CO 74120 Phone: a(918) 583-5900 (telephone) Fax: (918) 583-5902 (fax) Email: msmith@carusolawfirm.com FLOWERS FOODS: FLSA Class in Carr Suit Gets Final Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATTHEW CARR, TERRY CARR, DAVID TUMBLIN AND GREGORY BROWN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC. AND FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF OXFORD, INC., Defendants. LUKE BOULANGE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC. AND FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF OXFORD, INC., Defendants, Civil Action Nos. 15-6391, 16-2581 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey classes with respect to the Rule 23(b)(3) class, and denied with respect to the Rule 23(b)(2). Defendant Flowers Foods is a Georgia corporation that develops and markets bakery products on a national scale through its network of subsidiaries. Defendant Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, Inc. is one such subsidiary, which operates as the local sales and distribution manager in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia. The Plaintiffs are individual distributors who collect baked goods from Oxford warehouses and deliver them to customers -- mainly stores and restaurants. The Plaintiffs have provided testimony and documentary evidence detailing their work experience as distributors with Flowers. In short, they earn money by purchasing product from Flowers at a discount rate which is fixed unilaterally by Flowers, and selling it at a higher price to customers within a designated geographic area. The Plaintiffs assert that they have been improperly categorized as independent contractors rather than employees under federal and state law, and thereby deprived of overtime pay, other wages, and records. Named Plaintiffs Matthew Carr, Terry Carr, Tumblin, Brown, and Boulange bring suit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Defendants Flowers Foods, Inc. and its subsidiary, Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, Inc., for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law; the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act; the Maryland Wage and Payment Collection Law; the Maryland Wage and Hour Law; the New Jersey Wage and Payment Law; and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. On Jan. 9, 2017, the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims were conditionally certified as a collective action. The Defendants now move to decertify that collective action. Separately, the Plaintiffs move to certify three independent class actions pertaining to three states -- Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey -- where distributors work. The three classes that the Plaintiffs seek to certify are defined as all persons who, at any time from Dec. 1, 2012 continuing through entry of judgment in the case, worked as distributors for Flowers Foods, Inc. and/or Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, Inc., in Pennsylvania, Maryland, or New Jersey and were classified as independent contractors under their distribution agreements. Accordingly, the issue before the Court is whether the Plaintiffs' claims are suitable for group adjudication. Specifically, with regard to the FLSA, the Court must determine whether the named Plaintiffs and approximately 100 other distributors who have opted into the lawsuit may receive final certification to proceed as a collective. Separately, the Court must determine whether three classes, representing the distributors of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey, may be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Judge Beetlestone finds that given the number of class members, the common interest in correctly determining the employee status of the class, and the prevalence of common questions of law and fact, a class action provides a significantly more efficient litigation vehicle than individual trials. As to the existence of overlapping litigation, there are a number of similar suits against Flowers winding through the federal court system elsewhere,8 but each is confined to a separate geographic area, and does not appear to involve the class members -- i.e., distributors in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey, respectively. Further, given the difficulty of mounting litigation, and the limited resources available to the individual distributors, individual suits would likely impede resolution of the individual class members' claims. Finally, there are considerable efficiency gains in concentrating all three of these class actions in the Court, given the many similar issues applicable to their claims. The Defendants, for their part, make no argument regarding superiority. In sum, for the reasons given, certification of the Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) is warranted. The Plaintiffs include their request for certification under (b)(2) almost as an afterthought, treating (b)(2) certification as flowing necessarily from (b)(3) certification. But, the Judge finds that the the two subsections actually create two remarkably different litigation devices with (b)(3) permitting certification in a "much wider set of circumstances" than (b)(2). Further, courts diverge in their treatment of simultaneous (b)(3) and (b)(2) certification requests in analogous contexts. The Plaintiffs, by simply grafting the (b)(2) proposal onto the (b)(3) analysis absent further advocacy and analysis, have failed to carry their burden to show that certification is appropriate pursuant to both sections. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey classes will be granted with respect to the Rule 23(b)(3) class, and will be denied with respect to the Rule 23(b)(2). For the reasons given, Judge Beetlestone granted final certification of the FLSA collective action, and certification of the Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). She denied certification of the state class actions pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). The Judge denied the Defendants' motion to decertify the FLSA collective action. An appropriate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/J9vk5e from Leagle.com. LUKE BOULANGE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES J. HOLLAWELL, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES J. HOLLAWELL, JAMES CHARLES VEITH, VEITH LAW FIRM, MARK J. GOTTESFELD, THE WINEBRAKE LAW FIRM LLC, PETER D. WINEBRAKE -- pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC, R. ANDREW SANTILLO -- asantillo@winebrakelaw.com -- WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC, SCOTT A. MORIARITY -- samoriarity@baillonthome.com -- BAILLON THOMER JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP & SHAWN J. WANTA -- sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK MILLER & WANTA LLP. FLOWERS FOODS, INC. & FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF OXFORD, INC., Defendants, represented by AARON WARSHAW -- aaron.warshaw@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC, MARK DIANA -- mark.diana@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., ROBIN KOSHY -- robin.koshy@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK, & STEWART, P.C., CHRISTOPHER E. HUMBER -- chris.humber@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC, JULIE DONAHUE -- julie.donahue@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC, K. CLARK WHITNEY -- clark.whitney@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC & MARGARET S. HANRAHAN -- maggie.hanrahan@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART P.C.. FORD MOTOR: Lied About Fuel-Efficiency Testing Practices -------------------------------------------------------- TRACEY TRAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11639-SFC-RSW (E.D. Mich. June 4, 2019) asserts that Ford Motor Company engaged in a fraudulent and deceptive conduct regarding its fuel-efficiency testing practices, and tangled a web of deception that includes a mileage cheat device. Ford's calculated and intentionally wrongful conduct recently caused the federal government to initiate a criminal investigation into its practices, says the complaint. The Ford vehicle whose Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") fuel economy ratings were less than the fuel economy rating produced by the applicable federal test, including but not limited to the model year 2019 Ford Ranger truck are referred to as the "Affected Vehicles," and include the 2019 Ford Ranger Truck, and on information and belief, the F-150 series trucks, and may also include any and all other Ford vehicles. A mileage "cheat device" is also likely included in all Affected Vehicles, whereby the onboard trip meter continually misrepresents the vehicles' poor mileage to conceal it from vehicle owners, and maintains consistency with Ford's misrepresentations to the EPA during certification testing regarding both the mileage and emissions of the Affected Vehicles, the complaint relates. According to the complaint, Ford's motives were twofold: (1) customers choose and pay a premium for fuel efficiency and the resulting savings, and (2) less fuel burned means less emissions, and therefore more profits under the U.S. environmental regulations. Ford has admitted that its newest model of truck, the 2019 Ranger, is the first model that should be investigated by the government. The popular Ford F-150 appears to have the same issue. Indeed, Ford has not described the problem as vehicle specific, and the Class may extend to other Ford vehicles. Ford deliberately misrepresented or miscalculated certain road testing factors during internal vehicle testing processes in order to report that its vehicles were more fuel efficient than they actually were. In particular, Ford miscalculated something called "Road Load," which is the force that is imparted on a vehicle while driving at a constant speed over a smooth, level surface from sources such as tire rolling resistance, driveline losses, and aerodynamic drag. Ford's internal lab tests did not account for these forces, which lead to better--and entirely inaccurate--fuel economy projections. Despite Ford's own employees questioning its testing practices and the calculations that Ford was utilizing for fuel economy ratings, at least by September 2018, Ford took no action to correct the problems, or alert consumers that their test methods were flawed and that consumers would not get the promised fuel economy. Ford's representations are deceptive and false, and Ford sold its 2019 Ford Rangers while omitting information that would be material to a reasonable consumer, namely that Ford miscalculated factors during internal vehicle testing processes in order to report that its vehicles were more fuel efficient than they actually were, and discounting common real-world driving conditions, says the complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the 2019 Ford Ranger model is affected by the unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and otherwise defective fuel efficiency testing protocol utilized by Ford. In addition, Ford markets the Affected Vehicles as "fuel efficient" and "best-in-class" in fuel economy. Without manipulating its testing procedures and ignoring common road conditions, Ford could not achieve the fuel economy and range it promises, says the complaint. Plaintiff purchased the new 2019 Ranger Lariat model, with VIN 1FTER4FH2KLA10885, from All American Ford located in Hackensack, New Jersey. Ford Motor Company is a corporation doing business in all 50 states and the District of Columbia who manufactured, sold, and warranted the Affected Vehicles throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. One West 4th Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Jason Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Tower Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Phone No.: (248) 355-0300 Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com - and - Robert C. Hilliard, Esq. HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP 719 S. Shoreline Boulevard Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Phone No.: (361) 882-1612 Facsimile No.: (361) 882-3015 Email: hmgservice@hmglawfirm.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Corvette Faulty Wheels -------------------------------------------------------------- Coleman Molnar, writing for Driving, reports that a class-action lawsuit against General Motors claims some Chevrolet Corvettes have wheels prone to bending and cracking at "extremely low mileage," and that the company knew about it and has been blaming drivers. According to automotive watchdog site Car Complaints, the class-action suit is on behalf of anyone who purchased or leased a 2015-or-newer Corvette Z06 model, or a 2017-or-newer Grand Sport model within the U.S. It claims GM was aware of the issues with the alloy rims that causes them to bend and crack, and has been "systematically denying coverage" under the usually all-inclusive 36,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranties. The lawsuit cites GM as blaming "potholes or other driver error" for bent or cracked wheels, instead of admitting inherent fault. The issue came to light when a customer took delivery of a leased 2018 Corvette from a California dealership last summer and discovered the wheels were bent. Actually, it was a Cali wheel-finishing company, CalChrome, that was tasked with coating the wheels that noticed the damage. When the issue was brought up with the dealer, however, the customer was told the warranty wouldn't cover the busted alloys, and that the issue was likely caused by the way the car had been driven. Following some persistent complaining, GM agreed to pay US$1,200, a fraction of the US$7,500 the customer ended up personally paying to replace the wheels (looks like they may have been ripped off there, too). GM is being accused of knowing about the issue and covering it up prior to the 2018 sale that sparked the lawsuit. Multiple other complaints regarding the specific 'Vette models' wheels had been registered with the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Car and Driver also covered the issue as it pertained to a 2017 Corvette Grand Sport it was testing last fall. [GN] GHS INTERACTIVE: Miholich Sues over Unwanted Cellular Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE MIHOLICH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GHS INTERACTIVE SECURITY, LLC, and DOES, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01032-BEN-AGS (S.D. Cal., May 31, 2019), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of GHS in negligently and/or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. There are online complaints about Defendant's calling practices, including numerous complaints that Defendant placed unsolicited recorded message calls even to people who were on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The Plaintiff did not have a business relationship with GHS. The Plaintiff's telephone number was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, the lawsuit says. On or about May 28, 2019, at approximately 11:37 a.m., GHS or it's authorized agent called Plaintiff on his cellular telephone number ending in "5823" from telephone number displayed as (760) 667-2166. The Defendant did not have prior express written consent to call Plaintiff's cell phone with an automated telephone dialing system or with a prerecorded voice message.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Alex S. Madar, Esq. MADAR LAW CORPORATION 14410 Via Venezia No. 1404 San Diego, CA 92129-1666 Telephone: (858) 299-5879 Facsimile: (619) 354-7281 E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Transient Tax-Related Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that plaintiffs in the Transient Lodging Tax-related suit have taken an appeal from the District Court decision granting the defendants joint motion to dismiss. On August 31, 2018, prior guests of The Strat filed a purported class action complaint against the Company in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of similarly situated individuals and entities that paid the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax ("Tax") on the portion of a resort fee that constitutes charges for Internet access, during the period of February 6, 2014 through the date the alleged conduct ceases. The lawsuit alleged that the Tax was charged in violation of the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which imposed a national moratorium on the taxation of Internet access by states and their political subdivisions, and sought, on behalf of the plaintiff and the putative class, damages equal to the amount of the Tax collected on the Internet access component of the resort fee, injunctive relief, disgorgement, interest, fees and costs. All defendants to this matter, including Golden Entertainment, Inc., filed a joint motion to dismiss this matter for lack of merit. The District Court granted this joint motion to dismiss on February 21, 2019. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court decision, on April 10, 2019, to the Supreme Court of Nevada. Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc. and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015. The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: June 2019 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a final fairness hearing to consider approval of the settlement in a class action lawsuit in Nevada is scheduled for June 2019. In February and April 2017, several former employees filed two separate purported class action lawsuits against the Company in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of similarly situated individuals employed by the Company in the State of Nevada. The lawsuits allege that the Company violated certain Nevada labor laws including payment of an hourly wage below the statutory minimum wage without providing a qualified health insurance plan and an associated failure to pay proper overtime compensation. The complaints seek, on behalf of the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, an unspecified amount of damages (including punitive damages), injunctive and equitable relief, and an award of attorneys' fees, interest and costs. The Company agreed to settle the first of these cases in the fourth quarter of 2017 and the second of these cases in the third quarter of 2018. In February 2019, the court approved the settlement for the first case for $0.5 million. The remaining case remains subject to final court approval, with the final fairness hearing scheduled for June 2019, and is included in the Company's recorded reserves of $1.0 million at March 31, 2019. Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc. and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015. The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. HAIN CELESTIAL: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hain Celestial 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 the lead plaintiffs in the case, In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, have submitted a seconded amended complaint. On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.; (2) Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.; and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation, appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Action"), and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an absent class member. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August 4, 2017 and a Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5, 2013 and February 10, 2017 (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers (collectively, the "Defendants") and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 3, 2017. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 1, 2017, and Defendants filed the reply on January 16, 2018. On April 4, 2018, the Court requested additional briefing relating to certain aspects of Defendants' motion to dismiss. In accordance with this request, Lead Plaintiffs submitted their supplemental brief on April 18, 2018, and Defendants submitted an opposition on May 2, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on May 9, 2018, and Defendants submitted a sur-reply on May 16, 2018. On March 29, 2019, the Court granted Defendant's motion, dismissing the Amended Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice to replead. Lead Plaintiffs filed a seconded amended complaint on May 6, 2019. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake Success, New York. HAIN CELESTIAL: Agrees to Stay Consolidated Stockholder Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hain Celestial 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 the parties to the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action have agreed to continue the stay of Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint. On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al. (the "Silva Complaint") and Barnes v. Simon, et al. (the "Barnes Complaint"), respectively. Both the Silva Complaint and the Barnes Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under seal in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company's directors and certain officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects and financial results. The complaint also alleges that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. On August 9, 2017, the Court granted an order to unseal this case and reveal Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff (the "Merenstein Complaint"). On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties stipulation to consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the "Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action") and to appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs. On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the caption Oliver v. Berke, et al. (the "Oliver Complaint"), and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver Complaint was consolidated with the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint under seal on October 26, 2017. On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint through and including 30 days after a decision is rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the consolidated Securities Class Actions. After the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint in the Securities Class Actions, the parties to the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action agreed to continue the stay of Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint. The stay is continued through the later of: (a) 30 days after the deadline for plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint in the Securities Class Actions; or, (b) if plaintiffs file a second amended complaint, and Defendants file a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, thirty (30) days after the Court rules on the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the Securities Class Actions. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake Success, New York. HERTZ LOCAL: Removes Moore Case to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------- Hertz Local Edition Corp. removes the case, WENDELLYN MOORE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), the Plaintiff, vs. HERTZ LOCAL EDITION CORP., a Delaware corporation; THE HERTZ CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00022128 CU-18 OE-CTL (Filed April 29, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 31, 2019. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01027-GPC-KSC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff and the class she purports to represent seek pay for alleged unpaid overtime, premium pay for missed meal and rest breaks, and other payments for members of the putative class whose employment was terminated from Hertz and HLE.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants: Robert A. Dolinko, Esq. William S. Lisa, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP One Embarcadero Center, 32nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-984-8200 Facsimile: 415-984-8300 E-mail: rdolinko@nixonpeabody.com wlisa@nixonpeabody.com HOLLISTER CO: Haggar et al. Sue over Website's Limited Access ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Hollister Co. California, LLC for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The case is captioned ELIA HAGGAR; KYO HAK CHU; VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. HOLLISTER CO. CALIFORNIA, LLC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04264 (C.D. Cal., May 17, 2019). Plaintiffs Elia Haggar, Kyo Hak Chu and Valerie Brooks allege that Defendants' website, https://www.hollisterco.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Hollister Co. is a California corporation, with its headquarters in Ohio. The company's website provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including store locators, information about gift cards, access to an assortment of men and women’s apparel including denim jeans, joggers, shorts, graphic tees, crewneck t-shirts, hoodies, polo shirts, dresses, overalls, rompers, swimwear, outerwear, under garments, sleepwear and loungewear, body care including fragrance and cologne, body creams, body wash, body mist, face masks, footwear including flip flops, sandals, slides, accessories including candles, air fresheners, backpacks, hats, key chains, belts, socks, bandannas and other products and services, which are available online and in retail stores for purchase. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bobby Saadian, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 HOMEFED CORPORATION: Wolf Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- JACK WOLF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HOMEFED CORPORATION, JOSEPH S. STEINBERG, PAUL J. BORDEN, PATRICK D. BIENVENUE, TIMOTHY M. CONSIDINE, JIMMY HALLAC, BRIAN P. FRIEDMAN, MICHAEL A. LOBATZ, JEFFERIES FINANCIAL GROUP INC., and HEAT MERGER SUB, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01039-UNA (D. Del. June 4, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on April 15, 2019 (the "Proposed Transaction"), pursuant to which HomeFed Corporation ("HomeFed" or the "Company") will be acquired by Jefferies Financial Group Inc. ("Parent") and Heat Merger Sub, LLC ("Merger Sub," and collectively with Parent, "Jefferies"). Jefferies currently owns approximately 70% of the outstanding shares of common stock of HomeFed. On April 12, 2019, HomeFed's Board of Directors (the "Board" or "Individual Defendants") caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Jefferies, which was amended on May 2, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Jefferies will issue two shares of Jefferies common stock for each share of HomeFed common stock to be acquired by Jefferies. On May 17, 2019, defendants filed a registration statement (the "Registration Statement") with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for June 28, 2019. The Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") in connection with the Registration Statement, says the complaint. Plaintiff is the owner of HomeFed common stock. HomeFed is a developer and owner of residential and mixed-use real estate projects in California, Virginia, South Carolina, Florida, Maine, and New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com HUDSON'S BAY: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Rudolph Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALEXANDRIA RUDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY, SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, SAKS & COMPANY LLC, SAKS INCORPORATED and LORD & TAYLOR LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-8472 (PKC) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants move to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In November 2017, Rudolph used her Visa-issued debit card to make purchases at a Saks OFF 5TH store in Beverly Hills, California. The card was linked to an account that Rudolph maintained at Bank of America. In May 2018, Bank of America notified Rudolph of suspected fraudulent activity on her card and temporarily froze the account. She incurred no fraudulent charges, her account was soon unfrozen and she quickly obtained a replacement card at a branch location of the bank. The previous month, in April 2018, it was publicly disclosed that a group of hackers had breached the payment-card databases of Defendants Saks Fifth Avenue LLC, Saks & Co. LLC, Saks Inc. and Lord & Taylor LLC, all of which are owned by a parent company, Defendant Hudson's. The breach was limited to the names and account numbers of customer credit and debit cards. There is no allegation that hackers accessed other types of information, like social security numbers, site passwords, birth dates or contact information. Rudolph now brings the putative class action asserting state law claims directed to the breach of her debit-card data. According to the Complaint, Rudolph is at a substantially increased risk of future fraud or identity theft due to hackers' possession of her card data, and she has a continuing interest in protecting that data from misuse. She also asserts that she was injured due to the expenditure of time in dealing with the breach and obtaining a new debit card, as well as the out-of-pocket expense of the gasoline that was needed to drive 25 miles to a Bank of America branch when she obtained the new card. The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to allege subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). They urge that Rudolph has not adequately alleged an existing injury-in-fact or an actionable risk of future injury, as required to demonstrate Article III standing. They argue that Rudolph has described a data breach limited to the name and account number of a since-canceled debit card, which does not plausibly put her at risk of future injury. The Defendants further contend that Rudolph has not adequately alleged why the mitigation and monitoring efforts that she undertook upon learning of the breach were reasonable and necessary; they note that her bank immediately canceled the debit card and no fraudulent were charges incurred. Judge Castel finds that courts, including the Second Circuit, have looked to the facts surrounding a data breach when deciding whether a complaint adequately alleges a risk of future injury and the plaintiff's claim for compensable mitigation expenses. He concludes that the Complaint has failed to allege that Rudolph is at a substantial risk of future injury. However, the time and expense that she expended in order to obtain a replacement debit card are sufficient to satisfy the "low threshold" required to allege injury-in-fact and demonstrate Article III standing. For these reasons, he granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) as to Rudolph's claim for negligence per se, her claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act, her claim under Mississippi's consumer-protection statute, and her notice-based claim under California's Customer Records Act. The Defendants' motion is otherwise denied as to her common law claims of negligence, breach of contract and unjust enrichment, her claim under California's Unfair Competition Law, and her claim that the the Defendants did not implement reasonable data-security procedures under the California Customer Records Act. The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion. A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/kIEZHr from Leagle.com. Alexandria Rudolph, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Heikali -- bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua Nassir -- jnassir@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, Nina Mahesh Varindani -- nvarindani@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP & Timothy J. Peter -- tpeter@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP. Hudsons Bay Company, a Canadian corporation, Saks Fifth Avenue LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company, Saks Incorporated, a Tennessee corporation & Lord & Taylor LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, represented by Ezra Dodd Church, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Gregory T. Parks -- gregory.parks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kenneth Ian Schacter -- kenneth.schacter@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Kristin Mckeon Hadgis -- kristin.hadgis@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP. Saks and Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Ezra Dodd Church, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Gregory T. Parks, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kenneth Ian Schacter, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Jawad B. Muaddi, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Kristin Mckeon Hadgis, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Nicolette Leilani Young, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. Margo Kyler Knight, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Latusha Vains, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Jane Lefkowitz, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Greta Moss, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Hope Tafet, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Debbie Carthan, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Jeanne Sacklow, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Erika Targum, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Leslie Levitt-Raschella, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. John Cona, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Cassondra Joseph, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Kelly McGurn, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Wendy Haggarty, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Mark Wade, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Julia Harris, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Larry Payne, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Bernadette Beekman, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Georgina Meduri, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. Cassandra Meduri, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se. HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action Over Elantra Piston Defect ------------------------------------------------------ Jenna Sachs, writing for Fox6Now.com, reports that a Fredonia man wants Hyundai to recall several Elantras after his daughter's vehicle started making a strange sound. There's evidence others have experienced the same problem. "So when you started the car up first thing in the morning at a cold start, it was just like, you're knocking on a piece of wood. It just sounded very odd," said Mark Wildermuth. At just over 100,000 miles, Wildermuth's daughter Sophia heard a knocking noise coming from her 2012 Hyundai Elantra. "I brought it to our independent mechanic. He said, 'Yeah. It sounds like you need a new engine,'" said Wildermuth. It had been a year since Sophie bought the vehicle for $8,000 -- with little help from her parents. Estimates to repair the engine were half that. Her dad turned to Hyundai. "They told me that we were the second owner of the vehicle and that the 100,000 warranty doesn't apply to second owners," said Wildermuth. A class-action lawsuit alleged a piston defect in many 2011-2016 Hyundai Elantras, and said, "Once the fateful engine knock sound begins, the class vehicle's engine will inevitably fail completely." "Anyone that owns a 1.8 nu Hyundai Elantra vehicle really has a ticking time bomb," said Matt Schelkopf, class-action attorney. Schelkopf pointed to a 2014 Hyundai service bulletin issued in Canada acknowledging the defect in some Elantras and outlining a "series of corrective measures," but even though the vehicles were made in the same factories, a recall wasn't issued anywhere. "Hyundai of North American never did such a thing," said Schelkopf. "I've done everything I can think of," said Wildermuth. The Contact 6 team reached out to Hyundai and was told even though the vehicle "is outside the warranty period for secondary owners," Hyundai "has reached a resolution with Mr. Wildermuth to compensate him." "I got a call back from Hyundai saying, 'Congratulations. We're going to warranty the engine,'" said Wildermuth. Wildermuth got a check from Hyundai for more than $4,000. Hyundai officials said the performance of vehicles are constantly evaluated and swift action is taken to recall any with safety-related defects. [GN] IDT ENERGY: Bid to Quash Subpoena in Mackey TCPA Suit Partly Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN THE MATTER OF A DOCUMENT SUBPOENA SERVED IN: SCOTT MACKEY AND DANIEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IDT ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19 Misc. 29 (PAE) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Fluent, LLC's motion to quash a subpoena served on it by Daniel Hernandez in Mackey v. IDT Energy, Inc., No. 18 Civ. 6756 (N.D. Ill. 2008). Fluent provides marketing information to clients including IDT, an energy services company. On Oct. 5, 2018, Mackey and Hernandez filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Plaintiffs' lawsuit alleges that IDT violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), by making unauthorized and unwanted calls to them. Specifically, Mackey claims that between fall 2016 and early 2017, he received telemarketing calls on his cellphone from, or on behalf of, IDT. Upon answering, he would have to say "hello" multiple times before a person began to speak on the line, indicating that these calls were made using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). Hernandez claims that beginning in March 2018, IDT used ATDS to call his cellphone repeatedly to solicit his business without his prior written consent. The Plaintiffs allege that their cellphone numbers were each registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for more than eight years before receiving the calls at issue in the case. They allege that IDT engaged in similar unlawful practices against persons in two nationwide classes during the four-year period preceding the filing of the Complaint -- one, a class of cell phone users; the other, a class of persons on the National Do-Not-Call registry. On Nov. 30, 2018, IDT filed its answer with affirmative defenses. These included that, as to Hernandez, any TCPA claim is barred because, in completing his registration on a Fluent-owned and operated website, Hernandez had given express written consent to be contacted by or on behalf of IDT. IDT argues that at the time Hernandez purportedly consented to be contacted, he had also agreed in writing that any dispute would be submitted to arbitration for resolution. As to Mackey, the Defendants dispute that they ever called his number. Fact discovery in the underlying litigation is ongoing. The fact discovery deadline is Oct. 30, 2019, and the expert discovery deadline is Feb. 28, 2020. Dispositive motions are due May 1, 2020. The Plaintiffs have not yet filed the anticipated motion for class certification. Neither party has moved to compel arbitration. On Jan. 7, 2019, Hernandez served a subpoena duces tecum on Fluent. The Subpoena makes nine requests for documents. Most seek documents relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims on behalf of the putative class. One request, Request No. 7, is keyed to Hernandez. None reference Mackey. The nine requests are: Request No. 1 seeks all calls and text messages made for IDT since Jan. 1, 2015, and documents reflecting, inter alia, the identities of the person Fluent was trying to reach; the date and time of the call; the text of the response, if any, to the call; and the prior express consent of the called party. Request No. 2 seeks documents sufficient to identify any third party in possession of documents responsive to Request No. 1. Request No. 3 seeks records reflecting the source(s) of the telephone numbers provided to IDT. Request No. 4 seeks records reflecting Fluent's process for obtaining consent for other companies to send telemarketing calls on its behalf. Request No. 5 seeks records reflecting any express consent Fluent claims to have obtained from called individuals. Request No. 6 seeks documents regarding the websites through which Fluent claims to have obtained such consent, including, inter alia, the specific webpages that Fluent claims constitutes consent or permission, access and error logs and security and fraud alerts for those websites, the identity of any vendor or company used for any website responsive to these requests that is used by that website for visitor traffic reporting, the bandwidth usage for any website responsive to these requests during the period one clims it visits to that website constituted consent or permission to contact any putative class member with telemarketing calls promoting IDT's Energy goods or services, and the identity of third parties in possession of documents responsive to this request. Request No. 7 seeks all documents related to Hernandez and his phone number. Request No. 8 seeks all communications concerning IDT. Request No. 9 seeks all communications between Fluent and any third party concerning the underlying litigation. On Jan. 22, 2019, Fluent filed a motion in the Court to quash the Subpoena, and a supporting memorandum of law and accompanying exhibits. The exhibits include the Subpoena; the underlying Complaint; and an affidavit of Harshit Cokshi. On Feb. 12, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an opposing memorandum of law, an affidavit from Hernandez, and the parties' Rule 26(f) Initial Planning Report submitting in the underlying litigation. On Feb. 19, 2019, Fluent filed a reply. Fluent argues that the Court should quash the Subpoena for two reasons: First, Fluent contends, the Subpoena demands that documents be produced beyond the 100-mile geographical limit specified in Rule 45(c). Second, Fluent argues, complying with the Subpoena would be unduly burdensome, given (1) the prospect of compelled arbitration, (2) the fact that a class has yet to be certified, and (3) its status as a non-party. Opposing the motion to quash, Hernandez contends that when documents are produced electronically, production occurs at the location where they are uploaded, thereby satisfying the 100-mile requirement of Rule 45(c). In addition, as to Fluent's contention that the Subpoena is unduly burdensome, Hernandez responds that (1) he never consented to be contacted by IDT or its agents or to litigate his claims through arbitration, (2) the information sought in this Subpoena is necessary to obtain class certification, and (3) Fluent has not offered evidence that electronic production will be otherwise burdensome. Judge Engelmayer finds that for two independent reasons, Fluent is wrong to claim a breach of the geographic limits in Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(ii). First, the case law favors Hernandez as to this point. Fluent has not pointed to any contrary case authority, to wit, cases holding that electronic production of documents in the manner called for by the Subpoena would violate the 100-mile limit. Second, as an alternative, the Plaintiffs' counsel has offered to travel to New York City -- where Fluent is based -- to retrieve the documents, which it asks be uploaded to a portable hard drive. This mode of production -- contemplating onsite pickup in New York City -- would also comply with Rule 45(c). The Judge next finds that Hernandez has not demonstrated that records created before Jan. 1, 2018 are relevant to his claims. Fluent rightly notes that Hernandez has made no effort whatsoever to limit the Subpoena to the time frame when Plaintiff Hernandez was allegedly first called, to wit, March 2018, or to the Fluent campaign then existing. He also finds that Hernandez's document requests are too sweeping insofar as they seek records for all calls and text messages made on behalf of IDT. Finally, as to the Subpoena's surviving requests (Nos. 1-7), the Judge therefore will enforce these requests to the extent they bear on Hernandez's own claims. He has already limited the scope of these claims to materials bearing on conduct on or after Jan. 1, 2018, and to Fluent's efforts to reach customers on behalf of IDT by means of ADTS. He further limits these requests to documents relevant to Hernandez's own claims. Accordingly, Request No. 1 is sustained to the extent it seeks the information recited relating to communications to Hernandez; Request No. 2 is sustained to the extent it documents identifying any third party who may be in possession of records responsive to Request No. 1 as modified here; Request No. 3 is sustained to the extent it seeks the source of phone number(s) of Hernandez's that were provided to IDT; Request Nos. 4-6 are sustained to the extent they seek information about whether Fluent obtained consent from Hernandez to the receipt of such calls; and Request No. 7 is sustained to the extent it seeks all documents regarding Hernandez or his phone number. These requests are otherwise quashed, on account of undue burden, without prejudice to Hernandez's right to renew the broader requests in the Subpoena in the event that Hernandez's claims in the Northern District survive the motions that Fluent's opposition papers anticipate. For the foregoing reasons, and to the extent indicated, Judge Engelmayer enforced in part, while quashed in part, Hernandez's Subpoena directed at records of third-party Fluent. Subject to any orders by the Northern District of Illinois modifying the schedule, Fluent will produce the requested documents within the next three weeks (i.e., no later than May 28, 2019). The Judge respectfully requests that the Clerk of Court terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 1 and close the case in the District. A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/p4WRkk from Leagle.com. Fluent, LLC, Movant, represented by Brian P. Astrup -- bastrup@kleinmoynihan.com -- Klein Moynihan Turco LLP. Daniel Hernandez, Respondent, represented by Edward Anthony Broderick -- anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick Law. P.C. & Kim Eleazer Richman -- krichman@richmanlawgroup.com -- Richman Law Group. Scott Mackey, Respondent, represented by Kim Eleazer Richman, Richman Law Group. IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Consolidate Odeh & Choi Suits Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Immunomedics, 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 consolidation of the cases, Odeh v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al. and Choi v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al. have been sought. A purported class action case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Odeh v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed December 27, 2018. The complaint in this action alleges that the Company failed to disclose the results of observations made by the FDA during an inspection of the Company's manufacturing facility in Morris Plains, New Jersey in August, 2018. The complaint alleges that Immunomedics misled investors by failing to disclose the Form 483 inspection report issued by the FDA which set forth the observations of the FDA inspector during the inspection. Such observations purportedly included, inter alia, manipulated bioburden samples, misrepresentation of an integrity test procedure in the batch record, and backdating of batch records. The complaint further alleges that the Company's failure to disclose the Form 483 resulted in an artificially inflated price for our common stock, and that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 8, 2019, a purported class action case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Choi v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al. The complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws based on claims that that the Company violated the federal securities laws by making alleged misstatements in various press releases and securities filings from February 8, 2018 to November 7, 2018 and by failing to disclose the substance of its interactions with the FDA in connection with the Company's submission of its BLA for sacituzumab govitecan. Motions for the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and to consolidate the Odeh and Choi complaints have been filed. Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey. IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Wins Dismissal of Consolidated Fergus Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Immunomedics, 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 court has granted the Company's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, and left plaintiffs in the consolidated Fergus lawsuit with the ability to file an amended complaint. Two purported class action cases were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed June 9, 2016; and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed June 10, 2016. These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances, and seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with respect to the Becker matter). These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases, investor conference calls, and filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") beginning in April 2016 that the Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois. The complaints allege that these statements were false and misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had canceled the presentation because it contained previously reported information. The complaints further allege that these statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock, and that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. An order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice was entered on November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter. An order granting motion to consolidate cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and approve lead and liaison counsel was entered on February 7, 2017 in the Fergus matter. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 4, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on January 26, 2018. On March 31, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, and left plaintiffs with the ability to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Counsel for the Company has consented to an extension of time for plaintiffs to file the proposed amended complaint for an additional 30 days. Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Amended Complaint Filed in Batres Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that an amended complaint has been filed in Batres v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage. On December 27, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled Batres v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage. The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and purported class members overtime compensation, provide required meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements. The action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest, attorney's fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief. On March 14, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging only a violation of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act seeking penalties, attorneys' fees, and such other appropriate relief. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal Ongoing in Timm Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company has filed its opening appellate brief in the class action suit entitled, Timm, v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al. On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a breach of a fiduciary duty. The action seeks the payment of two quarterly dividends for the Preferred B and C holders, the unwinding of the consents and reinstatement of the cumulative dividend on the Preferred B and C stock, and the election of two directors by the Preferred B and C holders. The action also seeks punitive damages and legal expenses. On July 16, 2018, the Court entered a Judgement Order whereby it (1) declared and entered judgment in favor of all defendants on all claims related to the Preferred C holders and all claims against all individual defendants thereby affirming the validity of the 2009 amendments to the Series B Articles Supplementary; (2) declared its interpretation of the voting provision language in the Preferred B Articles Supplementary to mean that consent of two-thirds of the Preferred B stockholders was required to approve the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles Supplementary, which consent was not obtained, thus rendering the amendments invalid and leaving the 2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary in effect; (3) ordered the Company to hold a special election within sixty days for the Preferred B stockholders to elect two directors to the Board of Directors pursuant to the 2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary (which Directors will remain on the Company's Board of Directors until such time as all accumulated dividends on the Preferred B have been paid or set aside for payment) and, (4) declared that the Company is required to pay three quarters of dividends on the Preferred B stock under the 2004 Articles Supplementary (approximately, $1.2 million, but did not order the Company to make any payment at this time). The Court declined to certify any class pending the outcome of appeals and certified its Judgment Order for immediate appeal. On April 10, 2019, the Company filed its opening appellate brief. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Bid to Arbitrate Riggin's Class Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court in the case, Riggin v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage, has granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's individual claims and stayed all other claims pending completion of the arbitration. On November 2, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled Riggin v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage. The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and purported class members overtime compensation, provide required meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements. The action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest, attorney's fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief. On February 15, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's individual claims and stayed all other claims pending completion of the arbitration. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Continues to Defend McNair Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, McNair v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage. On September 18, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled McNair v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage. The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and purported class members overtime compensation, provide required meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements. The action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest, attorney's fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief. On March 8, 2019, a First Amended Complaint was filed, which added a claim alleging violations of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). On March 12, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation with the court stating (1) the plaintiff's individual claims should be arbitrated pursuant to the parties' arbitration agreement, (2) the class claims should be struck from the First Amended Complaint, and (3) the plaintiff will proceed solely with regard to her PAGA claims. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Notice of Appeal Filed in Marentes Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., filed their Notice of Appeal. On April 30, 2012, a purported class action was filed entitled Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain loan modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the fees charged are improper. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and prejudgment interest. On August 22, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant and on October 2, 2012, the plaintiffs dismissed Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., without prejudice. On January 11, 2019, the trial court determined that the plaintiffs were unable to prove their case and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant. On April 19, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Parties in Baker Suit Ink Settlement ---------------------------------------------------- Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in Baker, et al. v. Century Financial Group, et al., have entered into a settlement agreement that resolved all matters among them. In 2001, Baker, et al. v. Century Financial Group, et al., was filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, as a putative class action against the Company, Century Financial, and others, claiming violations of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loan Act. Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and the members of the putative class, among other things, disgorgement or restitution of all allegedly improperly-collected charges, the right to rescind all affected loan transactions, the right to offset any finance charges, closing costs, points or other loan fees paid against the principal amounts due on the loans if rescinded, actual and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On March 12, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that resolved all matters among them. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. INNOVATIVE COURIER: Rutledge Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------- A case, STANLEY RUTLEDGE, JR. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. INNOVATIVE COURIER SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00251 (W.D.N.C., May 31, 2019), alleges that Mr. Rutledge and other similarly situated drivers were improperly classified as independent contractors, and as a result, did not receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, ICS is in the business of providing delivery services for a wide range of businesses. Among these, ICS delivers pharmaceuticals to stores and hospitals in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. To carry out this central function of ICS's business, ICS contracts with individuals, like Rutledge, to unload delivery trucks, load delivery vehicles, and deliver merchandise to customers' businesses. Although ICS classifies Rutledge and the Collective Members as "independent contractors," the economic reality of the arrangement is that these individuals are employees of ICS. ICS controls and supervises the delivery process performed by Rutledge and the Collective Members. Rutledge and the Collective Members were not paid an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek. ICS did not record or track the hours worked by Rutledge and the Collective Members. ICS had knowledge that Rutledge and the Collective Members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plainitffs: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. Craig L. Leis, Esq. Jason S. Chestnut, Esq. GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC 14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325 Charlotte, NC 28277 Telephone: 704-612-0038 E-mail: phil@philgibbonslaw.com craig@gibbonsleis.com jason@gibbonsleis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wilson Talc Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products Company removed on May 16, 2019, the lawsuit titled Tanyeonh Wilson v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 4489, from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02138-GAM to the proceeding. On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are related to the Debtors' bankruptcy. The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries -- specifically, ovarian cancer in Ms. Wilson. J&J disputes these allegations. The Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury. On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nancy J. Winkler, Esq. Todd A. Schoenhaus, Esq. EISENBERG, ROTHWEILER, WINKLER, EISENBERG & JECK, P.C. 1634 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 546-6636 E-mail: Nancy@erlegal.com Todd@erlegal.com Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. are represented by: Chanda A. Miller, Esq. Katherine McBeth, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996 Telephone: (215) 988-2700 E-mail: chanda.miller@dbr.com katherine.mcbeth@dbr.com JONES BENITEZ: Rios Sues over Pregnancy Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------ An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against Jones Benitez Corporation for violations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act. The case is captioned CARIDAD BAEZ RIOS, Plaintiff, v. JONES BENITEZ CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22106-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 23, 2019). Plaintiff Caridad Baez Rios alleges that Acapulco discriminated against her with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment based on her sex, more precisely on the basis of her status as a pregnant woman. Allegedly, Plaintiff was provided with a poor evaluation, demoted and replaced based on her pregnancy, and eventually was constructively discharged from work. Jones Benitez Corporation is a Florida profit corporation whose principal place of business is 14877 SW 45TH Court, Miramar, Florida. The company's primary nature of business includes heavy civil and bridge engineering construction. [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 LAMP PLUS: Mintz Attorney Discusses Supreme Court Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- Gilbert Samberg, Esq. -- GASamberg@mintz.com -- of Mintz, in an article for Mondaq, reports that predictably, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2943 (U.S. April 24, 2019), that, under the Federal Arbitration Act, neither silence nor "ambiguity" in an arbitration agreement regarding the permissibility of class arbitration enables a court to find that the parties agreed to permit class arbitration. According to the Court, consent is fundamental to arbitration, and such an agreement must be express and unambiguous because it would so drastically alter the nature of the proceeding from the simple "bilateral" process that was envisioned in the FAA. Notably too, the arbitration agreement in question required the use of, and thus incorporated by reference, either (a) the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes or (b) the JAMS Arbitration Rules and Procedures for Employment Disputes. See, id. at *45 (Kagan, dissenting); Varela v. Lamps Plus Inc., 16-CV-00577 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2016), Order at 2. Both of those sets of rules in turn incorporate by reference ancillary rules under which arbitrators could conduct class proceedings (e.g., the AAA Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitration (2011)). See, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2943 at *45. This had no effect on the Court's decision, implying that incorporation of such procedural rules is not a sufficient basis to infer an agreement to permit class arbitration either. For those employers, consumer product vendors, and financial service providers that have not yet added class and collective action waivers to their arbitration agreements, this decision provides protection in the current legal environment against the imposition of class arbitration proceedings without the parties' express consent. However, that environment could be changed by new legislation, which is quite evidently in contemplation both at the state and federal levels, and which might well be stimulated by the Lamps Plus decision. In Lamps Plus, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Ninth Circuit decision that the Court of Appeals originally designated "Not For Publication," and might easily have wished be forgotten. See, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 701 Fed. Appx. 670 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2017). The Ninth Circuit had in effect answered the unexpected question of "when is 'silence' in an arbitration clause concerning class arbitration not 'Stolt-Nielsen silence'?" See, Contractual 'Crickets' Are Sufficient for Ninth Circuit to Determine That Class Arbitration is Permitted, Distinguishing Stolt-Nielsen, Mintz Levin ADR Blog, Aug. 9, 2017. The parties had agreed that the arbitration agreement in question included no express mention of class proceedings. Nevertheless, the District Court and the Court of Appeals found that that agreement was ambiguous as to the permissibility of class arbitration, and they construed that ambiguity against the employer-drafter (Lamps Plus), applying the familiar contra proferentem rule, and permitted class arbitration to proceed with respect to all claims. And so we commented when the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review this case on April 30, 2018, "On the one hand, it seems surprising that the Ninth Circuit's "Not For Publication" opinion did not find a peaceful grave, but instead was pulled up into the harsh sunlight by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the Supreme Court can now tell us whether an agreement to permit class arbitration may be 'found' by a court without evident regard for the need for a plausible meeting of the minds, or whether an express agreement to permit class arbitration is required, given the Supreme Court's concern about the very considerable differences between 'class arbitration' and normal bilateral arbitration as envisioned in the FAA." Supreme Court Will Determine If Silence in an Arbitration Clause May be Judicially Interpreted to Permit Class Arbitration, Mintz Levin ADR Blog, May 4, 2018. The Supreme Court was evidently fully engaged despite this case's arguably esoteric subject. The policy implications of its decision with regard to the rights and remedies of employees and consumers appear to have evoked considerable concern in the Court's minority. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the 13-page opinion of the Court, which split 5-4 with the Court's conservative wing comprising the majority. (Justice Thomas added a 2-page concurrence.) This prompted dissenting opinions by Justices Ginsburg (5 pages), Breyer (9 pages), Sotomayor (3 pages), and Kagan (14 pages), respectively. Case History Varela was a Lamps Plus employee who brought a putative class action suit against the company in a federal district court in California concerning the effects of a data breach at the company. The employer moved to compel arbitration, as was required by the relevant employment agreement, and to dismiss the lawsuit. The District Court granted that application, but held that class arbitration was permitted. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. In doing so, the Court of Appeals adopted the District Court's opinion that even if the applicable arbitration agreement "does not expressly refer to class arbitration, that is not the 'silence' contemplated in Stolt-Nielsen." 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2943 at *7, citing 701 Fed. Appx. at 672. Jurisdiction Issue The Supreme Court first disposed of Varela's challenge to the Court's jurisdiction. See id. at *8-*10. It reiterated that a court order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration and dismissing all of the claims in litigation is "final" within the meaning of FAA Sec. 16(a)(3), 9 U.S.C. Sec. 16(a)(3), and therefore appealable. Id. at *8-*9, citing Green Tree Financial Corp. vs. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 89 (2000). Furthermore, the Court found that Lamps Plus had standing -- i.e., a personal stake in the appeal – because it had sought an order compelling bilateral arbitration, but the lower court had issued an order compelling arbitration on a class-wide basis. Id. at *9-*10. Supreme Court's Majority Opinion On the merits, then, the Supreme Court deferred to the Ninth Circuit's interpretation under state (California) law to the extent that it "accepted" that the arbitration agreement should be regarded as ambiguous on the relevant point. Id. at *10. On this basis, the Supreme Court distinguished the question before it from the question that it had already answered in Stolt-Nielsen concerning an arbitration agreement that was "silent" regarding class arbitration. The Court thus identified the question in Lamps Plus as "whether, consistent with the FAA, an ambiguous agreement can provide the necessary 'contractual basis' for compelling class arbitration." Id. at *10. The Court's holding that it "cannot" follows from its Stolt-Nielsen decision. The Supreme Court held in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010), that an arbitration agreement that is silent concerning the availability of class arbitration could not justify a judicial order compelling such a proceeding. The Ninth Circuit ruled that an arbitration agreement that said nothing about class arbitration was nevertheless "ambiguous" on the point, rather than "silent" in the way that the Stolt-Nielsen opinion contemplated, and that such ambiguity could be interpreted against the draftsman in order to reach the result that class arbitration was deemed agreed by the parties. The Supreme Court rejected that analysis. The Court had stated more than once that a "class arbitration" proceeding would be fundamentally different in nature from the bilateral arbitration envisioned by the FAA. The former sacrifices the informality of the contemplated bilateral process, as well as its speed, simplicity, and relative inexpensiveness, and instead produces a slower, more costly, and more complex process that looks like "the litigation it was meant to displace." See 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2943 at *13. It also markedly increases the jeopardy of a party-respondent that finds itself in such a proceeding.1 And so, given the "crucial differences" between individual and class arbitration, a "class arbitration" proceeding must be founded on "a contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to it." 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2943 at *13, *5, citing Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 684. In Lamps Plus, the Court concluded that class arbitration is so markedly different from traditional bilateral arbitration that the FAA "requires more than ambiguity to ensure that the parties actually agreed to arbitrate on a class-wide basis." Id. at *11. Hence, "neither silence nor ambiguity provides a sufficient basis for concluding that parties to an arbitration agreement agreed to undermine the central benefits of arbitration itself." Id. at *14. The Court saw an analogy in how it deals with who decides "gateway" issues of arbitrability. Courts presume that parties have not authorized arbitrators to decide such questions, but rather that they are for a court, unless the parties have clearly and unmistakably agreed otherwise. Neither silence nor ambiguity in that regard in the arbitration agreement meets that criterion either.2 See id. at *14. Ultimately, the principal legal issue concerned an apparent tension between (a) state contract law concerning the interpretation of ambiguous contract terms and (b) the fundamental rule under the FAA "that arbitration 'is a matter of consent, not coercion.'" Id. at *18, citing Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. 662, 681, 684 (2010). However, state law is preempted to the extent that it creates "an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives" of the FAA. Id., citing AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 352 (2011). Thus, the Court found unavailing Varela's argument that the state law contra proferentem rule of contract interpretation should determine the matter. The Court held that "the general contra proferentem rule cannot be applied to impose class arbitration in the absence of the parties' consent." Id. Moreover, the contra proferentem rule is not a contract interpretation rule that is intended to ascertain the parties' intent, but rather a rule of public policy that is applied only as a last resort "when the meaning of a provision remains ambiguous after exhausting the ordinary methods of interpretation." See id. at *14-*16. That is, it is "by definition triggered only after a court determines that it cannot discern the intent of the parties," and so it cannot be said to be designed to ascertain the parties' actual agreement. Id. at *16. Therefore, the application of that doctrine "does not help to determine the meaning that the two parties gave to the words, or even the meaning that a reasonable person would have given to the language used." Id. at *16-*17, citing 3 Corbin Contracts Sec. 559, at 269-70. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the application of the contra proferentem rule to ambiguous contract language is nondiscriminatory, in that it can be applied generally with regard to any agreement including an arbitration agreement, because such an application in this case would interfere with the fundamental attributes of arbitration and thus create a scheme inconsistent with the FAA. Id. at *18. Principal Dissenting Opinions In dissent, Justice Ginsburg reiterated the policy-based argument that she previously made in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. _____, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018). She opined that the FAA was enacted "to enable merchants of roughly equal bargaining power to enter into binding agreements to arbitrate commercial disputes," and was not designed to govern contracts "in which one of the parties characteristically has a little bargaining power". 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2943 at *21 (Ginsburg, dissenting). As a result of the Supreme Court's recent decisions, "employees and consumers forced to arbitrate solo face severe impediments to the 'vindication of their rights.'" Id. at *24. "When companies can 'muffle grievances in the cloakroom of arbitration,' the result is inevitable: curtailed enforcement of laws 'designed to advance the well-being of the vulnerable.'" Id. at *27 (citations omitted). Justice Ginsburg also in effect asked whether the consent to arbitration given by a prospective employee or employee in a take-it-or-leave-it adhesion situation was the sort upon which the Court should rely in its jurisprudence. Finally, Justice Kagan opined in dissent that the arbitration agreement in question was "best understood to authorize arbitration on a class-wide basis," id. at *42, but if it were viewed as ambiguous, then the FAA relies on state law for the interpretation of such agreements "so long as that law treats other types of contracts in the same way." She further opined that the California rules of contract interpretation that were applied in the case at bar (e.g., contra proferentem) were "plain-vanilla," and so likewise permitted class arbitration in this case. Id. In her view, the majority rejected the application of California state law concerning contract interpretation "only by insisting that the FAA trumps that neutral state rule whenever its application would result in class arbitration." Id. at *42-*43. Justice Kagan also points out that while "many of the majority's statements indicate that any tool for resolving contractual ambiguity is forbidden if it leads to class arbitration," id. at *54n.7, "the part of the opinion focusing on the anti-drafter rule i.e., contra proferentem suggests that the holding applies to only a subset of contract default rules -- to wit, those (supposedly) sounding in 'public policy considerations.'" Id. Notably, the latter interpretation of the majority opinion would detract from an absolute rule and suggest that an arbitration agreement that is ambiguous concerning the availability of class arbitration could indeed be interpreted to permit it if other state law contract interpretation rules were applied. Looking Ahead re "Class Arbitration" Arbitration is a creature of the parties' consent because the adjudicator (arbitrator) has only the authority that he is given by the parties' agreement. Parties agreeing to arbitrate can specify the identity of the arbitrator, the rules, and the issues that will be addressed; and the parties to such an agreement are thus the bound counterparties in the private proceeding that they have created. See id. at *12. The Supreme Court has not yet squarely addressed the fundamental question of who else could be bound by a bilateral agreement to permit "class arbitration" or by its consequences. That seems to be a dilemma for another day. [GN] LOCK HAVEN: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in Robb Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, EMILY ROBB, TARYN PIANO, TAYLOR PLOUSE, JACQUELYN BINGHAM, TAMIA ROACH, MACKENZIE FARLEY, KAYLA BRATHWAITE, and ALICE MARONEY, Plaintiffs, v. LOCK HAVEN UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-CV-00964 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (i) denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, and (ii) denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a proposed class. In January 2017, Lock Haven University revealed plans to eliminate its women's varsity swim team and to demote its women's varsity field hockey team from Division I to Division II. A few months later, the Plaintiffs initiated the class action lawsuit, alleging that the contemplated actions, along with other aspects of Lock Haven's athletics program, discriminated against female student athletes in violation Title IX. Title IX states in part that no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Under one of that law's implementing regulations, universities must provide equal athletic opportunity for students of both sexes. As indicated, the lawsuit was ignited by threats to the women's field hockey and swim teams at Lock Haven. The operative complaint contains a claim under the Three-Part Test (Count I); a claim under the Levels-of-Competition Test (Count II); and a claim under the Equal Treatment Test (Count III). The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, however, sharpens those issues and argues: (1) that Lock Haven fails to effectively accommodate its female students' athletic interests and abilities, as measured by the Three-Part test; (2) that Lock Haven's threatened demotion of its women's field hockey team from Division I to Division II violates Title IX; and (3) that Lock Haven treats its female student-athletes inequitably in terms of: (A) equipment, uniforms, and supplies; (B) practice times, opportunities to compete, and scheduling of games and practices; (C) access to coaching; (D) locker rooms, practice, and competitive facilities; (E) conditioning, weight room, and rehabilitation; and (F) publicity and advertising. Lock Haven's cross-motion for summary judgment argues that the university effectively accommodates its female students' athletic interests and abilities, as measured by the Three-Part Test; and that the university treats its male and female student-athletes equitably in all the other areas measured by Title IX's implementing regulations. The Plaintiffs have moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), to certify a class of all present, prospective, and future Lock Haven University female students who participate, seek to participate, or have been deterred or prevented from participating in or obtaining the benefits of intercollegiate athletics at Lock Haven University. The regulations ask whether universities' selection of sports effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of members of both sexes. The 1979 Policy Interpretation indicates that compliance in this area is measured, inter alia, by querying: (1) Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or (2) Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that sex; or (3) Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program. As applied by numerous courts, a university must satisfy one of the three "Prongs" of the "Three-Part Test" to show that its "selection of sports effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of members of both sexes. Judge Brann finds that the evidence, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Lock Haven, reveals that the university does not offer intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments. Lock Haven does not currently satisfy Prong One. Next, the OCR looks for "actual program expansion" and will not consider Prong Two satisfied when a university's participation gap is narrowed by the elimination of athletic participation opportunities for the overrepresented sex. The undisputed evidence shows that, as a matter of law, Lock Haven does not have a history of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of its female students. ock Haven does not satisfy Prong Two. At this stage, then, the Judge cannot hold, as a matter of law, that Lock Haven does, or does not, satisfy Prong Three. Because Lock Haven could show Prong Three satisfaction -- and therefore Title IX compliance -- at trial, both parties' request for summary judgment on Count I of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint must be denied. Regardless of the legal theory relied upon, the Judge holds that the Court does not have the authority to enjoin Lock Haven from merely thinking about actions that would violate Title IX. And in any event, Lock Haven asserts -- and points to evidence showing -- that the demotion plan is no longer on the table. Summary judgment on this ground, therefore, is improper. The Plaintiffs' brief supporting their motion for summary judgment mentions many of the areas identified by Dr. Lopiano as inequitable, but does not clarify whether they are arguing that there is a substantial disparity in any individual segment of Lock Haven's athletics program, or whether they are arguing that a substantial disparity exists when the athletics program is viewed as a whole. Nevertheless, the Judge holds that in a fact-sensitive and fact-specific area such as this, the Plaintiffs' showing is sufficient to defeat Lock Haven's motion for summary judgment on this claim, but insufficient to allow the Court to conclude that Lock Haven, as a matter of law, inequitably distributes its athletics benefits in such a way as to violate Title IX. Finally, the Judge cannot certify the proposed class, and will deny the pending motion seeking that certification. That denial, however, will be without prejudice, and the Plaintiffs may move to certify any or all the following three subclasses: (i) All present and future members of the women's varsity field hockey team at Lock Haven; (ii) All present and future members of the women's varsity swim team at Lock Haven; and (iii) All present and future members of the women's club rugby team at Lock Haven. If the Plaintiffs move to certify any or all of those subclasses, their accompanying brief should address whether the proposed subclasses meet the requirements of Rule 23, and should also address whether the creation of the proposed subclasses would require the appointment of separate counsel for each subclass. For the reasons he discussed, Judge Brann (i) denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. An appropriate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/RbyuEK from Leagle.com. Emily Robb, Taryn Piano, Taylor Plouse, Jacquelyn Bingham, Tamia Roach, Mackenzie Farley & Kayla Brathwaite, Plaintiffs, represented by Amal M. Bass -- abass@womenslawproject.org -- Women's Law Project, Kathleen V. Yurchak -- yurchak@centrelaw.com -- Goodall & Yurchak, P.C. & Terry L. Fromson, Women's Law Project, pro hac vice. Alice Maroney, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen V. Yurchak, Goodall & Yurchak, P.C. Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, Defendant, represented by Keli M. Neary, Office of Attorney General & Lindsey A. Bedell, PA Office of Attorney General. MASSAGE ENVY: Lapa Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------ The case, DAVID LAPA on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07403 (Filed on Aug. 15, 2018), was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the complaint, Plaintiff David Lapa asserts Defendant's negligent and intentional misrepresentation and violations of the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Law and False Advertising Law. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02694 to the proceeding. Headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, Massage Envy is the franchisor and monitors, regulates, controls, and directs Massage Envy clinics nationally, including in New York. Massage Envy describes itself as a "pioneer and national leader of affordable massage and spa services." It is the world's largest employer of licensed/registered massage therapists, with more than 25,000 therapists providing over 250,000 massages every week. It also claims to have provided over 90 million massages, in over 1,000 clinics in the United States, making it the nation's largest massage chain. [BN] Attorneys for Defendant: Luanne Sacks, Esq. Robert Bader, Esq. SACKS RICKETTS & CASE 177 Post Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 549-0580 E-mail: lsacks@srclaw.com rbader@srclaw.com MASSAGE ENVY: Lapa Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------- Judge John F. Kennan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York transferred he case, DAVID LAPA, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18 Civ. 7403 (JFK) (S.D. N.Y.), to the Northern District of California. The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Rockland County, New York. MEF is a Delaware company with its principle place of business in Arizona. MEF monitors, regulates, controls, and directs a nation-wide chain of Massage Envy "clinics" that provide "massage and spa services." It allegedly has over 1,000 such clinics across the country and over 1. 65 million members. On Oct. 12, 2011, Lapa bought a membership at a Massage Envy clinic in Nanuet, New York. He signed the standardized Membership Agreement which provided for a 12-month initial membership followed by an automatic renewal at $59 per month until his membership was cancelled. In March 2018, Lapa alleges that MEF unilaterally increased his monthly membership fee to $70 without informing him. He failed to notice the increase since "it was a recurring charge" and the increase was "small," allowing MEF to charge Lapa $70 four times for a total overcharge of $44. Lapa alleges this increase was "part of a concerted plan to extract as much money from MEF's captive membership base as possible. This practice has allegedly affected millions of individuals. On Aug. 15, 2018, Lapa brought the action on behalf of himself and a class of all persons in New York who, within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of the action were or are presently enrolled in a Massage Envy membership and whose monthly membership fee was increased above the amount stated in their Membership Agreement. Lapa alleges claims for (1) unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. Section 349; (2) false advertising in violation of N. Y. Gen. Bus. L. Section 350; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) intentional misrepresentation and fraud; and (5) restitution. Though these claims all sound in state law, Lapa alleges the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interests and costs, and at least one member of the class is a citizen of a state different from the Defendant's state. On Feb. 6, 2019, the Defendant filed the motion to transfer. It argues that the case should be transferred to the Northern District of California where Baerbal McKinney-Drobnis v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, No. 16-cv-6450 (N. D. Cal., filed Nov. 4, 2016), a nationwide class action based on nearly identical facts and legal theories, has been pending for more than two years before Judge Maxine Chesney. As Lapa does not dispute that the action might have been brought in the Northern District of California, the only remaining question is whether transfer is appropriate given the mentioned factors. Judge Kennan holds that (1) trial efficiency and the interest of justice weigh strongly in favor of transfer, (2) convenience of the witnesses and parties weigh in favor of transfer, (3) the relative means of the parties and the forum's familiarity with governing law weigh slightly against transfer, and (4) all other factors are neutral. He, thus, finds that transfer to the Northern District of California is appropriate. Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendant's motion to transfer venue. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion docketed at ECF No. 27, transfer the case to the Northern District of California, and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/znHpjW from Leagle.com. David Lapa, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Frederick Lowe -- jlowe@ucla.edu -- Law Offices of Jason Lowe, Yecheskel Menashe, Menashe & Associates LLP & Ishan Dave -- Ishan@dereksmithlaw.com -- Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Indraneel Sur -- isur@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Kahn A. Scolnick -- kscolnick@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Luanne Sacks -- lsacks@srclaw.com -- Sacks, Ricketts & Case, LLP. MCCLATCHY CO: Third Phase Trial in Sawin Case to Start June 20 -------------------------------------------------------------- The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the third phase Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, has been scheduled to begin June 20, 2019. In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a class action lawsuit against the company and The Fresno Bee in the Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement. In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by carriers of The Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the State of California in Sacramento County. The class consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified restitution for mileage reimbursement. With respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage and hour claims were dismissed, and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code. In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were dismissed, and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code. The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into three separate phases, independent contractor status, liability and restitution. On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as independent contractors. The company objected to the tentative decision, but the court ultimately adopted it as final. In June 2016, The McClatchy Company was dismissed from the lawsuit, leaving The Sacramento Bee as the sole defendant. On August 30, 2017, the court issued a statement of decision ruling that the court would not hold a phase two trial but would, instead, assume liability from the evidence previously submitted and from the independent contractor agreements. The company objected to this decision, but the court adopted it as final. The third phase has been scheduled to begin on June 20, 2019. The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the second phase was designated to address restitution, if any. The first phase of the Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of 2014 and concluded in late March 2015. On April 14, 2016, the court in the Fresno case issued a statement of final decision in favor of the company and The Fresno Bee. Accordingly, there will be no second phase. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on November 10, 2016. The company continues to defend these actions vigorously and expect that it will ultimately prevail. McClatchy said, "As a result, we have not established a reserve in connection with the cases. While we believe that a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows from these claims is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a possibility exists that future adverse rulings or unfavorable developments could result in future charges that could have a material impact. We have and will continue to periodically reexamine our estimates of probable liabilities and any associated expenses and make appropriate adjustments to such estimates based on experience and developments in litigation." The McClatchy Company publishes newspapers and news Websites in the United States. Its publications include the Miami Herald, The Kansas City Star, The Sacramento Bee, The Charlotte Observer, The (Raleigh) News and Observer, and The (Fort Worth) Star-Telegram. The McClatchy Company was founded in 1857 and is headquartered in Sacramento, California. MDL 1566: Court Remands Arandell and New Page Claims to W.D. Wis. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 1566, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order remanding to the Western District of Wisconsin the claims in Arandell and New Page lawsuits against defendants e prime, inc.; Northern States Power Company; Xcel Energy Inc.; The Williams Companies, Inc.; Williams Merchant Services Company, LLC; Williams Gas Marketing, Inc.; Dynegy Illinois Inc.; DMT G.P. L.L.C.; Dynegy GP Inc.; Dynegy Marketing and Trade; Cantera Natural Gas, Inc.; Cantera Resources, Inc.; CMS Energy Resources Management Company; CMS Field Services Inc.; CMS Energy Corporation; and Cantera Gas Company. Various defendants in the two actions styled, ARANDELL CORP., ET AL. v. XCEL ENERGY INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:07-01019 (W.D. Wisconsin C.A. No. 3:07-00076) and NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM INC. v. CMS ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:09-00915 (W.D. Wisconsin C.A. No. 3:09-00240) (Arandell and NewPage), move under Panel Rule 10.2 to vacate the Panel's order, entered at the suggestion of the transferee judge, conditionally remanding the claims against them to the Western District of Wisconsin. Plaintiffs in those actions oppose the motion. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance denies defendants' motion to vacate. "In considering the question of remand, the Panel has consistently given great weight to the transferee judge's determination that remand of a particular action at a particular time is appropriate because the transferee judge, after all, supervises the day-to-day pretrial proceedings." Judge Vance accords such weight here. These cases have been pending in the MDL for a number of years. Pretrial proceedings to date have been extensive, and have included significant motion practice, substantial discovery, and lengthy appeals. The Honorable Robert Clive Jones, who has been overseeing the MDL since June 2015, has made a reasoned determination that Section 1407 remand is appropriate for the completion of remaining pretrial proceedings (including class certification) and trial. In their motion to vacate, defendants do not disagree that the transferor court should oversee the remaining proceedings. They object only to the timing of remand, asking that remand be postponed until after the resolution of all matters regarding a pending appeal and plaintiffs' settlements with certain other defendants. Indeed, they appear to suggest that the pendency of the appeal has divested the district court (whether it be the transferee court or the transferor court) of jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiffs' claims against them. But Section 1407 does not empower the Panel to decide questions going to the jurisdiction of a case. Following remand, defendants are free to argue to the Western District of Wisconsin court as to the significance, if any, of the appeal and the pending settlements with respect to the course of remaining pretrial proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's June 4, 2019 Remand Order is available at https://is.gd/b78KBl MDL 2244: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order in Cardoza Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2244, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order vacating its conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-309" filed on February 19, 2019, related to the action styled, Cardoza v. Medical Device Business Services, Inc., et al., W.D. Virginia, C.A. No. 4:19-00003. The Panel also ordered that the Hearing Session Order and the attached Schedule filed on April 10, 2019, are VACATED insofar as they relate to this matter. A conditional transfer order was filed in this action (Cardoza) on February 19, 2019. Prior to expiration of that order's 7-day stay of transmittal, plaintiff in Cardoza filed a notice of opposition to the proposed transfer. Plaintiff later filed a motion and brief to vacate the conditional transfer order. The Panel has now been advised that Cardoza was remanded to the Circuit Court for the City of Danville, Virginia by the Honorable Elizabeth K. Dillon in an order filed on May 8, 2019. A full-text copy of the Court's May 8, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/sysHP4 MDL 2493: Court Denies Bid to Remand Bank v. Alliance Security -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA) LITIGATION, MDL No. 2493, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand the action styled, BANK v. ALLIANCE SECURITY, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00215 (E.D.N.Y., C.A. No. 1:14-04410), from the Northern District of West Virginia to the transferor court. Plaintiff in the Bank action, which the Panel previously transferred from the Eastern District of New York to MDL No. 2493, moves for an order remanding the action to the transferor court. Responding defendant Monitronics International, Inc., opposes the motion. After considering the argument of the parties, Judge Vance concludes that remand is not appropriate at this time, and therefore deny plaintiff's motion. In considering the question of Section 1407 remand, the Judge accords great weight to the transferee judge's determination that remand of a particular action at a particular time is appropriate, as that judge has supervised the day-to-day pretrial proceedings in the MDL. The transferee judge's suggestion of remand to the Panel, see Rule 10.1(b), is an indication that the judge perceives his role under Section 1407 to have ended. Here, the transferee judge has not issued a suggestion of remand. Without a suggestion of remand, a party advocating Section 1407 remand "bears a strong burden of persuasion." Judge Vance concludes that plaintiff has not met that burden here. Plaintiff's sole argument in support of remand is that in early 2019 he submitted a request for exclusion from the class action settlement in the MDL, that received final approval in 2018. In the transferee court, Monitronics has asserted that the exclusion request is untimely and invalid, and plaintiff's claims against Monitronics were extinguished by the settlement. Judge Vance finds that remand of this action is inappropriate while contested matters as to the scope and impact of the class action settlement are pending before the transferee court, absent a suggestion of remand. Additionally, although this MDL is at an advanced stage, the transferee court docket indicates that pretrial proceedings in actions involving Monitronics remain in progress. Given this posture, remand is premature at this time. A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/BNNTuG MDL 2626: Alcon Vision Lawsuit Moved to Middle District of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: DISPOSABLE CONTACT LENS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2626, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, ALCON VISION, LLC v. LENS.COM, INC., C.A. No. 1:18-407, from the Eastern District of New York to the Middle District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Judge Vance also ordered that all claims and counterclaims except for the two counterclaims (Counts III and IV) relating to Alcon's institution of universal pricing policies are separated and simultaneously remanded, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(a), to the Eastern District of York. Plaintiff in the Alcon action moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring the action to MDL No. 2626. Defendant Lens.com opposes the motion to vacate. The actions in MDL No. 2626 involve factual questions concerning defendants' alleged anticompetitive conduct aimed at fixing, raising, maintaining and/or stabilizing the prices at which disposable contact lenses are sold in the United States. At issue in all initially centralized actions were defendants' pricing policies that allegedly prevented resale of the subject contact lenses below a minimum price. The Eastern District of New York Alcon action is a trademark infringement action against discount retailer Lens.com, a "gray market" purchaser, which allegedly bought certain Alcon products overseas and sold them in the United States. Defendant Lens.com brought several counterclaims that generally(1) refute Alcon's accusation of trademark infringement and suggest instead that changes Alcon made to products exclusively sold in the U.S. were pretextual changes aimed at eliminating gray market competitors, (2) challenge Alcon's proposed exclusive-dealing arrangements and its alleged attempts to tie the sale of products it exclusively sells in the U.S. to an agreement that Lens.com purchase all Alcon products at its U.S. prices, and (3) connect Alcon's filing of the trademark action against Lens.com to its alleged prior efforts to prevent resellers from distributing Alcon products to the detriment of eye care professionals. Two of Lens.com's claims relate to universal pricing policies (UPPs) at issue in MDL No. 2626. Under scoring the factual overlap among these counterclaims and the MDL claims, the transferee judge recently certified various classes of retail purchasers of contact lenses subject to UPPs in early December 2018. Alcon opposes transfer because the MDL is procedurally advanced and involves consumers, as opposed to resellers like Lens.com. Judge Vance agrees the MDL is at a somewhat advanced stage, with discovery completed, and seven summary judgment motions, as well as motions for spoilation sanctions pending. Additionally, Lens.com would be a unique party to the MDL, inasmuch as the parties do not point to any other actions in the MDL involving gray market resellers like Lens.com. The Judge is concerned that transferring the entire Alcon action would add significant trademark-related allegations, among other issues raised by the counterclaims, that could unduly prolong the MDL proceedings. A more tailored solution -- transfer of only the two UPP-related counterclaims -- would prevent the risk of inconsistent rulings concerning Alcon's UPPs, but not expand the MDL's current scope. In these circumstances, the Judge views this as the best solution. A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order with Simultaneous Separation and Remand of Certain Claims is available at https://is.gd/yQhmec MDL 2669: Court Remands Doe Suit to Southern Dist. of Mississippi ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: ASHLEY MADISON CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, MDL No. 2669, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has remanded the action styled, DOE v. AVID LIFE MEDIA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:15-01920 (S.D. Mississippi, C.A. No. 3:15-00658), from the Eastern District of Missouri to the Southern District of Mississippi. Defendants Avid Life Media, Inc., and Avid Dating Life, Inc.(collectively, Avid) move under Panel Rule 10.2 to vacate the Panel's order that conditionally remanded the Doe action to the Southern District of Mississippi. The Panel placed Doe on a conditional remand order after receiving the transferee judge's suggestion of remand. Plaintiffs in Doe oppose the motion. After considering the argument of counsel, the Panel finds that remand of this action under28 U.S.C. Section 1407 is warranted. In considering the question of remand, the Panel consistently gives great weight to the transferee judge's determination that remand of a particular action at a particular time is appropriate because the transferee judge, after all, supervises the litigation's pretrial proceedings. The transferee judge's suggestion of remand indicates that "'he perceives his role under Section 1407 to have ended.'" Here, the transferee judge explained why Section 1407 remand is appropriate, noting that a class settlement has resolved all actions in the MDL, with the exception of Doe, and that no multi-jurisdictional issues remain in the litigation. His determination that remand of Doe is now appropriate was based on the totality of circumstances involved in the docket. Avid argues that judicial economy would be best served if the transferee court decides Avid's pending motion to compel arbitration in Doe because of the court's familiarity with the facts and legal issues in this litigation. Certainly, transferee courts can and do rule on such motions. Section 1407(a), though, expressly authorizes remand "at or before" the conclusion of pretrial proceedings. Moreover, the pendency of dispositive motions, such as motions to compel arbitration, poses no obstacle to remand under Section 1407. Here, the transferee court specifically considered and rejected Avid's argument that the court should "retain jurisdiction over this case to decide its contemplated amended motion to dismiss and/or stay and compel arbitration." The transferee court is in the best position to make this discretionary decision. Judge Vance sees no reason to accord anything other than great weight to the transferee court's conclusion. A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Remand Order is available at https://is.gd/jaSAng MDL 2672: Feinman Suit Moved to Northern District of California --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2672, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, FEINMAN v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 7:19-55, from the Western District of Virginia to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff in the Feinman action pending in the Western District of Virginia moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring his action to MDL No. 2672. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (VW) opposes the motion. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds this action involves common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2672, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Transfer is warranted for the reasons set out in order directing centralization. In that order, the Panel held that the Northern District of California was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions regarding the role of VW and related entities in equipping certain 2.0 and 3.0 liter diesel engines with software allegedly designed to engage emissions controls only when the vehicles undergo official testing, while at other times the engines emit nitrous oxide well in excess of legal limits. This action involves allegations related to the "clean diesel" scandal, given that plaintiff represented numerous participants in one of the class settlements reached in the MDL and now seeks to recover attorney fees from VW. Without doubt, this action falls within the MDL's ambit. Plaintiff argues, in part, against transfer that federal courts lack jurisdiction over his action. Plaintiff can present his motion for remand to the transferee judge. Plaintiff also argues that his action to recover attorney fees is unique and should not be transferred. Despite any potentially unique claims, transfer of the action is consistent with the initial transfer order in this docket, in light of the action's genesis in the diesel emissions fraud. Where, as here, "common factual issues exist, . . . the presence of different legal theories among the subject actions is not a bar to centralization." Defendant also argues that the most efficient way to proceed with Feinman is to transfer the action and allow Judge Breyer to effectuate his recent ruling granting VW's motion to enforce the MDL settlement. Plaintiff did not respond to this assertion. A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/O15ayD MDL 2738: Kannady, et al. Suit Moved to District of New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2738, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, KANNADY, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:19-00292, from the Eastern District of Missouri to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in the Kannady action move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred Kannady to the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2738. Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., PTI Union, LLC, and PTI Royston, LLC, oppose the motion. In support of their motion to vacate, plaintiffs argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction over Kannady is lacking, and that plaintiffs’ motion for remand to state court is pending. The Panel has held that such jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to transfer. Plaintiffs can present their remand arguments to the transferee judge. Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, we find that the action involves common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2738, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. In our order centralizing this litigation, we held that the District of New Jersey was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising from allegations that plaintiffs or their decedents developed ovarian cancer following perineal application of Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products (namely, Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower body powder). Kannady shares multiple factual issues with the actions already in the MDL. A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/TpmU2B MDL 2750: Goodwin and Lo Re Suits Moved to District of New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: INVOKANA (CANAGLIFLOZIN)PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2750, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring two actions to the District of New Jersey, and with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Brian R. Martinotti for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. These two actions are: * GOODWIN v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-00079 (Western District of Kentucky); and * LO RE v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 6:19-06170 (Western District of New York). Various parties in the Western District of Kentucky Goodwin action and the Western District of New York Lo Re action separately move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring the actions to the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2750. The Goodwin plaintiff moves with respect to his action. As to the Lo Re action, movants are the Lo Re plaintiff and defendants Sylvia Park, M.D., Alexander Medical Group, P.C., and defendant Richard Patrick Sullivan, M.D. Rochester Regional Health, which is another defendant in Lo Re, filed a response in support of vacatur. Defendants Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Janssen), and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) oppose the motion as to Goodwin, and Janssen, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, and J&J oppose the motions as to Lo Re. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that Goodwin and Lo Re involve common questions of fact with actions transferred to MDL No.2750, and that transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions in the MDL "share factual questions arising from allegations that taking Invokana or Invokamet may result in patients suffering various injuries, including diabetic ketoacidosis and kidney damage." Both Goodwin and Lo Re plainly involve claims of personal injury as a result of taking Invokana and thus fall within the MDL's ambit. In opposition to transfer, the Goodwin and Lo Re plaintiffs argue that the alleged injury in their cases is Fournier's gangrene, whereas the alleged injuries at issue in the MDL are limited to diabetic ketoacidosis, kidney injury, and lower limb amputation. Plaintiffs also argue that transfer would prejudice them, as they would need to comply with the transferee court's Administrative Order No. 1, which sets forth deadlines for plaintiffs to submit pharmacy and medical records, as well as a Rule 26(a)(2) case-specific expert report from a medical expert attesting to a reasonable degree of medical probability that the plaintiff suffered an injury caused by Invokana, and providing the factual bases for that attestation. These arguments are not convincing. First, the MDL is not limited to the referenced injuries. Indeed, there already is a case involving Fournier's gangrene in the MDL. Second, even if the MDL were so limited, the Goodwin and Lo Re plaintiffs themselves have not restricted their allegations to Fournier's gangrene. The Goodwin plaintiff alleges that he suffered Fournier's gangrene and "other severe and personal injuries" as a result of taking Invokana. Similarly, the Lo Re plaintiff asserts that her decedent suffered "various injuries" caused by the drug. Also, like actions already in the MDL, both Goodwin and Lo Re contain broad allegations concerning the development, testing, labeling, and marketing of Invokana. Third, with respect to Administrative Order No. 1, the Goodwin and Lo Re plaintiffs are free to argue to the transferee court that their time for compliance should be extended in light of their alleged injuries or other case-specific circumstances. The arguments of the healthcare provider defendants in Lo Re also do not warrant vacatur. The Panel consistently has held that the pendency of jurisdictional objections is not an impediment to Section 1407 transfer. And, in deciding issues of transfer, the Panel looks to the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses in the litigation as a whole. A full-text copy of the Court's June 4, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/VWH53p MDL 2768: Lakeland Regional vs. Howmedica Moved to Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: STRYKER LFIT V40 FEMORAL HEAD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2768, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, LAKELAND REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. v. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICSCORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:19-247, from the Middle District of Florida to the District of Massachusetts and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Indira Talwani for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff in the Middle District of Florida action moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring the Lakeland Regional action to MDL No. 2768. Defendants Howmedica Ostenonics Corp. and Stryker Corp. oppose the motion. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2768, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Transfer is warranted for reasons set out in the Panel's order centralizing this litigation. In that order, the Panel held that the District of Massachusetts was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising from alleged defects in Stryker-branded LFIT Anatomic CoCRV40 femoral heads, a prosthetic hip replacement device. This action involves injuries arising from the implantation of a Stryker LFIT V40 femoral head and clearly falls within the MDL's ambit. In opposing transfer, plaintiff argues that federal jurisdiction is lacking over the action and that the case is unique because it is a subrogation action brought under Florida's Workers Compensation Act. These arguments do not persuade the Panel that transfer is inappropriate. Arguments concerning the propriety of federal jurisdiction are insufficient to warrant vacatur. Also, as a practical matter, it does not appear that resolution of plaintiff's motion to remand is imminent. Plaintiff moved to remand the action in mid-February 2019, and that motion remains pending. Further, the remand motion is not yet even fully briefed, so there will be some delay in ruling on remand in either forum. Plaintiff can present its motion to remand to the transferee judge. Further, while the claims in Lakeland Regional may indeed be unique (defendants do not point to other similar subrogation actions), when, as here, "common factual issues exist, . . . the presence of different legal theories among the subject actions is not a bar to centralization." Should the need arise, the transferee judge can accommodate any unique discovery needs that this case presents. A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/PoNpvJ MDL 2800: Luciano vs. Equifax Informational Moved to N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: EQUIFAX, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, MDL No. 2800, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, LUCIANO v. EQUIFAX INFORMATIONAL SERVICES, LLC, C.A. No. 1:19-00437, from the Eastern District of New York to the Northern District of Georgia and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Thomas W. Thrash for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff in the Luciano action, proceeding pro se, moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate our order conditionally transferring his action to MDL No. 2800. Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC (Equifax) opposes the motion to vacate. After considering all arguments, we find this action involves common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2800, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions in MDL No. 2800 arise from a 2017 cybersecurity incident involving Equifax in which it is alleged that the personally identifiable information of more than 145 million consumers was compromised. Luciano involves allegations, similar to those in the MDL No. 2800 actions, that Equifax failed to adequately safeguard plaintiff’s personally identifiable information, which was compromised during the Equifax data breach; failed to provide the public with timely notice of the breach; and that certain Equifax executives sold Equifax stock before publicly announcing the breach. Plaintiff does not dispute that his action arises out of the 2017 Equifax data breach and shares questions of fact and law with the MDL No. 2800 actions. Against transfer, he argues that (1)Equifax's guilt is established, and (2) transfer to MDL No. 2800 for pretrial proceedings and remand for trial would be a waste of time and resources. Equifax does not concede liability in the MDL No.2800 actions. And while it might inconvenience some parties, transfer of a particular action often is necessary to further the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole. A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/tgyBDg MDL 2801: Avnet v. Panasonic Moved to Northern Dist. of California ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: CAPACITORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. III), MDL No. 2801, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, AVNET INCORPORATED v. PANASONIC CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-00766, from the District of Arizona to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable James Donato for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendant Panasonic Corporation of North America moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred the Avnet II action to the Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 2801. Plaintiff Avnet Incorporated opposes the motion. In support of its motion to vacate, Panasonic argues that pretrial proceedings in the MDL have reached an advanced stage, with both fact and expert discovery complete or nearly so. Panasonic contends that transfer of Avnet II will disrupt and delay the proceedings in the MDL, and that such delay is unwarranted because Avnet knew of Panasonic's alleged involvement in the price fixing conspiracy being litigated in the MDL when the Panel transferred an earlier-filed action (Avnet I) to the MDL in 2017. Panasonic further suggests that coordination by the parties can eliminate the potential for duplicative discovery and motion practice. "Whether the continued inclusion of tag-along actions is appropriate is based upon a review of the status of the MDL proceedings and an assessment of the relative merits of transferring additional cases." Here, the Panel's review of the record leads it to conclude that transfer of Avnet II would best serve the efficient resolution of this litigation. The transferee judge has overseen substantial pretrial proceedings concerning the alleged price-fixing conspiracy in this litigation since 2014 (three years before the Panel created this MDL), including significant rulings on dispositive motions and discovery disputes. The transferee judge's knowledge of the issues and nuances of this litigation, as well as his familiarity with the parties and counsel in both the MDL and Avnet II, will prove invaluable to streamlining discovery and motions practice in the new action in light of the discovery and motions practice that have been completed. Furthermore, delay is not the inevitable result of transfer. Pretrial proceedings remain to be completed in the MDL, including dispositive and Daubert motion practice. The transferee court can employ various pretrial management techniques—such as scheduling discovery and other pretrial proceedings in Avnet II on a separate track concurrently with the common pretrial proceedings—to avoid undue delay and to enhance the efficient conduct of this litigation. And, should the transferee court conclude that continued inclusion of Avnet II in the MDL no longer is appropriate, the transferee court may recommend Section 1407 remand of this action. Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that the Avnet II action involves common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2801, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. In the order centralizing this litigation, the Panel held that the Northern District of California was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing common factual and legal questions arising from allegations that defendants conspired to fix prices for aluminum, tantalum, and film capacitors. No party disputes that Avnet II alleges the same antitrust conspiracy as the actions pending in the MDL. A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/bDdTcT MDL 2804: 13 Suits Transferred to Northern District of Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL No. 2804, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 13 actions to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Dan A. Polster for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in 13 actions and Eastern District of Missouri defendants Mylan N.V., and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the orders conditionally transferring the actions listed on Schedule A to MDL No. 2804. Various defendants oppose the motions. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set out in the Panel's order directing centralization. In that order, the Panel held that the Northern District of Ohio was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and distribution of various prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the country. Despite some variances among the actions before the Panel, they all share a factual core with the MDL actions: the manufacturer and distributor defendants' alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding the diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the manufacturers' allegedly improper marketing of such drugs. The actions therefore fall within the MDL's ambit. The parties opposing transfer in twelve actions argue principally that federal jurisdiction is lacking over their cases. But opposition to transfer challenging the propriety of federal jurisdiction is insufficient to warrant vacating conditional transfer orders covering otherwise factually related cases. Several parties also argue that including their actions in this large MDL will cause them inconvenience. Given the undisputed factual overlap with the MDL proceedings, transfer is justified in order to facilitate the efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole. Transfer of the Eastern District of Missouri Jefferson County action is not hindered by plaintiff's argument that defendant CVS impliedly asserted mass action removal under CAFA. CVS removed the case alleging both federal question and class action CAFA jurisdiction. It never alleged that the action was a mass action. Moreover, CAFA prohibits transfer only of cases removed solely as mass actions. Even if mass action removal could be implied here, defendant asserted two additional grounds for removal. Section 1407 transfer is appropriate in these circumstances. BCBS of Louisiana, plaintiff in the District of Massachusetts action, opposes transfer by arguing that this action is unique; some actions against Insys are proceeding outside of the MDL; and the action could proceed much more quickly outside the MDL context. These arguments do not justify excluding this case from the MDL. Transfer is warranted in light of the significant factual overlap BCBS of Louisiana, a putative third party payor class action, shares with the allegations in other MDL actions. Plaintiff is correct that two non-class cases brought by health insurers against Insys are pending outside the MDL. But these cases were filed before the MDL was created and have advanced significantly during their pendency. While transfer may add some degree of delay to the progress of certain actions, it offers substantial efficiencies by allowing factually-related cases to proceed alongside each other. Here, the MDL includes several other third party payor actions, as well as hundreds of governmental entities' actions, against Insys based on its sales of its opioid product Subsys. A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/HXuiWO MDL 2807: 2 Suits vs. Sonic Corp. Moved to Northern Dist. of Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: SONIC CORP. CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, MDL No. 2807, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring two actions against Sonic Corporation, et al., to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable James S. Gwin for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The two actions are: * In the Eastern District of Arkansas - ALCOA COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. SONIC CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-00770; and * In the Western District of Oklahoma - AMERICAN AIRLINES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. SONIC CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:19-00208. Plaintiffs in the actions pending in MDL No. 2807 move under Panel Rule7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders that conditionally transferred the two actions to the Northern District of Ohio for inclusion in MDL No. 2807. Plaintiffs in the actions and common defendants Sonic Corp., Sonic Franchising, LLC, Sonic Industries LLC, Sonic Industries Services Inc., Sonic Capital LLC, and Sonic Restaurants, Inc. (together, Sonic), oppose the motions to vacate. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2807, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The two actions, like the already-centralized actions, share factual issues concerning an incident in which Sonic's point-of-sale system was breached, allowing computer hackers to gain access to up to 5 million individuals' personally identifiable information. Plaintiffs in the actions pending in MDL No. 2807 bring claims on behalf of consumers affected by the breach. Plaintiffs in the two actions bring claims on behalf of putative classes of financial institutions that issue or service payment cards and whose customers made purchases from Sonic stores. Movants argue that (1) the financial institution actions are not within the scope of the Panel's initial transfer order; (2) these actions are unique because they were filed over a year after the consumer actions and on behalf of a different class; (3) no efficiencies will be gained by including them in the MDL because the consumer actions are significantly more advanced; and (4) the Western District of Oklahoma, where Sonic is headquartered, is a more appropriate forum for the financial institution actions. The financial institution actions unquestionably arise from the same 2017 data breach at issue in the consumer actions. That only consumer actions were pending when the Panel granted centralization does not preclude including financial institution actions in the MDL at this time. Indeed, the Panel often includes actions brought on behalf of financial institutions in data breach MDLs. Both the consumer and financial institution actions "will share common discovery and pretrial practice, even if certain claims or defenses are not identical." It is true that these actions are in quite different procedural postures. The consumer actions are on the cusp of settlement with a final fairness hearing scheduled for July 2019, while the financial institution actions are in their nascent stages. But all parties to the financial institution actions support transfer. And including these actions would create efficiencies by allowing for easy access to common discovery and placing the actions before a judge who is very familiar with the facts and issues in this litigation. It is unlikely that the financial institution plaintiffs' presence in MDL No. 2807 will disrupt or delay the consumer class settlement. They are not members of the putative settlement class, and the transferee judge can place their actions on a separate litigation track, if he chooses. The Western District of Oklahoma is the location of Sonic's headquarters, but no party to the financial institution actions has sought centralization there. Moreover, inclusion of the actions in the already-established MDL is the most efficient path for these actions. A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/qz65oQ MDL 2873: 3 Suits vs. 3M Co., et al. Transferred to South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2873, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring three actions to the District of South Carolina and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Richard M. Gergel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. These actions are: District of New Mexico * SCHAAP, ET AL. v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-00105 * TEUNE, ET AL. v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-00162 Eastern District of New York * TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-00642 Plaintiffs in the three actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders that conditionally transferred these actions to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873. Defendants 3M Company, Tyco Fire Products, LP, Chemguard, Inc., Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, and National Foam, Inc., oppose all three motions, while defendants United Technologies Corporation and Kidde PLC, Inc., oppose the Town of East Hampton's motion. Plaintiffs in the two actions pending in the District of New Mexico argue that transfer of their "business interruption" claims is inappropriate because no such claims are being litigated in the MDL. But, like the cases transferred to MDL No. 2873, the New Mexico actions involve allegations that the groundwater on plaintiffs' property has been contaminated with perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that was contained in aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at a nearby Air Force base. Plaintiffs assert many of the same product liability claims against the same manufacturer defendants as the majority of actions pending in the MDL. That plaintiffs assert a unique theory of liability does not weigh against transfer. The New Mexico plaintiffs also complain that transfer will severely prejudice them, as their dairy farm operations are at risk of failing. Their contention that transfer to the MDL will significantly delay their actions is conclusory at best. Both the New Mexico actions and the actions in the MDL are at the beginning stages of litigation, and transfer at this point is unlikely to cause substantial delay. Nor will transfer significantly burden plaintiffs, as their counsel has been appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the MDL (i.e., plaintiffs' counsel will be litigating in the District of South Carolina anyway). In any event, transfer of an action is appropriate if it furthers the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties to the action might experience inconvenience or delay. To the extent plaintiffs seek "unique or time-sensitive relief pertaining to [their] water supplies, [they] can and should raise such concerns with the transferee court." Plaintiff in the Eastern District of New York action (the Town of East Hampton) argues that transfer of that action is inappropriate because unique issues relating to the contamination in the Town will predominate over common questions of fact with the actions pending in the MDL. In particular, the Town argues that it alleges multiple sources of contamination, only some of which stem from the use of AFFFs by a local firefighting company. Plaintiff suggests that the Panel's initial centralization order limited this MDL to cases alleging only contamination from AFFFs, but the Panel's order merely excluded from the MDL actions that did not contain any allegations relating to AFFFs. That the Town alleges additional sources of contamination is no obstacle to transfer. The Town's action shares numerous factual questions regarding AFFFs and PFOA/PFOS contamination in common with the actions in the MDL. Indeed, the Town's allegations are intertwined with those of several actions pending in the MDL, which also allege contamination of Long Island's aquifer. In one of these actions, Shipman v. 3M Company, C.A. No.2:18-03340(D.S.C.), the Town itself is a named defendant. In the action now before the Panel, the Town seeks contribution and indemnification for any liability assessed it in Shipman. Plaintiff also argues that the government contractor defense should not be at issue in the New York action. This does not weigh against centralization. Multiple contamination sites already at issue in the MDL involve non-military firefighting or industrial facilities, and also may not involve this defense. Transfer under Section 1407 does not require a complete identity of factual and legal issues when the actions, as they do here, arise from a common factual core. Additionally, plaintiff insists that federal subject matter jurisdiction over its action is lacking and that its anticipated remand motion should be decided by the transferor court. The Panel has held that such jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to transfer. Plaintiff can present its remand arguments to the transferee judge. Perhaps anticipating this outcome, plaintiff alternatively requests that the Panel directs the transferee court to prioritize consideration of its remand motion. Judge Vance denies this alternative request because such case management decisions are best addressed by the transferee court. Accordingly, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that the three actions involve common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2873, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the Judge held that the District of South Carolina was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions in which plaintiffs allege that AFFF products used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial locations caused the release of PFOS and/or PFOA into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. The actions in the MDL share factual questions concerning the toxicity of PFOA and PFOS and the effects of these substances on human health; these substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in groundwater supplies; the knowledge of the AFFF manufacturers regarding the dangers of PFOA and PFOS; their warnings, if any, regarding proper use and storage of AFFFs; and to what extent, if any, defendants conspired or cooperated to conceal the dangers of PFOA and PFOS in their products. A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/b7BAAt MDL 2879: Mann Suit v. Starwood Hotels Moved to Maryland District ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, MDL No. 2879, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, MANN v. STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, C.A. No. 1:19-00348, from the Northern District of Ohio to the District of Maryland and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Paul W. Grimm for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff in the Mann action moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred the action to the District of Maryland for inclusion in MDL No. 2879. Defendant Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC (Starwood) opposes the motion to vacate. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that Mann involves common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2879, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Like many of the already-centralized actions, Mann involves factual questions arising out of allegations concerning a breach of the Starwood guest reservation database from 2014 to 2018. In support of the motion to vacate, plaintiff argues that (1) plaintiff's motion for remand is pending before the transferor court; (2) Mann is not properly in federal court, and plaintiff's jurisdictional argument is unique to this action; (3) Mann is unlike the MDL No. 2879 actions because it is an action seeking solely injunctive relief under Ohio state law; and (4) transfer before the transferor court is allowed to rule on the pending motion for remand would cause prejudice and delay. Judge Vance does not find these arguments persuasive. The Panel has held that jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to transfer. Plaintiff can present his remand arguments to the transferee judge. While plaintiff does not seek damages here, the facts alleged and, therefore, the discovery likely to be produced, will overlap considerably. Consequently, the Judge finds that inclusion of this action in centralized proceedings will lead to the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The Panel has held that, while it might inconvenience some parties, transfer of a particular action often is necessary to further the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole. Plaintiff specifically argues that transfer may result in a ruling on his motion for remand to state court that is unfavorable to him, which could cause delay in resolution of the case. But the Panel has held that, "[w]hen determining whether to transfer an action under Section 1407... it is not the business of the Panel to consider what law the transferee court might apply." A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/K0lfQ0 MDL 2885: Norman Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit entitled KENDALL NORMAN v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 6:19-cv-00820, was transferred on May 16, 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-01491-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] Plaintiff-Petitioner KENDALL NORMAN 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 MDL 2887: 6 Suits vs. Hill's Pet Nutrition Moved to Kansas ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., DOG FOOD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2887, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring six actions to the District of Kansas, and with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Julie A. Robinson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in two actions pending in the Northern District of California (Navarette and Bauer) move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of California. The litigation consists of the six actions: three in the Northern District of California (Navarette, Bauer, and Sun-Dampier) and one each in the Northern District of Florida (Russell), the Eastern District of New York (Bone), and the Districtof Rhode Island (Jubinville). Northern District of California * NAVARRETE v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., C.A. No. 3:19-00767 * SUN-DAMPIER v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., C.A. No. 3:19-00819 * BAUER, ET AL. v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., C.A. No. 3:19-00908 Northern District of Florida * RUSSELL, ET AL. v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., C.A. No. 3:19-00395 Eastern District of New York * BONE, ET AL. v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-00831 District of Rhode Island * JUBINVILLE, ET AL. v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-00074 The Panel has been notified of 23 potentially-related actions. All responding parties support centralization, but there is disagreement concerning the choice of an appropriate transferee district. The Sun-Dampier plaintiff supports centralization in the Northern District of California. Common defendants Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., and Hill's Pet Nutrition Sales, Inc., support centralization in the District of Kansas, as do plaintiffs in nine potential tag-along actions. Plaintiffs in the Bone, Russell, and Jubinville actions support centralization in the Eastern District of New York, as do plaintiffs in seven potential tag-along actions. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, Judge Vance finds that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of Kansas will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions share factual issues arising from allegations that multiple varieties of Hill's Prescription Diet and Science Diet canned dog food products were defective, in that they contained dangerously high levels of Vitamin D. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibilityof2inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The Judge selects the District of Kansas as the transferee district. Hill's is headquartered in that district, and it represents that its key evidence and witnesses are located there. Eight potential tag-along actions are pending in the District of Kansas, and its selection is supported by both Hill's and a number of plaintiffs. Chief Judge Julie A. Robinson, to whom Judge Vance assigns the litigation, is an experienced jurist. The Panel is confident that Judge Robinson will steer this litigation on a prudent course. A full-text copy of the Court's June 4, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/Sri9y3 MDL 2888: Court Denies Motion to Centralize 3 ABMS Antitrust Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: AMERICAN BOARD OF MEDICAL SPECIALTIES MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATION ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2888, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Plaintiffs' motion to centralize pretrial proceedings in three actions in the Southern District of California. These three actions are: * Southern District of California - MANNIS, ET AL. v. AMERICAN BOARD OF MEDICAL SPECIALTIES,ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-00341 * Northern District of Illinois - SIVA v. AMERICAN BOARD OF RADIOLOGY, C.A. No. 1:19-01407 * Eastern District of Pennsylvania - KENNEY, ET AL. v. AMERICAN BOARD OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, C.A. No. 2:18-05260 Plaintiffs in the Mannis action move under 28U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Southern District of California. This litigation consists of three actions, each pending in a separate district. In addition, the parties have notified the Panel of one related action, which was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. All responding parties—the non-moving plaintiffs and the defendants in all four actions—oppose centralization. Plaintiffs and several defendants alternatively suggest the Northern District of Illinois as the transferee court for this litigation, while one defendant alternatively suggests the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the transferee court. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Judge Vance concludes that centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Where only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate. Movants have not met that burden here. These actions involve similar allegations that defendants, which offer certification in various medical specialties, require physicians to purchase and participate in "maintenance of certification" programs in order to maintain their initial board certifications. Plaintiffs allege that this constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement in violation of antitrust laws. The similarities, though, end there. Each action names different medical certification boards as defendants, and each is brought on behalf of a different, non-overlapping putative class of physicians. Thus, individualized discovery and legal issues (such as with respect to the antitrust market at issue in each action) are likely to be numerous and substantial. Consequently, there is little risk of conflicting pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification. To the extent these actions may involve duplicative discovery (particularly with respect to ABMS), alternatives to centralization appear eminently feasible. Defendants in the Mannis litigation, which is pending in the Southern District of California, have moved (in the alternative to dismissal) for transfer of that action to the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404. Such a transfer would significantly reduce the multidistrict scope of this litigation. Even if transfer is denied, this litigation involves only four actions pending in three districts, and plaintiffs in three of the actions share counsel. Informal cooperation among the relatively few involved attorneys and coordination among the involved courts therefore are practicable alternatives to centralization. Indeed, defendants represented in their briefs to the Panel their willingness to coordinate with plaintiffs to minimize any potential for duplicative discovery or inconsistent pretrial rulings. A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/jrpxSH MDL 2889: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 5 Equinor Royalty Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: EQUINOR OIL AND GAS ROYALTY PAYMENT LITIGATION, MDL No. 2889, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Common Defendants' motion to centralize pretrial proceedings in five actions in the Southern District of Texas. The five actions are: Southern District of Texas * GILLESPIE v. EQUINOR TEXAS ONSHORE PROPERTIES LLC, ET. AL., C.A. No. 5:18-00092 * GILLESPIE v. EQUINOR PIPELINES LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:18-00094 * O'BRIEN v. EQUINOR PIPELINES LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:18-00125 * JOHNSTON v. EQUINOR PIPELINES LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:18-00126 Western District of Texas * NEWBERRY, ET AL. v. EQUINOR TEXAS ONSHORE PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:18-00866 Common defendants Equinor Texas Onshore Properties LLC, Equinor Pipelines, LLC, and Equinor US Operations LLC move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Southern District of Texas. Plaintiffs in the five actions oppose the motion. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Judge Vance concludes that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions share certain factual issues arising from plaintiffs' allegations that Equinor used an improper methodology to calculate and pay plaintiffs contractually-owed oil and gas royalties from various wells located in the Eagle Ford, Texas, area. Plaintiffs contend that Equinor (1) commingled gross oil and gas production from wells of different ownership, and then failed to properly allocate to each royalty owner his or her share of production, and (2) improperly reduced gross production volumes of "condensate" from plaintiffs' wells in estimating net sales of condensate and making royalty payments. But there are only five actions pending in two adjacent Texas districts. Pretrial proceedings in the four Southern District of Texas actions already are being coordinated before the same magistrate judge. In all actions, plaintiffs are represented by The Ferguson Law Firm, LLP, and Equinor is represented by Beck Redden LLP. Additionally, plaintiffs represent that they are amenable to cooperating to avoid duplicative pretrial activity (e.g., filing notices of depositions in all actions, and agreeing that discovery obtained in one action will be usable in all actions). Given these circumstances, Judge Vance concludes that Section 1407 centralization is not warranted. A full-text copy of the Court's June 4, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/SuTglH MDL 2890: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Pay Discrimination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION PAY DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION, MDL No. 2890, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Plaintiff's motion to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Central District of California. This litigation consists of two actions pending in the Central District of California and the Northern District of California. * Central District of California - MORGAN, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, INC., C.A. No. 2:19-01717 * Northern District of California - SOLO v. UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, C.A. No. 3:18-05215 Plaintiffs in the Central District of California action move under28U.S.C.Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Central District of California. Common defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (U.S. Soccer), and plaintiff in the Northern District of California action oppose centralization. If the Panel deems centralization appropriate, defendant suggests centralization in the Northern District of Illinois, and plaintiff in the Northern District of California action expressed support for both the Northern District of California and the Central District of California. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Judge Vance concludes that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual issues arising from allegations that U.S. Soccer has discriminated against players on its U.S. Women's national soccer team on the basis of gender. But only two actions are pending in two adjacent districts, and the Judge finds movants have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the need for centralization. The Panel has held that "where a reasonable prospect exists that resolution of Section 1404 motions could eliminate the multidistrict character of a litigation, transfer under Section 1404 is preferable to centralization." Here, there are two pending or suggested pretrial motions that could eliminate the need for Section 1407 centralization. Defendant's motion to transfer the Central District of California action to the Northern District of California under the first-to-file rule is pending. And at oral argument, counsel for the Northern District of California plaintiff represented that she would stipulate to transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 to the Central District of California. Finally, the Panel has held that "centralization under Section 1407 should be the last solution after considered review of all other options." Even if these actions are not transferred to the same district under Section 1404 or the first-to-file rule, this litigation involves only two actions in two districts. Informal coordination among the relatively few involved attorneys and coordination between the involved courts to prevent duplicative proceedings and inconsistent rulings, therefore, are practical alternatives to centralization. A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/xOYKAx MDL 2892: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Suits vs. GemCap Lending ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: GEMCAP LENDING I, LLC, LITIGATION, MDL No. 2892, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Plaintiff's motion to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern District of California. This litigation consists of two actions pending in the Northern District of California and the District of Hawaii: * Northern District of California - GEMCAP LENDING I, LLC v. UNITY BANK MINNESOTA, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-05979 * District of Hawaii - GEMCAP LENDING I, LLC v. VAN BUREN, C.A. No. 1:19-00142 Common plaintiff GemCap Lending I, LLC (GemCap) moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern District of California. Defendant George W. Van Buren opposes centralization. The remaining defendants take no position on whether Section 1407 centralization is appropriate. Plaintiff's claims against all defendants stem from the same loan issued by GemCap to borrowers who defaulted and are alleged to have fraudulently transferred funds and assets. In similar complaints, plaintiff brings claims against all defendants for aiding and abetting fraud. Plaintiff initially commenced the two actions as a single action in the Northern District of California. After Mr. Van Buren contested personal jurisdiction, the court dismissed the claims against him, which plaintiff then filed in the District of Hawaii. After considering all arguments, Judge Vance concludes that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. No party disputes that the actions share common factual and legal issues. But there are just two actions involving a single plaintiff, with no indication of more to come. The Panel has denied centralization in similar circumstances, and see no reason to reach a different result here. Movant argues that Mr. Van Buren has shown no willingness to informally coordinate these actions, but also concedes in a declaration that "there have been no . . . efforts" to "coordinate pre-trial discovery without the need to grant GemCap's motion to transfer." The Panel does not find Section 1407 centralization is necessary for a minimal number of parties and actions, particularly where the parties have made no effort to informally cooperate. In the Panel's view, such cooperation, and coordination by the two involved courts, is feasible and preferable to formal centralization under Section 1407. A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/0GEeYi MDL 2893: Enginuity Withdraws Bid for Centralization ---------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: VIEGA PRESS FITTINGS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2893, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order deeming plaintiff Enginuity LLC's motion for transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 as withdrawn. The Panel also ordered that the Hearing Session Order and the attached Schedule filed on April 10, 2019, are VACATED insofar as they relate to this matter. Before the Panel is a motion by plaintiff Enginuity LLC, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, seeking centralization in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania of the actions on the attached Schedule A. No responding party has joined in the motion. Movant now seek to withdraw its Section 1407 motion. According to Movant, the parties to the actions pending outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania have stipulated to transfer of those actions to the Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/3bWE3H MDL 2894: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 4 Grille Trademark Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: LKQ CORPORATION AFTERMARKET AUTOMOBILE GRILLE TRADEMARK LITIGATION, MDL No. 2894, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.'s to centralize pretrial proceedings in the actions listed on four actions in the Southern District of Georgia. These four actions are: District of Delaware * LKQ CORPORATION, ET AL. v. FCA US LLC, C.A. No. 1:19-00054 District of District of Columbia * LKQ CORPORATION, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-01562 Southern District of Georgia * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. 324 AUTOMOTIVE GRILLES, C.A. No. 4:18-00195 * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. 25 AUTOMOTIVE GRILLES, C.A. No. 4:19-00096 LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (collectively, LKQ) move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in the actions listed on Schedule A in the Southern District of Georgia. This litigation consists of four actions—two civil forfeiture actions pending in the Southern District of Georgia, a declaratory judgment pending in the District of District of Columbia, and a declaratory judgment and antitrust action pending in the District of Delaware. LKQ alternatively suggests centralization in the Northern District of Illinois. FCA US LLC (Chrysler), the defendant in the Delaware action, supports centralization in the Southern District of Georgia. The United States, the plaintiff in the forfeiture actions and the defendant in the D.C. action, as well as the individual defendants in the D.C. action, oppose centralization. Alternatively, should the Panel centralize this litigation, these parties support the Southern District of Georgia as the transferee forum. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Judge Vance concludes that centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Where only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate. These actions arise from the seizure by United States Customs and Border Protection of aftermarket automobile grilles at various ports around the country. Beyond this, the actions are notably different. In the two forfeiture actions pending in the Southern District of Georgia, the government seeks forfeiture of certain of the grilles on the basis that they bear counterfeit marks, or marks that unlawfully copy or simulate registered trademarks of the original automobile manufacturers. In the Delaware action, LKQ, which imported the grilles, asserts claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and antitrust violations against Chrysler based on its alleged instigation and direction of the government's purported misapplication of the Lanham Act and the Tariff Act of 1930 to seize the aftermarket grilles. Finally, in the D.C. action, LKQ challenges the actions of various federal agencies and officers with respect to the seizure of the aftermarket grilles. LKQ alleges that the government unreasonably and unlawfully delayed instituting civil forfeiture actions for the grilles, and that this delay constitutes a violation of LKQ's Fifth Amendment due process rights. While these actions will share some common factual questions, these issues are not sufficiently complex or numerous to warrant centralization, particularly given the small number of actions and involved parties. To the extent these actions may involve duplicative discovery or motion practice, alternatives to centralization appear eminently feasible. One of the forfeiture actions now pending in the Southern District of Georgia was transferred sua sponte from the Central District of California under the first-to-file doctrine (after both LKQ and the United States indicated consent to venue in the Southern District of Georgia). At oral argument, counsel for Chrysler stated that it would agree to a Section 1404 transfer of the Delaware action to S.D. Georgia. And, in the D.C. action, the United States has moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer that action to the Southern District of Georgia. "[W]here a reasonable prospect exists that resolution of Section 1404 motions could eliminate the multidistrict character of a litigation, transfer under Section 1404 is preferable to centralization." In re Gerber Probiotic Prods. Mktg. &Sales Practices Litig., 899 F. Supp. 2d 1378,1380 (J.P.M.L. 2012). Such a reasonable prospect exists here. Even if transfer is denied, this litigation involves only four actions pending in three districts. Informal cooperation among the relatively few involved attorneys and coordination among the involved courts therefore are practicable alternatives to centralization. A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/QSIcb4 MEDICAL GUARDIAN: Perrong Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Perrong, individually and on behalf of the class of all persons and entities similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MEDICAL GUARDIAN LLC, the Defendant, Case 2:19-cv-02371-AB (E.D. Pa, May 31, 2019), alleges that Defendant made a series of prerecorded telemarketing calls to Mr. Perrong's residential telephone number, which is charged per call, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this action under the TCPA, a federal statute enacted in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls, which were placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Marc Davies, Esq. MARC DAVIES LAW 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 320 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: 215 876 7636 E-mail: marc@marcdavieslaw.com - and - Brian K. Murphy, Esq. Jonathan P. Misny, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: 614 488 0400 Facsimile: 614 488 0401 E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com misny@mmmb.com MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Action Over Defective Radiators Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Mercedes-Benz radiator lawsuit has been dismissed after the plaintiff failed to convince the judge that radiators in 2004 and earlier C-Class and CLK-Class vehicles are defective. According to the plaintiff, coolant mixes with transmission fluid and damages the torque converters and transmissions. The lawsuit references a technical service bulletin (TSB) Mercedes issued to dealerships in 2006 about radiators manufactured by Valeo that could cause the fluids to mix. The defective radiators mentioned in the TSB could cause "sudden and unexpected breakdowns and mechanical failures." The bulletin also told dealers customers could complain about "humming/buzzing noises or noticeable harsh engagement during gentle acceleration." The proposed class action lawsuit says Mercedes hasn't offered customers free repairs or replacement, ignores the issue of reimbursements and has refused to recall the vehicles. In addition, the plaintiff says owners were faced with thousands of dollars in repair bills to replace the radiators, torque converters and transmissions. In its motion to dismiss the suit, the automaker told the judge Mr. Garick still owns the C320 and drove his Mercedes for 12 years before alleging the radiator had problems. Lawyers for Mercedes also say the plaintiff is under the false impression that dealers should make free repairs well beyond the warranty periods. In dismissing the case, the judge ruled the plaintiff can't prove Mercedes committed fraud simply by showing some vehicles had radiators that eventually had problems. The Mercedes-Benz radiator lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts - Garick, et. al., v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC. The plaintiff is represented by the Law Offices of Joshua N. Garick. [GN] MERCK: Fosamax Case Decision Expected to Set Precedent ------------------------------------------------------ Devin Dwyer, writing for ABC7, reports that it's decision time at the Supreme Court. Can a class-action lawsuit proceed against drug maker Merck over debilitating osteoporosis drug side-effects? Or, did an FDA decision to block a proposed warning label for the drug preempt state tort claims? Hundreds of Fosamax users have been impacted and the decision could set a precedent for future drug-harm claims. [GN] MONSANTO CO: Brizendine Seeks Damages for Roundup-related Injuries ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANNETT BRIZENDINE v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 5:19-cv-00070-TBR (W.D. Ky., May 16, 2019), seeks damages for injuries allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Bryant, Esq. Emily Ward Roark, Esq. BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC 601 Washington St. P.O. Box 1876 Paducah, KY 42002-1876 Telephone: (270) 442-1422 Facsimile: (270) 443-8788 E-mail: mark@bryant.law emily@bryant.law MONSANTO CO: Faces Kendrick Suit Over Roundup-related Injuries -------------------------------------------------------------- WENDY W. KENDRICK v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 3:19-cv-00315-JWD-EWD (M.D. La., May 16, 2019), is an action for 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(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: Lauren E. Godshall, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. Richard L. Root, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 E-mail: lgodshall@morrisbart.com bbarnes@morrisbart.com rroot@morrisbart.com MONSANTO CO: Faces Thirstrup Suit Over Damages From Using Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT J. THIRSTRUP v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-10498-JTM-JCW (E.D. La., May 16, 2019), is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of 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: Lauren E. Godshall, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. Richard L. Root, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 E-mail: lgodshall@morrisbart.com bbarnes@morrisbart.com rroot@morrisbart.com MONSANTO CO: Indelicato Sues Over Injuries From Roundup Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- NIKOLAS INDELICATO v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION, BAYER AG, Case No. 1:19-cv-00363-TSB (S.D. Ohio, May 16, 2019), arises from personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup(R) ("Roundup") containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"). 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. Bayer Corporation is an Indiana corporation that has its principal place of business in Whippany, New Jersey. Bayer AG is a German chemical and pharmaceutical company that is headquartered in Leverkusen, North Rhine, Westphalia, Germany. Bayer AG is the parent/holding company of Bayer Corp. and Monsanto.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Franke, Esq. Michael D. O'Neill, Esq. GARY F. FRANKE CO., L.P.A. 120 East 4th Street - Suite 1040 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 564-9222 Facsimile: (513) 564-9990 E-mail: gff@garyfrankelaw.com mdo@garyfrankelaw.com MONSANTO CO: Martin Sues Over Injuries From Roundup Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES R. MARTIN v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 5:19-cv-00071-TBR (W.D. Ky., May 16, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff suffered injuries as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Bryant, Esq. Emily Ward Roark, Esq. BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC 601 Washington St. P.O. Box 1876 Paducah, KY 42002-1876 Telephone: (270) 442-1422 Facsimile: (270) 443-8788 E-mail: mark@bryant.law emily@bryant.law MONSANTO CO: Ponzini Sues Over Lymphoma From Using Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- LARRY PONZINI v. MONSANTO COMPANY CORPORATION and BAYER U.S., LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00747-AKK (N.D. Ala., May 16, 2019), alleges that in June 2018, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup(R) for 15 years. The Defendants engaged in the business of testing, developing, designing, manufacturing, marketing, selling, distributing, and promoting Roundup(R) products, which are defective and unreasonably dangerous to consumers, including the Plaintiff, thereby, placing Roundup(R) products into the stream of commerce, according to the complaint. 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. Bayer U.S., LLC, is a foreign corporation doing business by registered agent in the state of Alabama. In June, 2016, Monsanto agreed to be acquired by Bayer for $66 billion; this acquisition was completed in 2018.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC 301 Washington Street, Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 532-2222 Facsimile: (256) 513-7489 E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com MONSANTO CO: Roundup Caused Lymphoma, Reed Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------- KAYLA REED v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00632 (W.D. La., May 16, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff suffered injuries (Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma) 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: Lauren E. Godshall, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. Richard L. Root, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 E-mail: lgodshall@morrisbart.com bbarnes@morrisbart.com rroot@morrisbart.com MOVIE GRILL CONCEPTS: Tate Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Dashawna Tate v. Movie Grill Concepts XXVI LLC, No. 19 CH 02682 (Filed on Feb. 28, 2019), was transferred from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the he United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 17, 2019. The removal of this case is pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy have vested the district court with the appropriate jurisdiction of this civil action. In the complaint, Plaintiff Dashawna Tate alleges Defendant's violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief; attorneys' fees; costs and expenses; and all damages available to Plaintiff and the purported class under applicable law, including statutory damages. Movie Grill Concepts XXVI, LLC owns and operates movie theaters with in-theater dining. [BN] Attorneys for the Defendant: P. Russell Perdew, Esq. W. Patrick Conlon, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312-443-0700 E-mail: rperdew@lockelord.com wpatrick.conlon@lockelord.com - and - Alana K. Ackels, Esq. Brent A. Turman, Esq. BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 1900 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: 214-740-1400 E-mail: aackels@bellnunally.com bturman@bellnunnally.com NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Class Actions Over Commissions Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Kenneth R. Harney, writing for Richmond, reports that the long knives are out again for one of American real estate's oldest and most controversial traditions: requiring home sellers to pay the agents who represent the buyers of their properties. A landmark suit filed in March alleged that the 1.3-million-member National Association of Realtors has conspired with local multiple listing services and with major realty brokerage companies to force sellers who list their homes on an MLS to pay a contractually specified percentage of the commissions to the broker/agent who brings in the ultimate buyer. Now, two new class action lawsuits have been filed with allegations along the same lines. According to all the suits, an NAR rule prevents buyers from unilaterally altering the "split" stated in the listing contract. Say, for instance, you are a seller of a $500,000 home and agree at the listing to pay a total 5.5 percent commission, allocating 3 percent to the listing agent and 2.5 percent to the buyer's agent. If the house sells for the full asking price of $500,000, that would mean the buyer's agent would be due $12,500 at closing. If you thought this was more than you wanted to pay -- especially given the fact that you knew part of the buyer's agent's job was to help your buyer obtain a lower price for your house -- you might not be happy about having to shell out the $12,500. Shouldn't the buyer pay this fee? In March, the seller of a home in Shorewood, Minn., filed suit to challenge this NAR rule, arguing that this system of mandating compensation to the buyers' agent raises total transaction costs. The rule "saddle[s] home sellers with a cost that would be borne by the buyer in a competitive market," where buyers can opt to pay directly for their agents' services. The U.S. market's total transaction costs tend to be much higher than in most other industrial economies. The original suit is now pending in U.S. District Court in Chicago, with NAR's reply to the complaint expected shortly. The two new class actions, filed in April, have different plaintiffs than the original suit but have nearly identical allegations. They come with proposed giant classes of alleged victims who have sold and paid millions of dollars in commissions via major MLSs to buyers' agents across the country. NAR rejects the premises of the suits and pledges to fight them vigorously. The sheer costs for any single law firm to mount a credible antitrust case against a major lobby and the largest realty enterprises in the U.S. -- plus no doubt the prospect of large payoffs and settlements -- has apparently attracted the new actions. Sources tell me that it's not unusual in wide-ranging cases like these for other law firms to jump in with nearly identical copy-cat filings. Defendants in all three include NAR along with the giants of the brokerage industry: Home Services of America, Keller Williams Realty Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp. and RE/MAX Holdings Corp. Realtors tell me that an adverse decision in the cases would produce transformative changes in home-sale transactions nationwide. Some brokers say that it could create situations where first-time and other cash-short buyers might not be able to afford to pay for their agents' services. Rather than buyers having their commissions paid for by the seller, they would now need to come up with that money themselves. Today, however, buyers don't give it a thought and, in fact, they often do not even know what commission split the buyer agent expects to receive. In much of Europe, home sellers typically pay realty fees of 1 to 3 percent versus the 5 to 6 percent average commonplace in the U.S. Critics of the American system have long argued that if homebuyers paid the fees for the services rendered for them — and negotiated them with the buyers' agents directly —fees would be lower. But sellers' agents say that if the buyers-side commission is low under the current system, many buyers' agents will not show houses because the compensation is not sufficient. [GN] NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Cal. App. Flips Timlick FDCPA Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Carin T. Fujisaki of the Court of Appeals of California for the First District, Division Three, reversed the trial court's dismissal of the case, LISA ARLENE TIMLICK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. A154235 (Cal. App.). The operative class action complaint filed by Timlick alleges as follows. After defaulting on a loan, Timlick received a collection letter dated Jan. 13, 2016, from third-party debt collector National Enterprise Systems, Inc. ("NES"). This was the first written communication from NES to Timlick regarding the subject debt. The letter did not comply with section 1812.701, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 1812.701(b)) of the Consumer Collection Notice law because certain statutorily-required language was not in a type-size that was at least the same as used to inform Timlick of the debt, or 12-point type. Timlick pleaded a single cause of action against NES for violation of section 1812.701(b) and sought to recover statutory damages, costs, and attorney's fees. She also sought to represent a class of persons in California who received an initial written communication from NES in an attempt to collect on a consumer debt during the one-year period prior to the complaint's filing date. NES moved for summary judgment on the basis that it cured the alleged violation within the 15-day period prescribed by section 1788.30(d) for correcting curable Rosenthal Act violations. NES submitted evidence that on Jan. 13, 2017, nine days after it was served with Timlick's complaint, NES sent a letter to Timlick, in care of her counsel of record, enclosing a revised collection letter which set forth the required language in the same type-size as that which was used to inform her of her specific debt. In opposition to the motion, Timlick did not dispute NES' evidence or material facts. Rather, she argued section 1788.30(d) should not apply for various reasons: (1) it was implicitly repealed by a subsequently-enacted statute; (2) it applied only to violations under a different title of the Civil Code that did not contain the statute violated by NES; (3) NES' violation was not capable of being cured within the meaning of section 1788.30(d); and (4) NES' revised collection letter did not provide redress to the putative class but merely served to eliminate Timlick's standing to act as the named Plaintiff. The trial court found that section 1788.30(d) applied to NES' section 1812.701(b) violation, and that NES timely cured the violation by sending the revised collection letter. The trial court granted NES' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Timlick timely appealed. She argues section 1788.30(d) and its cure provision were repealed when the Legislature enacted section 1788.17 to harmonize the Rosenthal Act with the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Alternatively, Timlick argues that the cure provision applies only to violations under the title in which it is codified (title 1.6C) and that it has no application to NES' section 1812.701(b) violation, which falls under a different title (title 2.97). In any case, Timlick contends, NES' type-size violation is not one that is capable of being cured within the meaning of section 1788.30(d) because that statute necessarily requires compliance in the debt collector's first written communication to the consumer debtor. In the appeal from the dismissal of a putative consumer class action, Judge Fujisaki is presented with two main questions. First, whether a debt collector that violates the minimum type-size requirement for consumer collection letters under Civil Code sections 1812.700 to 1812.7021 can utilize the procedure for curing violations under the Rosenthal FDCPA ("Rosenthal Act") to correct its violation. Second, whether the trial court erred by dismissing the entire putative class action after it found there was no triable issue of material fact that the Defendant debt collector timely cured the type-size violation as to the named Plaintiff. The Judge holds that the answer to each of the foregoing questions is yes. The Rosenthal Act's cure provision set forth in section 1788.30, subdivision (d), is available to debt collectors to correct curable violations of the Consumer Collection Notice law. The cure provision of section 1788.30(d) was available to NES to cure its violation of section 1812.701(b)'s type-size requirement. She rejects Timlick's contention that section 1788.30(d) does not apply to a violation of a statutory provision contained in title 2.97. True, the cure provision pertains to liability under "this title" (title 1.6C). But title 2.97 makes clear that a violation of section 1812.701(b)'s type-size requirement will be considered a violation of the Rosenthal Act (Title 1.6C). However, the Judge concludes that the trial court erred by dismissing the entire putative class action, as this allowed the debt collector to unilaterally "pick off" the named Plaintiff and avoid class action litigation. Timlick was permitted to bring a putative class action for her claim under section 1812.701(b). The statutory language of section 1788.17 does not purport to limit the incorporated FDCPA remedies to FDCPA violations. The pick off exception applies to the circumstances of the case. The effect of the trial court's dismissal of the action is that putative class members who do not have the financial means to initiate or join the litigation will not obtain any redress. And any relief for the putative class members would require multiple individual suits, resulting in the kind of revolving door litigation that wastes judicial resources. Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing the entire putative class action without first affording Timlick the opportunity to amend her complaint, redefine the putative class, or locate a suitable class representative, and without giving notice to the putative class. Based on the foregoing, Judge Fujisaki reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with her Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/Gq21ga from Leagle.com. NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- National Vision Holdings, 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 30, 2019, that FirstSight's motion to dismiss the class action suit filed before the United States District Court for the Southern District of California is pending. The company's subsidiary, FirstSight is a defendant in a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California that alleges that FirstSight participated in arrangements that caused the illegal delivery of eye examinations and that FirstSight thereby violated, among other laws, the corporate practice of optometry and the unfair competition and false advertising laws of California. The lawsuit was filed in 2013 and FirstSight was added as a defendant in 2016. In March 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss previously filed by FirstSight and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2017. In July 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated in part, and reversed in part, the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the district court seeking, among other claims, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees, and in November 2018, FirstSight filed a motion to dismiss. National Vision said, "We believe that the claims alleged are without merit and intend to continue to defend the litigation vigorously." National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. NATIONAL VISION: Remand of Cal. Wage & Hour Class Action Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- National Vision Holdings, 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 30, 2019, that plaintiff in the California wage and hour related class action suit moved to remand the action to Monterey County Superior Court. On February 25, 2019, the company was served with a lawsuit by a former employee who alleges, on behalf of himself and a proposed class, several violations of California wage and hour laws and seeks unspecified alleged unpaid wages, monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On March 21, 2019, the company removed the lawsuit from Monterey County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court on April 18, 2019. National Vision said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation." National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Mulquin Class Action in Calif. Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Nektar Therapeutics 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 putative securities class action suit entitled, Mulquin v. Nektar Therapeutics et. al. On October 30, 2018, the company and its CEO and CFO were named in a putative securities class action entitled, Mulquin v. Nektar Therapeutics et. al., N.D. Cal. Also, on February 13, 2019, and February 18, 2019, shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware naming the CEO, CFO and certain members of Nektar's board. Both the class action and shareholder derivative actions assert, among other things, that for a period beginning at least from November 11, 2017 through October 2, 2018, the company's stock was inflated due to alleged misrepresentations about the efficacy and safety of NKTR-214. These cases are in the early stages. Nektar said, "Accordingly, we cannot reasonably estimate any range of potential future charges, and we have not recorded any accrual for a contingent liability associated with these legal proceedings. However, an unfavorable resolution could potentially have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations or prospects, and potentially result in paying monetary damages." Nektar Therapeutics develops drug candidates for cancer, auto-immune disease, and chronic pain in the United States. Nektar Therapeutics was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. NERDWALLET INC: Bunting Suit Alleges ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------- Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Nerdwallet, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01927 (E.D. N.Y., April 3, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services NerdWallet provides to their non-disabled customers through http//:www.NerdWallet.com, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using her computer. The Defendant provides to the public a website known as NerdWallet.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view, learn about, and sign up for various financial products, credit cards, brokerage accounts, and insurance products, among other features. Its principal place of business located at 875 Stevenson Street, San Francisco, CA 94103. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com NEW YORK, NY: Removes Reaves Harassment Suit to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant NYC Department of Education removed on May 16, 2019, the class action lawsuit styled CHRISTINE REAVES and MAYA FRISCIC-GEIGER, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons v. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and P.S. 60 QUEENS PRINCIPAL FRANK DESARIO, Case No. 707928/2019, from the Queens County Supreme Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02910 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiffs contend that Mr. DeSario has created a climate of fear and intimidation for women employed at P.S. 60. The Plaintiffs allege that he singles out and targets female staff, like the Plaintiffs, for humiliation, abuse, bullying and harassment.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Walsh, Esq. Robert B. Stulberg, Esq. BROACH & STULBERG, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 268-1000 E-mail: pwalsh@brostul.com rstulberg@brostul.com Defendant NYC Department of Education is represented by: Samantha Paige Turetsky, Esq. NYC CORPORATION COUNSEL 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2451 Facsimile: (212) 356-2089 E-mail: sturetsk@law.nyc.gov OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Appeal in Securities Class Action Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Omega Healthcare Investors, 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 an appeal in the consolidated class action suit in New York remains pending. On November 16, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Dror Gronich v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), Case No. 1:17‑cv‑08983‑NRB. On November 17, 2017, a second purported securities class action complaint captioned Steve Klein v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth was filed against the Company and the same officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:17‑cv‑09024‑NRB. Thereafter, the Court considered a series of applications by various shareholders to be named lead plaintiff, consolidated the two actions and designated Royce Setzer as the lead plaintiff. Pursuant to a Scheduling Order entered by the Court, lead plaintiff Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on May 25, 2018 (the "Securities Class Action"). The Securities Class Action purports to be a class action brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between May 3, 2017 and October 31, 2017. The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making materially false and/or misleading statements, and by failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including the financial and operating results of one of the Company's operators, the ability of such operator to make timely rent payments, and the impairment of certain of the Company's leases and the uncollectibility of certain receivables. The Securities Class Action, which purports to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. The Company and the officers named in the Securities Class Action filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2018 and the Court heard Oral Argument on February 13, 2019. On March 25, 2019, the Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against all defendants. On April 22, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, notifying the Court that they are appealing the Court's order of dismissal with prejudice to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On May 6, 2019, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals filed a Notice of Expedited Appeal and set a briefing schedule. Appellants' brief is due on June 10, 2019 and the Company's brief is due on July 15, 2019. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in the United States which are operated by independent healthcare operating companies. The company is based in Hunt Valley, Maryland. OSMOTICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shumacher Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc 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 has been named as a defendant in a class action suit initiated by Leo Shumacher. On April 30, 2019, Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc was served with a complaint in an action entitled Leo Shumacher, et al., v. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County No. SOM-L-000540-19. The complaint names Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, certain of its directors and officers and the underwriters of its initial public offering as defendants in a putative class action alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the disclosures contained in the registration statement and prospectus used for the Company's initial public offering of ordinary shares. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend against the action. Osmotica said, "However, this litigation is still in an early stage and there is no assurance that we will be successful in our defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action, which could adversely affect the Company's results of operations and financial condition." Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, an integrated biopharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes specialty products that target markets with underserved patient populations. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. PERRIGO CO: Baton Class Suit in Tel Aviv Stayed ----------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc 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 an Israeli court overseeing the case, Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., has granted a stay of the matter, and required the parties to update the court about similar proceedings in the U.S. by September 1, 2019. On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the Company, its CEO Murray Kessler, and its CFO Ronald Winowiecki in Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et. al.). The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted in the In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig case in New York federal court. This case alleges that persons who invested through the Tel Aviv stock exchange can assert claims under Israeli securities law that will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages. The company filed a request for a stay, the plaintiff agreed in part, and the court approved a stay and required the parties to update the court about the U.S. proceedings by September 1, 2019. Perrigo said, "We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously." Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. PERRIGO CO: Settlement of Eltroxin Litigation Wins Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc 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 an Israeli court overseeing litigation related to adverse effects of Eltroxin medication has approved a settlement agreement. During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by the company's subsidiary, Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents included the company's subsidiaries, Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the product, and various healthcare providers who provide healthcare services as part of the compulsory healthcare system in Israel. One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight applications were consolidated into one application. The applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The consolidated application generally alleges that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients, pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation; and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation. Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. On May 17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the remaining respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. On June 16, 2015, the company submitted a motion for permission to appeal the decision to certify to the Israeli Supreme Court together with a motion to stay the proceedings of the class action until the motion for permission to appeal is adjudicated. The company filed its statement of defense to the underlying proceedings. The underlying proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of the mediation process and, if necessary, a decision on the motion to appeal. On November 14, 2017, the parties submitted an agreed settlement agreement to the approval of the Supreme Court, which referred the approval back to the District Court. During three hearings that took place on November 29, 2017, December 13, 2017 and January 11, 2018, the District Court opined that it would approve the settlement agreement subject to certain amendments to be proposed by the court (which would not impact the monetary settlement reached) and set a hearing for January 30, 2018 to discuss and finalize the proposed changes. Meanwhile, the Court ordered the settlement to be (1) provided to the Attorney General ("AG") for review (standard procedure); and (2) published in the written media (newspapers), to enable the class members to submit any objections or "opt-out" to the proposed settlement by February 15, 2018. On February 21, 2018, the District Court held a hearing to, among other things, review objections received from class members who had notified the District Court of their desire to opt out of the settlement. In addition, a representative of the AG's office notified the District Court that, based upon their preliminary examination of the settlement, they intend to object to the settlement in its current form. The District Court recommended that the parties continue to discuss and minimize objections to the settlement and scheduled another hearing for May 13, 2018. The District Court Justice was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice and ordered to move the case to a different panel. In an effort to reach a decision before the appointment, an additional hearing was held on March 12, 2018 in which the court urged the parties to try and exhaust their negotiations to the fullest and provide an update by May 13, 2018. In addition, the Court ordered the AG to submit its opinion to the settlement agreement by May 30, 2018, which was extended until July 23, 2018. On August 2, 2018, the AG submitted its objection to the settlement, noting, among other things, that it did not provide compensation for harm to autonomy. On August 12, 2018, the company submitted its response to the Attorney General's objection together with an amended settlement which incorporated the court's comments. Following the submission of the amended settlement agreement on August 23, 2018, the District Court rendered a decision that it will be willing to approve the amended settlement agreement providing that a few additional amendments will be made. Both parties agreed to carry out the requested amendments. On September 13, 2018, the AG filed a request to file a response to the amended settlement agreement and asked for an extension to file a response until November 11, 2018, which was granted by the court. On November 11, 2018 the AG asked and was granted another ten days extension to file a response. On November 21, 2018 the AG filed its response in which he mainly repeated his previous objection to the settlement claiming that the settlement amount does not provide a suitable compensation for harm to the autonomy and that the mechanism payment is complex and will deter patients from receiving appropriate compensation for pain and suffering. The AG repeated his opinion that each member of the group should be compensated for harm to the autonomy while claiming a minimum amount of 250 NIS should be provided for each patient. In addition, the AG detailed an alternative mechanism and list of categories that he asserts would be a better and less complex solution to provide the compensation amount. On November 29, 2018, the court approved the Eltroxin settlement agreement. In a lengthy decision, the court detailed the various aspects of the settlement as well as the objections submitted to the settlement, including the main objection submitted by the AG. The court added a number of comments ordering the parties to make minor changes to the agreement, mainly concerning the operation of the mechanism, however none of the agreement foundations are affected by these changes. The court found that the settlement is "worthwhile, reasonable and fair" and ordered its publication and approval. Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend IV Saline Solution Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 Hospira and Hospira Worldwide, Inc. continue to defend a consolidated class action suit related to intravenous saline solution. Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Hospira, Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to intravenous saline solution. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all persons and entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct restricts output and artificially fixes, raises, maintains and/or stabilizes the prices of intravenous saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek treble damages (for themselves and on behalf of the putative classes) and an injunction against defendants for alleged price overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since January 1, 2013. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In July 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in September 2018. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 itself from purported class action suits over sales of Lipitor. Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among others, Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the actions, Ranbaxy, Inc. (Ranbaxy) and certain affiliates of Ranbaxy. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the 2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above. These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims by direct purchasers. In October and November 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of all other Multi-District Litigation plaintiffs. All plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's orders dismissing their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the order denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to amend their complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court. Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the State of West Virginia and residents of that state that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Faces Class Suits Related to Adalimumab Biosimilars --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 has been named as a defendant in purported class action suits related to Adalimumab Biosimilars. Beginning in March 2019, purported class actions relating to Humira and adalimumab biosimilars were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AbbVie Inc. (AbbVie), certain affiliates of AbbVie, and other pharmaceutical manufacturers. Pfizer is a named defendant in three of the actions. The plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide and multi-state classes consisting of persons and/or entities who are indirect purchasers of Humira from January 1, 2017 until the allegedly unlawful antitrust effects cease. Against Pfizer, the plaintiffs generally allege that Pfizer's and AbbVie's 2018 licensing agreements, resolving all global intellectual property matters for Pfizer's proposed adalimumab biosimilar, delayed market entry of Pfizer's biosimilar product in the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws, various state antitrust or consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and treble damages for alleged overcharges for Humira since 2017. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 Wyeth LLC continues to defend itself from Hormone Therapy Consumer class action lawsuit. A certified consumer class action is pending against Wyeth in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California based on the alleged off-label marketing of its hormone therapy products. The case was originally filed in December 2003. The class consists of California consumers who purchased Wyeth's hormone-replacement products between January 1995 and January 2003 and who do not seek personal injury damages therefrom. The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages, including a full refund of the purchase price. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit over Effexor XR Sales ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 Wyeth LLC and its affiliates continue to defend a class action lawsuit related to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement, but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: 9th Cir. Grants Petition for Leave to Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the company's petition for leave to appeal a class certification ruling. In May 2015, the company experienced a crude oil release from its Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County, California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following the release, the company shut down the pipeline and initiated its emergency response plan. A Unified Command, which included the United States Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was established for the response effort. Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been dissolved. The company's estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,934 barrels; of this amount, the company estimate that 598 barrels reached the Pacific Ocean. Shortly following the Line 901 incident, the company established a claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the release to contact the company to discuss their damage claims. The company have received a number of claims through the claims line and the company have been processing those claims and making payments as appropriate. In addition, the company have also had nine class action lawsuits filed against it, six of which have been administratively consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the release. To date, the court has certified three sub-classes of claimants and denied certification of the other proposed sub-class. The sub-classes that have been certified include (i) commercial fishermen who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or persons or businesses who resold commercial seafood landed in such areas; (ii) individuals or businesses who were employed by or had contracts with certain designated oil platforms and related onshore processing facilities in the vicinity of the release as of the date of the release and (iii) beachfront property and easement owners whose properties were oiled. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the company's petition for leave to appeal the oil industry class certification. The company is also defending a separate class action lawsuit proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line 903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages in the transportation, storage, terminalling, and marketing of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments: Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. The company was founded in 1998 and is based in Houston, Texas. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Appeal in TX Consolidated Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal in the consolidated class action suit in Texas is pending. There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain purported investors in the Partnership and/or Plains GP Holdings, L.P. (PAGP) against the Partnership, PAGP and/or certain of their respective officers, directors and underwriters. Both of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities through false and misleading statements, omission of material facts and concealing of the true extent of the spill. The plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of the reduction in value of their investments in the Partnership and PAGP, which they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants. The Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants, denied the allegations in, and moved to dismiss these lawsuits. On March 29, 2017, the Court ruled in company's favor dismissing all claims against all defendants. Plaintiffs refiled their complaint. On April 2, 2018, the Court dismissed all of the refiled claims against all defendants with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. Plains All American said, "Consistent with and subject to the terms of our governing organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance policies), we have indemnified and funded the defense costs of our officers and directors in connection with this lawsuit; we have also indemnified and funded the defense costs of our underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements we previously entered into with such underwriters." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages in the transportation, storage, terminalling, and marketing of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments: Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. The company was founded in 1998 and is based in Houston, Texas. POOL & PATIO: Bobola Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Jordain Bobola, and all others similarly situated, v. Pool & Patio Depot Pompano Inc., Case No. 0:19-cv-60886 (S.D. Fla., April 3, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and regular wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant has violated the provisions of the FLSA by having policies and practices to pay its employees overtime only when the employee exceeds 80 hours within a two-week period, and shaves compensable hours off of employees' time. The Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida and was employed by the Defendant as an hourly office administrator. The Defendant owned and operated a pool and patio retail showroom within the Southern District of Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W 70th Avenue, Ste 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Tel: (954) 617-6017 Fax: (954) 617-6018 E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com PORSCHE: Wants Cayenne Coolant Leak Class Action Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Porsche coolant leak lawsuit shouldn't be a class action but should be dismissed entirely, at least according to what Porsche says in a motion to dismiss the complaint. The proposed class action includes 2011-2019 Porsche Cayennes and 2010-2016 Porsche Panameras equipped with V8 engines prone to leak coolant due to bad adhesive. The plaintiffs claim the leaks occur when the coolant pipes separate from the thermostat housings because the adhesive on the connectors is allegedly defective. Porsche is allegedly aware of coolant pipe problems because a previous class action lawsuit was settled for customers of 2003-2006 Cayennes. According to the latest lawsuit, Cayenne and Panamera drivers complain about overheated and failed engines from the coolant suddenly leaking from the connectors. Drivers also allege they sometimes pay thousands of dollars for dealerships to replace the allegedly defective parts with the same faulty parts. Porsche filed a motion to dismiss the suit by telling the judge the plaintiffs have no legal ground to stand on, including concerning how the plaintiffs acquired the vehicles. The automaker says both plaintiffs bought their cars used and not directly from Porsche, therefore the automaker says it played no role in the transactions. Porsche also argues the plaintiffs wrongly blame the automaker for the alleged coolant leak problems that popped up many years after the vehicles were originally sold as new to other consumers. In its motion, Porsche says the lawsuit "should be dismissed in its entirety and with prejudice," then the automaker goes down the line of claims filed by the plaintiffs and why those claims are baseless. The plaintiffs argue the automaker violates Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), but Porsche points out the lawsuit was filed in November 2018, more than four years after the plaintiffs purchased their used vehicles. According to Porsche, there can't be violations of FDUTPA because the claims are time-barred and the plaintiffs allegedly haven't plausibly alleged the automaker committed deceptive or unfair acts. In addition, the automaker says the plaintiffs fail to plead that Porsche knew about coolant leak defects but failed to disclose those defects. As for alleged implied warranty violations, Porsche says the plaintiffs didn't purchase the vehicles directly from the automaker, and one of the plaintiffs didn't provide pre-lawsuit notice to Porsche. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs want Porsche to admit their are defects and recall the vehicles, but the automaker says only the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can do that. This allegedly means claims for declaratory and injunctive relief shouldn't even be heard as part of the lawsuit. The Porsche coolant leak lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida - Padilla, et al., v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. The plaintiffs are represented by Morgan & Morgan, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, and Ray Boucher. [GN] PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Putnam Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- JOY PUTNAM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00189-SAB (E.D. Wash., May 31, 2019), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's actions of using unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. According to the complaint, the Defendant's actions violated section 1692 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, 15 deceptive, and unfair practices. Sometime prior to September of 2017, Plaintiff allegedly incurred an obligation to Capital One Bank. The Bank obligation arose out of a transaction in which money, property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. On or about September 25, 2017, Plaintiff's alleged Capital One Bank debt was sold to Defendant. In December 2018, Defendant sued Plaintiff in the Spokane County Superior Court. In December 2018, Defendant obtained a default judgment against Plaintiff. In January 2019, Defendant obtained a writ of garnishment against Plaintiff's financial institution. At or about the same date that the writ of garnishment was sent to the Plaintiff's financial institution, Defendant, through its counsel, also sent an exemption claim form to the Plaintiff, the lawsuit says. PRA is a company acquiring and collecting nonperforming loans based in Norfolk, Virginia. PRA was listed in the Federal Trade Commission's Report on the Debt Buying Industry as one of the largest debt buyers in the US.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Kirk D. Miller, Esq. KIRK D. MILLER P.S. 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 660 Spokane, WA 99201 E-mail: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com - and - Shayne J. Sutherland, Esq. Brian G. Cameron, Esq. CAMERON SUTHERLAND, PLLC 421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 660 Spokane, WA 99201 E-mail: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com bcameron@cameronsutherland.com ssutherland@cameronsutherland.com PROFESSIONAL TRANS: Removes Oglesby Case to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------- Professional Transportation, Inc. removes the case, VERONICA OGLESBY, the Plaintiff,v. PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2019-CP-39-00565 (Filed April 30, 2019), from the Court of Common Pleas of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Pickens County, South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on May 31, 2019. The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-01573-TMC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brought the lawsuit as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] Attorneys for Professional Transportation, Inc. Thomas A. Bright, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. The Ogletree Building 300 North Main Street, Suite 500 Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: 864-271-1300 Facsimile: 864-235-8806 E-mail: thomas.bright@ogletree.com PULMAN CAPPUCINO & PULLEN: Faces White's FDCA Suit in Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Pulman, Cappuccio, & Pullen, LLP and Elliot Cappucio for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA). The case is captioned White, Jr. et al v. Pulman, Cappuccio, & Pullen, LLP et al, Case No. 5:19-cv-00535-DAE (W.D. Tex., May 17, 2019). This consumer credit-related case is assigned to Hon. Judge David A. Ezra. Pulman, Cappuccio & Pullen, LLP is a law firm that provides representation for clients in litigation, mediation, arbitration, real estate, corporate law transactions, and a multitude of other legal settings. It has four offices in Texas with its principal office located at 2161 N.W. Military Highway, Suite 400, San Antonio, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Francis R. Greene, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Telephone: (312) 923-0886 Facsimile: (973) 532-5868 E-mail: francis@sternthomasson.com - and - Philip D. Stern, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 Facsimile: (973) 532-5868 E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com - and – William Maurice Clanton, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BILL CLANTON, P.C. 926 Chulie Dr San Antonio, TX 78216 Telephone: (210) 226-0800 Facsimile: (210) 338-8660 E-mail: bill@clantonlawoffice.com - and – Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 Facsimile: (973) 532-5868 E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vieyra Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- JULIO ANTONIO PEREZ VIEYRA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC.; AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY; and Optum360 LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13396 (D. N.J. June 4, 2019) is a class action over Defendants' failure to secure and safeguard medical information, personally identifiable information ("PII") such as Plaintiff's and Class Members' mailing address, phone number, email address, date of birth, gender, and other personal information—and their credit and debit card numbers and other payment card data ("PCD"). Quest Diagnostics Inc. collects its customers' private medical and financial information as part of providing blood testing. Quest contracts with Optum360, LLC. In turn, Optum360 goes to American Medical Collection Agency ("AMCA") for billing collection services. Throughout this process, Defendants obtain and share Quest customers' personal information and are charged with safeguarding private medical, personal, and financial information. On June 3, 2019, Quest revealed in a press release and securities filing that an unauthorized user had access and did access the system run by Quest's billing collections vendor, AMCA, for over six months between late 2018 and March 2019. Quest admitted to its customers that the information on AMCA's affected system included its customers' financial information like credit card numbers and bank account information, medical information, and other personal information. As of May 31, 2019, AMCA believed that 11.9 million Quest patients had their information on the affected systems. The Defendants' failure to protect their information is a breach of their contracts with Plaintiff and Class Members and violates their legal duties and state consumer protection and privacy laws, asserts the complaint. Defendants could have prevented this theft had it employed reasonable, industry-standard security measures. For this reason, Defendants should pay for appropriate identity theft protection and reimburse its customers the money they would not have paid Quest had it disclosed its substandard security practices, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Mr. Perez Vieyra went to a Quest laboratory to obtain blood testing in 2012. Quest operates over 2,200 "Patient Service Centers" which are used to draw and test customers' blood following an order from a doctor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com QUINTANA ENERGY: Unit Still Defends Class Suit over FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Quintana Energy Services 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 subsidiary continues to defend itself from a class action suit alleging violations of state based wage and hour laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act. A class action has been filed against one of the Company's subsidiaries alleging violations of state based wage and hour laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") relating to non-payment of overtime pay. The Company believes its pay practices comply with the FLSA. Quintana said, "The case is working its way through the various stages of the legal process, however, management believes the Company's exposure is not material." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Quintana Energy Services Inc. provides oilfield services to onshore oil and natural gas exploration and production companies operating in conventional and unconventional plays in the United States. The company operates through four segments: Directional Drilling, Pressure Pumping, Pressure Control, and Wireline. Quintana Energy Services Inc. was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. RADIUS GLOBAL: Reyes Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------- The case, VILMA REYES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61375-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2019), sues Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant mailed a collection letter, dated December 27, 2018, to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect a consumer debt. The consumer debt is a time-barred debt, in that, suing Plaintiff to collect the Consumer Debt is prohibited by the applicable statute of limitations. See Fla. Stat. Section 95.11. The collection letter is filled with misleading language and innuendo that fails to make clear that the statute of limitations has ended, and that payment any amount of the Consumer Debt will service to revive the statute of limitations. Moreover, the deceptive nature of the Collection Letter is compounded by the nefarious "Resolution offer" that Defendant deceptively presents to the least sophisticated consumer without any drawbacks or downsides. Simply put, the Defendant failed to sufficiently inform the least sophisticated consumer that the debt it sought to collect was absolutely time-barred, wrongfully misrepresented the nature and legal status of the underlying debt, deceptively offered the least sophisticated consumer a reduced payment and/or "Resolution offer," and by failed inform the least sophisticated consumer, whatsoever, that the underlying debt can revived if, for example, the consumer agreed to make a partial payment towards the underlying debt, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Thomas J. Patti, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954 907 1136 Facsimile: 855 529 9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com RAYMOND JAMES: Agreement in Principle Reached in Wistar Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Raymond James Financial, 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 case, Caleb Wistar and Ernest Mayeaux v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. and Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc., have agreed in principle to a settlement of the complaint. On February 11, 2016, Caleb Wistar ("Wistar") and Ernest Mayeaux ("Mayeaux") filed a putative class action complaint in the District Court under the caption Caleb Wistar and Ernest Mayeaux v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. and Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc. (as subsequently amended, the "Wistar Complaint"). Similar to the Brink Complaint, the Wistar Complaint alleges that Wistar and Mayeaux, former customers of Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. ("RJFS") and Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc. ("RJFSA"), were charged a fee in RJFS and RJFSA's Passport Investment Account and that the fee included an unauthorized and undisclosed profit to RJFS and RJFSA in violation of its customer agreement and applicable industry standards. The Wistar Complaint seeks, among other relief, damages in the amount of the difference between the actual cost of processing a trade, as alleged by Wistar and Mayeaux, and the fee charge by RJFS and RJFSA. On April 5, 2019, Wistar and Mayeaux agreed in principle with RJFS and RJFSA to a settlement of the Wistar Complaint. The parties are currently negotiating a Stipulation of Settlement. The District Court has been informed of the foregoing. Raymond James said, "The settlement amount was included in "Other payables" in our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition as of March 31, 2019." Raymond James Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in the underwriting, distribution, trading, and brokerage of equity and debt securities, and the sale of mutual funds and other investment products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally. It operates in five segments: Private Client Group (PCG), Capital Markets, Asset Management, RJ Bank, and Other. The company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in St. Petersburg, Florida. RAYMOND JAMES: Settlement Reached in Brink Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Raymond James Financial, 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 Raymond James & Associates, Inc. has reached an agreement in principle with Jyll Brink to settle a class suit. On February 17, 2015, Jyll Brink ("Brink") filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the "District Court") under the caption Jyll Brink v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (the "Brink Complaint"). The Brink Complaint alleges that Brink, a former customer of Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (RJ&A), was charged a fee in her Passport Investment Account, and that the fee included an unauthorized and undisclosed profit to RJ&A in violation of its customer agreement and applicable industry standards. The Passport Investment Account is a fee-based account in which clients pay asset-based advisory fees and certain processing fees for ongoing investment advice and monitoring of securities holdings. The Brink Complaint seeks, among other relief, damages in the amount of the difference between the actual cost of processing a trade, as alleged by Brink, and the fee charged by RJ&A. On October 19, 2018, the District Court certified a class of former and current customers of RJ&A who executed a Passport Agreement and were charged processing fees during the period between February 17, 2010 and February 17, 2015. On January 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the "Appellate Court") entered an order granting permission to RJ&A to appeal the District Court's class certification order. On January 25, 2019, the District Court issued an order staying trial, calendar call and all remaining pretrial deadlines pending resolution of the appeal. On April 5, 2019, Brink and RJ&A agreed in principle to a settlement of the Brink Complaint. The parties are currently negotiating a Stipulation of Settlement. Both the District Court and the Appellate Court have been informed of the foregoing. Raymond James said, "The settlement amount was included in "Other payables" in our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition as of March 31, 2019." Raymond James Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in the underwriting, distribution, trading, and brokerage of equity and debt securities, and the sale of mutual funds and other investment products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally. It operates in five segments: Private Client Group (PCG), Capital Markets, Asset Management, RJ Bank, and Other. The company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in St. Petersburg, Florida. RENT-A-CENTER INC: Hall Settlement Finally Approved --------------------------------------------------- Rent-A-Center, 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 settlement in the consolidated Hall and DePalma suits was finally approved by the court. Alan Hall, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al.; James DePalma, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al. On December 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed against the company and certain of the company's former officers by Alan Hall in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman, Texas. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements and omitting material facts regarding our business, including implementation of our point-of-sale system, operations and prospects during the period covered by the complaint. A complaint filed by James DePalma also in Sherman, Texas alleging similar claims was consolidated by the court into the Hall matter. On October 8, 2018, the parties agreed to settle this matter for $11 million. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on December 13, 2018. Under the terms of the settlement our insurance carrier paid in January 2019 an aggregate of $11 million in cash which will be distributed to an agreed upon class of claimants who purchased our common stock from July 27, 2015 through October 10, 2016, as well as used to pay costs of notice and settlement administration, and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses. The settlement was approved by the court at a hearing held on May 3, 2019. Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. The company operates through four segments: Core U.S., Acceptance Now, Mexico, and Franchising. Rent-A-Center, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. RENT-A-CENTER INC: Russell Suit v. Acceptance Now Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Rent-A-Center, 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 class action suit entitled, Velma Russell v. Acceptance Now. This purported class action arising out of calls made by Acceptance Now to customers' reference (s) was filed on January 29, 2019 in Massachusetts state court. Specifically, plaintiffs seek to certify a class representing any references of customers (within the state of Massachusetts) during the 4 years prior to the filing date that were contacted by Acceptance Now more frequently during a 12 month period than is permitted by Massachusetts state law. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and statutory damages of $25 per reference which may be tripled to $75 per reference. References are not parties to the company's consumer arbitration agreement. Rent-A-Center said, "We operate 12 Acceptance Now locations in Massachusetts. We intend to vigorously defend these claims; however, we cannot assure you that we will be found to have no liability in this matter." Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. The company operates through four segments: Core U.S., Acceptance Now, Mexico, and Franchising. Rent-A-Center, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settlement Reached in Blair Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Rent-A-Center, 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 a settlement has been reached in Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. This matter is a state-wide class action complaint originally filed on March 13, 2017 in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges various claims, including that the company's cash sales and total rent to own prices exceed the pricing permitted under the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act. Following a court-ordered mediation on March 28, 2019, the company reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter for a total of $13 million, including attorneys' fees. The settlement is in the documentation process and is subject to approval by the court. Rent-A-Center said, "We have denied any liability in the settlement and agreed to the settlement in order to avoid additional expensive, time-consuming litigation. We recorded the impact of this settlement in the first quarter of 2019." Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. The company operates through four segments: Core U.S., Acceptance Now, Mexico, and Franchising. Rent-A-Center, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Still Defends Too & Spock Consolidated Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in New York. On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff Ah Kit Too filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York against the Company and former officers, Robert Chioini and Thomas Klema. The complaint is a federal securities class action purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of the Company between March 16, 2018 and June 26, 2018. The Complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Chioini and Klema violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants filed reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission that contained purported inaccurate and misleading statements regarding the potential for the Company's drug, Triferic, to quality for separate reimbursement status by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff Robert Spock filed a similar putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York against the Company and Messrs. Chioini and Klema. The Spock complaint is a federal securities class action purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of persons who purchased the Company's securities between November 8, 2017 and June 26, 2018. This complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Chioini and Klema violated the Exchange Act in that the Company was aware the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would not pursue the Company's proposal for separate reimbursement for Triferic; misstated reserves in the Company's quarterly report for the first quarter of 2018; had a material weakness its internal controls over financial reporting, which rendered those controls ineffective; Mr. Chioini withheld material information regarding Triferic from the Company's auditor, corporate counsel, and independent directors of the Board; and, as a result of these alleged issues, statements about the Company's business were materially false and misleading. On September 25, 2018, four Company stockholders filed motions to appoint lead plaintiffs, lead counsel, and to consolidate the Ah Kit Too v. Rockwell securities class action with the Spock v. Rockwell securities class action. On October 10, 2018, the court issued an order consolidating the two actions, appointing co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On December 10, 2018, lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which included the same allegations as the initial complaints and asserted claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of person who purchased the Company's securities between November 8, 2017 and June 26, 2018. On February 18, 2019, the Company answered the consolidated amended complaint. The lawsuits seek damages allegedly sustained by the class and an award of plaintiffs' costs and attorney fees. Rockwell said, "The case is at an early stage with no significant pre-trial proceedings (such, as substantive motions or discovery) having occurred. The Company believes it has defenses to the claims of liability and damages and is responding accordingly." Rockwell Medical, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company that targets end-stage renal disease and chronic kidney disease with therapies and products for the treatment of iron deficiency and hemodialysis. Rockwell Medical, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is based in Wixom, Michigan. SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in Parmelee Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Ed Kinkeade on June 3, 2019, entered a judgment approving the settlement in the case, Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00783 (N.D. Tex.). Judge Kinkeade also entered separate orders approving a plan of allocation of the net settlement fund and awarding attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses. Santander Holdings USA, 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 its unit, Santander Consumer USA Inc., is a defendant in two purported securities class action lawsuits filed in March and April 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. The lawsuits were consolidated and now captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783. The lawsuits were filed against SC and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. The complaint alleges that SC violated federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements, as well as failing to disclose material adverse facts, in its periodic reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and certain other public disclosures, in connection with, among other things, SC's change in its methodology for estimating its ACL and the correction of such ACL for prior periods. In March 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In January 2018, the court granted SC's motion as to defendant Ismail Dawood (SC's former Chief Financial Officer) and denied the motion as to all other defendants. In July 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement of the lawsuit for a cash payment of $9.5 million. In September 2018, the court entered an order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement of the lawsuit. A final settlement approval hearing was held in May 2019. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A. SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Mexican Govt Bonds Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Santander Holdings USA, 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 motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-02830-JPO, is pending. A consolidated purported antitrust class action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-02830-JPO (the "MGB Lawsuit"). The MGB Lawsuit is against the Company, Santander Investment Securities Inc. (SIS), Santander, Banco Santander (Mexico), S.A. Institucion de Banca Multiple, Grupo Financiero Santander and Santander Investment Bolsa, Sociedad de Valores, S.A. on behalf of a class of persons who entered into Mexican government bond ("MGB") transactions between January 1, 2006 and April 19, 2017, where such persons were either domiciled in the United States or, if domiciled outside the United States, transacted in the United States. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Santander defendants and the other defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by conspiring to rig auctions and/or fix prices of MGBs. On September 17, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A. SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Merits Discovery in Deka Suit Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Santander Holdings USA, 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 merits discovery in the lawsuit styled Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., remains stayed until the court rules on the issue of class certification. Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC) is a defendant in a purported securities class action lawsuit (the "Deka Lawsuit") in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K. The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought against SC, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in SC's initial public offering (the "IPO"), including Santander Investment Securities Inc. (SIS), on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the IPO registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing misleading statements concerning SC's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of SC's compliance systems and oversight. In December 2015, SC and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied. In December 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes. In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017). In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka Lawsuit but ordered that merits discovery be stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A. SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Ponsa-Rabell Suit v. SSLLC Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Santander Holdings USA, 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 Santander Securities LLC (SSLLC) continues to defend a class action suit entitled Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et al. v. SSLLC. Santander Securities LLC (SSLLC), Santander BanCorp, Banco Santander Puerto Rico (BSPR), the Company and Banco Santander, S.A. (Santander) are defendants in a putative class action alleging federal securities and common law claims relating to the solicitation and purchase of more than $180.0 million of Puerto Rico bonds and $101.0 million of Closed-end funds (CEFs) during the period from December 2012 to October 2013. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and is captioned Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et. al. v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243. The amended complaint alleges that defendants acted in concert to defraud purchasers in connection with the underwriting and sale of Puerto Rico municipal bonds, CEFs and open-end funds. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A. SGS NORTH AMERICA: Tamimi Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case, JD TAMIMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SGS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01064123-CU-OE-CXC (Filed on April 16, 2019), was transferred from the Orange County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). The case meets all of CAFA's requirements for removal including the diversity of citizenship and the number of putative class members involved in this class action. In the complaint, Plaintiff JD Tamimi asserts the eight causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to permit rest breaks; (5) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; (6) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (7) failure to reimburse for business expenses; and (8) violation of California Business and Professions Code. Headquartered in New Jersey, SGS North America is the world's leading inspection, verification, testing and certification company. The company offers inspection, verification, testing, and certification services to various industry sectors. [BN] Attorneys for Defendant: 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 E-mail: bschwan@littler.com rlavi@littler.com SKECHERS USA: Continues to Defend Wilk Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Ealeen Wilk v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. On September 10, 2018, Ealeen Wilk filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 5:18-cv-01921, alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due upon termination and unfair business practices. The complaint seeks actual, compensatory, special and general damages; penalties and liquidated damages; restitutionary and injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; and interest as permitted by law. Skechers said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position, we believe that we have meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend to defend the case vigorously." Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. SKECHERS USA: Court Sets Briefing Schedule on Dismissal Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund v. Skechers USA, Inc. Robert Greenberg, David Weinberg and John Vandemore, has been consolidated with other suits and an amended complaint has been filed as, In Re Skechers Securities Litigation and the court set a briefing schedule for the company's motion to dismiss. On September 4, 2018, Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund filed a securities class action on behalf of itself and purportedly on behalf of other shareholders who purchased the company's stock between October 20, 2017 and July 19, 2018 (the "Class Period"), against the company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, case number 1:18-cv-8039. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the company made materially false statements or omissions of material fact regarding its sales growth and controlling expenses in an effort to artificially inflate the price of its stock for the personal gain of the Company's founding family. Beginning October 17, 2018, copycat cases were filed and on January 22, 2019 a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed as In Re Skechers Securities Litigation. On April 17, 2019, the court set a briefing schedule for the company's motion to dismiss. Skechers said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend these matters vigorously. Given the early stages of these proceedings and the limited information available, we cannot predict the outcome of these legal proceedings or whether an adverse result in these cases would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial position." Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. SKECHERS USA: Faces Guzman Class Suit in California --------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a class action suit entitled, Jose Zavala Guzman v. Team One Employment Specialists, Skechers USA, Inc. et. al. On April 2, 2019, Jose Guzman, a Team One employee, filed a class action lawsuit against Team One and the company in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV11006. The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations, and seeks compensatory damages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and restitution. This complaint was followed by a Private Attorney General's Act Notice, specifying the same allegations raised in the complaint. This matter was tendered to the company's insurance carrier, and the company is currently investigating the allegations. Skechers said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position, we believe that we have meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend to defend the case vigorously." Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. SKECHERS USA: Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend class action suit entitled, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Skechers USA, Inc., Robert Greenberg and David Weinberg. On October 20, 2017, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed a securities class action, on behalf of itself and purportedly on behalf of other shareholders who purchased Skechers stock in a five-month period in 2015, against the company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, case number 1:17-cv-08107. On April 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint and on July 24, 2018 plaintiffs filed a second amended and consolidated complaint. The lawsuit alleges that, between April 23 and October 22, 2015, the company made materially false statements or omissions of material fact about the anticipated performance of the company's Domestic Wholesale segment and asserts claims for unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and equitable relief based on two counts for alleged violations of federal securities laws. On November 21, 2018 the company filed a motion to dismiss. On January 10, 2019 plaintiffs filed an opposition and on February 11, 2019 the company filed a reply. There is no date set for the hearing. Skechers said, "Given the early stage of this proceeding and the limited information available, we cannot predict the outcome of this legal proceeding or whether an adverse result in this case would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial position. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend this matter vigorously." Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Hartsock Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, 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 consolidated class action suit entitled, Glen Hartsock v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Olutayo Ayeni v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed September 21, 2016 in the United States District Court, Central District of California; Case No. 2:16-cv-07074) (the "Ayeni Action") and Glen Hartsock v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed September 28, 2016 in the United States District Court, District Court of Nevada Case; No. 2:16-cv-02279-RFB-GWF) (the "Hartsock Action"). On November 15, 2016, the Ayeni Action was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The parties have stipulated to a consolidation of the Ayeni Action with the Hartsock Action. These class action lawsuits allege that the company and certain of its executive officers made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about the company's business and the prospects of approval for the company's New Drug Application to the FDA for QAPZOLA in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. Spectrum said, "We believe that these claims are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Furthermore, as of March 31, 2019, the value of a potential settlement cannot be reasonably estimated given its highly uncertain nature." Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops and commercializes oncology and hematology drug products. he company was formerly known as NeoTherapeutics, Inc. and changed its name to Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in December 2002. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Henderson, Nevada. SWAN FINANCIAL: Guillory Seeks OT, Minimum Pay for Loan Officers ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Swan Financial Corporation, Thomas Edward Sexton, and David Randall Raque for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wage Payment Law. The case is captioned DANIEL GUILLORY, on his own behalf and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SWAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Kentucky Profit Corporation, THOMAS EDWARD SEXTON, Individually, and DAVID RANDALL RAQUE, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00366-CHB (W.D. Ky., May 16, 2019). Plaintiff Daniel Guillory alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime compensation and minimum wage to him and other mortgage loan officers. Swan Financial Corporation is a mortgage broker with its principal office located at 320 Whittington Pkwy Suite 106, Louisville, Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com TG THERAPEUTICS: Reinmann Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- TG Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the case, Randall Reinmann v. TG Therapeutics Inc., and Michael S. Weiss, have filed a notice seeking to voluntarily dismiss the action in its entirety without prejudice. In October 2018, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and one of its officers on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics common stock between June 4, 2018 and September 25, 2018. The case was captioned Randall Reinmann v. TG Therapeutics Inc., and Michael S. Weiss, Case No. 1:18-cv-09104-KPF. The complaint alleged that, throughout the Class Period, the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose various facts and circumstances regarding its UNITY-CLL study allegedly in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In December 2018, the Southern District appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs to represent the putative class, and approved their selection of Lead Counsel. On March 1, 2019, Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice with the Southern District seeking to voluntarily dismiss the action in its entirety without prejudice, which was so-ordered by the Southern District the same day. TG Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of innovative pharmaceutical products for the treatment of cancer and other underserved therapeutic needs. The Company is developing two therapies targeting hematological malignancies, specifically, relapsed, and refractory non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The company is based in New York, New York. THINK FINANCE: Scheff Declaration Struck from Gibbs RICO Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DARLENE GIBBS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MIKE STINSON, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:18cv676 (E.D. Va.), Judge Mary Hannan Lauck of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of Time and Motion for Jurisdictional and Venue Discoveryl and (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. The controversy arises out of the Defendants' involvement in an allegedly unlawful lending operation. The lending operation, which the Plaintiffs describe as a "rent-a-tribe" scheme, allegedly offered loans to them and charged interest rates ranging from 118% to 448%. In the case, the Plaintiffs bring claims against individuals and entities that owned and invested in Think Finance and its subsidiaries. According to them, non-party Think Finance spearheaded efforts to establish and control the three Native American-owned lending companies at the heart of the allegedly unlawful lending operation. For more than seven years, Think Finance operated a rent-a-tribe scheme, which sought to evade the usury laws of certain states by using the Tribes as the conduit for their loans. The Plaintiffs aver that Think Finance proposed the formation of the lending operation, asking the Tribes to establish the lending companies in their respective names. In exchange, Think Finance agreed to provide the infrastructure to run the lending operations, including the software, risk management, application processing, underwriting assistance, payment processing, and ongoing service support' for the consumer loans. Through this business arrangement, Think Finance maintained control over, and derived "the vast majority of the profits from, the lending operation. The Plaintiffs represent consumers who took out loans with the Tribal lending entities, including Great Plains, Plain Green, and MobiLoans. The Plaintiffs aver that each Defendant, in an attempt to avoid liability, either performed a role in the lending scheme or served as a holding company for one of the other companies. Through their ownership of Think Finance, the Defendants participated in the business' key decisions, strategies, and objectives and, in return, generated large profits from their ownership interest in Think Finance. They claim that the Defendants personally participated in and oversaw the illegal lending enterprise rendering them personally liable to consumers. On Feb. 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action Amended Complaint against the Defendants, asserting various federal and state violations associated with the allegedly unlawful lending operation. The Plaintiffs pursue tes suit on behalf of Virginia residents who entered into loan agreements with the Tribal lending entities Plain Green, Great Plains, or MobiLoans. They bring six class counts, including four RICO claims, a claim for violation of Virginia usury law, and a common law claim for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs seek: (1) class certification; (2) declaratory and injunctive relief and damages; and, (3) attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit. The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of Time and Motion for Jurisdictional and Venue Discovery, and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. The Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Extension and Discovery, asking the Court for venue-related discovery. Specifically, they seek to depose Scheff and obtain discovery as to what he knows and how he knows it regarding the assertions in the Scheff Declaration. They also seek an extension of time to respond to the Motion to Transfer until 14 days after the deposition and discovery take place, or, if the Court denies the request for discovery, for 30 days. The Plaintiffs also stated that they would move to strike Scheff's declaration, citing Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a)(1)17 because Mr. Scheff cannot serve as both contested fact witness and counsel in the case. The Defendants opposed the Motion for Extension and Discovery, and the Plaintiffs replied. In the Motion to Strike, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to strike the Scheff Declaration, or in the alternative, to disqualify Scheff as counsel for the Defendants. On April 4, 2019, Defendants responded in opposition to the Motion to Strike, and filed a declaration by David F. Herman, as well as several attachments. On April 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs replied to the Defendants' Response opposing the Motion to Strike. Although Judge Lauck finds that Rule 3.7 does not compel disqualification, it provides an appropriate guiding principle because the Scheff Declaration raises the same concerns that Rule 3.7 seeks to guard against. Accordingly, she will exercise the Court's inherent authority to strike the Scheff Declaration. She will also deny the Plaintiffs' request to depose Scheff and grant the Plaintiffs an extension of time to respond to the Motion to Transfer. On the record as developed thus far, the Judge finds that Scheff does not constitute a necessary witness, meaning Rule 3.7 does not require the Court to disqualify Scheff at this stage of proceedings. Although she finds that Scheff is not a necessary witness within the meaning of Rule 3.7, she nevertheless concludes that the Scheff Declaration raises concerns over the integrity of the judicial system which Rule 3.7 serves to protect. She therefore will exercises the Court's inherent authority to strike the Scheff Declaration and will order continued briefing on the pending the Defendants' Motion to Transfer the Action to the Northern District of Texas. For the foregoing reasons, the Judge granted the Motion to Strike, and struck the Scheff Declaration. Because the Judge struck the Scheff Declaration, she denied without prejudice the Motion for Extension and Discovery, to the extent it seeks to depose Scheff or conduct venue-related discovery. She granted the Plaintiffs an extension to respond to the Motion to Transfer, as requested in the Motion for Extension and Discovery. An appropriate Order will issue. A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/ptZgyg from Leagle.com. Darlene Gibbs, on behalf of themselves and all individual similarly situated, Stephanie Edwards, on behalf of themselves and all individual similarly situated, Lula Williams, on behalf of themselves and all individual similarly situated, Patrick Inscho, on behalf of themselves and all individual similarly situated & Lawrence Mwethuku, on behalf of themselves and all individual similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Joseph Guzzo -- aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com -- Kelly Guzzo PLC, Casey Shannon Nash, Kelly Guzzo PLC, Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Kelly Guzzo PLC, Craig Carley Marchiando -- craig@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litigation Associates, Elizabeth W. Hanes, Consumer Litigation Associates & Leonard Anthony Bennett -- lenbennett@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litigation Associates. George Hengle, Tamara Price & Sherry Blackburn, Plaintiffs, represented by Leonard Anthony Bennett, Consumer Litigation Associates & Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Kelly Guzzo PLC. Mike Stinson & 7HBF NO. 2, Defendants, represented by David Foster Herman -- dherman@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Peter Boughrum, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Lawrence Scheff -- rlscheff@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, John Michael Erbach, Spotts Fain PC & Maurice Francis Mullins, Spotts Fain PC. Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephen Douglas Hibbard, Jones Day, pro hac vice, Todd Raymond Geremia, Jones Day, pro hac vice & William V. O'Reilly -- woreilly@jonesday.com -- Jones Day. TCV V, L.P., Sequoia Capital Franchise Partners, L.P., Sequoia Capital IX, L.P., Sequoia Entrepreneurs Annex Fund, L.P., Sequoia Capital Growth III Principals Fund, LLC, Sequoia Capital Franchise Fund, L.P., Sequoia Capital Growth Partners III, L.P., Sequoia Capital Franchise Partners, LLC & Sequoia Capital Growth Fund III, LP, Defendants, represented by William V. O'Reilly, Jones Day. Linda Stinson, The Stinson 2009 Grantor Retained Annuity Trust, Startup Capital Ventures, L.P. & Stephen Shaper, Defendants, represented by Maurice Francis Mullins, Spotts Fain PC & John Michael Erbach, Spotts Fain PC. TIDELANDS HEALTH: Sawyer Asserts Medical Leave Act Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Carole Ann Sawyer, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Tidelands Health ASC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01612-MBS-BM (D. S.C., June 4, 2019) alleges that the Defendant violated the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ("FMLA") by interfering with her right to take FMLA leave and by retaliating against her for using her FMLA leave time. Plaintiff also brings individual and class claims for unpaid wages under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act (SCPWA). Plaintiff has a condition called have pseudo pheochromocytoma. This causes her to suffer episodes of palpitations, chest pain, headache, nausea, dizziness. The episodes have a rapid onset and can last from a few minutes up to a few hours. Despite having this condition, Plaintiff can and did perform the essential functions of her job. Plaintiff submitted the required paperwork from her physician and applied for intermittent FMLA on or about May 14, 2018. The Defendant approved Plaintiff's Intermittent FMLA leave on May 17, 2018. FMLA Intermittent leave allowed for Plaintiff to take leave in separate blocks of time to include leave periods from an hour or more to several weeks. Since her FMLA leave was approved, Plaintiff was subjected to retaliation and interference when she attempted to exercise her right to take FMLA leave, says the complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff received three disciplinary actions in the months following her approved leave and was terminated, the complaint notes. Moreover, Plaintiff worked for Defendant with the clear understanding and agreement by Defendant, that her compensation would be consistent with all applicable laws, including state and federal wage laws. However, the Defendant seized Plaintiff's last paycheck for a medical procedure Plaintiff had that was unrelated to her employment. The Defendants also did not notify Plaintiff at least seven calendar days that they intended to reduce her hourly wage from $25.51 to $7.25. The Defendants also violated state law regarding garnishment of wages, says the complaint. Plaintiff Carole Ann Sawyer was employed by Defendant at the Georgetown Memorial Hospital from approximately July of 2010 until August 28, 2018 as a Registered Nurse ("RN"). Tidelands Health ASC, LLC, is the region's largest health care provider, serving the Carolinas at four hospitals and more than 50 outpatient locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. Mullaney Law 1037-D Chuck Dawley Blvd, Suite 100 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone (843) 588-5587 Fac: (843) 593-9334 Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net TIME TO EAT DINER: Thomas' Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William P. Dimitrouleas denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Class Certification of Collective Action in the lawsuit styled LAURA THOMAS v. TIME TO EAT DINER, INC., a Florida for-Profit corporation, Case No. 9:19-cv-80485-WPD (S.D. Fla.). According to the Order, the Court has considered the Joint Notice of Settlement filed on May 17, 2019, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The parties state that that they have reached a settlement. Once these documents are executed, the parties will file the appropriate dismissal documents with the Court. Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to file the appropriate dismissal papers. The Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Class Certification of Collective Action is denied as moot.[CC] TIVITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Weiner Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Tivity Health, 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 Court overseeing the lawsuit by Eric Weiner has ordered the plaintiff to respond to the substantive issues raised in the Company's motion to dismiss. On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 24, 2017 and November 3, 2017 ("Weiner Lawsuit"). The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting officer and interim chief financial officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and omissions related to the United Press Release. The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and established certain deadlines for the case. On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On August 3, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and a memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss seeking dismissal on grounds that the first amended complaint fails to plead any actionable statement or omission (the "Motion to Dismiss"). On March 18, 2019, the Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss. On April 1, 2019, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider its denial of the Motion to Dismiss. On April 15, 2019, the Court ordered plaintiff to respond to the substantive issues raised in the Company's Motion to Dismiss. Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. TRU-FLEX METAL: Adams Moves to Certify Classes of Pro-Flex Buyers ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits titled ADAMS POINTE I, L.P, ADAMS POINTE II, L.P., BAYBERRY NORTH ASSOCIATES L.P., BETTERS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, L.P., JBCO; ADAMS POINTE III, L.P. ADAMS POINTE NORTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, ADAMS POINTE MASTER ASSOCIATION, L.P., COULTER & GRAHAM, L.P., MICHAEL AND KATHLEEN BICHLER, AND JOHN EVANS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP., TRU-FLEX, LLC, and PRO-FLEX LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00750-CB-CRE (W.D. Pa.); and TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP., TRU-FLEX, LLC, and PRO-FLEX LLC, Third-Party Plaintiffs v. RIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORP.; RIDGE MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP.; ADAMS POINTE CONSTRUCTION CORP.; ADAMS POINTE SOUTH VILLAGE OWNERS ASSOC., L.P.; ADAMS POINTE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; UNIQUE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT COMPANY; PRO-FLEX HOLDINGS, LLC (OF TEXAS), Third Party Defendants, ask the Court to: (a) certify their proposed Classes; (b) appoint the individually Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives to the extent requested; and (c) appoint as Lead Class Counsel N. Scott Carpenter, Esq., and Rebecca Bell-Stanton, Esq., of the firm Carpenter & Schumacher, P.C. The proposed Class is defined as: All persons who purchased for personal, family or household purposes yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST or a structure with yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST in the United States between 1999 and the date of class certification. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class for Counts I-II under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs propose the certification of a nationwide class in the absence of substantial differences in the rights and interests as to the causes of action at issue. If the Court declines to certify a nationwide class as to these Counts, the Plaintiffs seek to certify more limited Multi-State Classes by grouping states into jurisdictional adoption of designated codes and treatises: Implied Warranty Multi-State Class: All persons who purchased yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST or a structure with yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST installed in those jurisdictions that have adopted or codified Uniform Commercial Code Article 2. Strict Liability "Section 402A" Multi-State Class: All persons who purchased yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST or a structure with yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST installed in those jurisdictions that have adopted or codified Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402A. If the Court should determine not to certify a nationwide or multi-state class action, then in the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek certification of a Pennsylvania-only class as to these same causes of action. The Plaintiffs further seek certification of a Pennsylvania-only class for Counts III-IV allegations involving common law negligence and Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law: Pennsylvania-only Class: All persons who purchased for personal, family or household purposes yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST or a structure with yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. ("Pennsylvania Consumer Class"). The Plaintiffs seek the exclusion of the specified persons and/or entities from the proposed class membership. To the extent that future responsive briefing may challenge the consideration of the evidentiary record, the Plaintiffs request an opportunity to address such evidentiary objections in the form of limited trial briefs to the extent requested by the Court. The Plaintiffs assert that they are prepared to present a preliminary proposal regarding the trial plan of this action as a class, and further to address same through argument and authority by summary compendiums of law at such time as the Court deems appropriate.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: N. Scott Carpenter, Esq. Rebecca Bell-Stanton, Esq. CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER, P.C. Parkway Centre IV 2701 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 570 Plano, TX 75093 Telephone: (972) 403-1133 Facsimile: (972) 403-0311 E-mail: scarpenter@cstriallaw.com rstanton@cstriallaw.com - and - D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (866) 273-1941 Facsimile: (412) 281-4229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com Defendants Tru-Flex, LLC and Tru-Flex Metal Hose Corp. are represented by: Daniel R. Bentz, Esq. Thomas M. Pie, Jr., Esq. MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C. One Penn Center, Suite 1010 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 564-6688 E-mail: DBentz@moodklaw.com tpie@moodklaw.com Defendant Pro-Flex, LLC, is represented by: Daniel J. Offenbach, Esq. Thomas A. Gamache, Esq. LEAHY, EISENBERG & FRAENKEL, LTD. 33 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60603-5317 Telephone: (312) 368-4554 Facsimile: (312) 368-4562 E-mail: djo@lefltd.com tag@lefltd.com Third-Party Defendants Unique Industrial Product Co., L.P. and Pro-Flex Holdings, LLC, are represented by: H. Miles Cohn, Esq. CRAIN, CATON & JAMES, P.C. Five Houston Center, 17th Floor 1401 McKinney, Suite 1700 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 658-2323 Facsimile: (713) 658-1921 E-mail: mcohn@craincaton.com - and - Stephen E. Geduldig, Esq. PION, NERONE, GIRMAN, WINSLOW & SMITH, P.C. Payne Shoemaker Building 240 North Third Street, 10th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 745-8725 Facsimile: (717) 737-5553 E-mail: sgeduldig@pionlaw.com - and - Timothy R. Smith, Esq. Julie A. Brennan, Esq. PION, NERONE, GIRMAN, WINSLOW & SMITH, P.C. 1500 One Gateway Center 420 Fort Duquesne Boulevard Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 281-2288 Facsimile: (412) 281-3388 E-mail: tsmith@pionlaw.com jbrennan@pionlaw.com UNITED STATES: Kowalski Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Robert M. Kowalski and all other Federal Detainees of Jerome Combs Detention Center of Kankakee County similarly situated v. United States Marshall, Case No. 1:19-cv-02800, was transferred on May 16, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Peoria). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02130-CSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as prisoner petitions - prison conditions. Mr. Kowalski, who is currently a federal detainee of Jerome Combs Detention Center, in Kankakee County, Illinois, appears pro se.[BN] UNITED STATES: Passut Sues Dept. of Education Over ACICS Fiasco --------------------------------------------------------------- MARK PASSUT, and MARK KAISER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BETSY DEVOS, in her official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Education, and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01606 (D. D.C., June 3, 2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiffs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), on behalf of a Class of all persons to whom the Department of Education issued loans to pay tuition or other expenses at schools owned or operated by Education Corporation of America ("ECA"). This case involves Secretary Betsy DeVos's decision on behalf of the Department of Education to cast aside law and governing regulations to put the Accrediting Council of Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS), a troubled accreditor of predatory for-profit colleges, back in business--to the detriment of students and their families. Two of those students were Mr. Passut and Mr. Kaiser, who attended ACICS-accredited Virginia College in Fall 2018 when, absent the Secretary's unlawful decision, the school would have lost its accreditation and its eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs. As has been the case with other schools that ACICS accredited, Virginia College collapsed before the end of the term, preventing Mr. Passut and Mr. Kaiser, and their fellow students, from finishing their coursework but saddling them with substantial student loan debt. ACICS's relationship with Virginia College continued its pattern of accrediting many of the nation's worst for-profit colleges, including campuses of the since-collapsed Corinthian Colleges and ITT Educational Services chains. Accreditation is essential to any educational institution: along with serving as a marker of the institution's quality and legitimacy, it is a prerequisite to receiving federal student aid money. In December 2016, after a painstaking review of ACICS's performance by Department staff and an independent panel, then-Secretary of Education John King withdrew ACICS's recognition as an accreditor in light of its "pervasive noncompliance" with federal requirements. As a result, colleges accredited by ACICS had 18 months to find a new accreditor; if they failed to do so, they would become ineligible for federal student aid and the Department would be prohibited from issuing loans to students to pay tuition and expenses to attend them. On April 3, 2018, however, Secretary DeVos issued a two-page order purporting to render Secretary King's decision null and void, notwithstanding that just one month beforehand, Department staff had found that ACICS remained non-compliant with the majority of the accreditor recognition criteria. Even though the Court remanded without vacating the Department's decision, Secretary DeVos used the Court's order as a pretext to sweep the decision away entirely. Secretary DeVos's decision ignored fundamental principles of administrative law and, just as importantly, failed to consider the interests of students who might be misled into enrolling at ACICS accredited schools while the Department took its time considering whether to again recognize ACICS, says the complaint. The Defendants' decision had predictably devastating consequences for thousands of students. The April 2018 re-recognition of ACICS meant that colleges accredited by ACICS did not need to convince a different accreditor of their viability. This included 70 schools operated by Education Corporation of America (ECA), including its Virginia College chain. At the time Secretary DeVos reversed ACICS's derecognition, no other accreditor would accredit Virginia College. Virginia College sought accreditation from a different accreditor, the Accrediting Council for Continuing Education & Training (ACCET), but ACCET found in May 2018 that its schools did not meet federal standards and showed signs of collapse. However, due to the Secretary's April 2018 decision, Virginia College was able to turn back to ACICS to provide accreditation. Virginia College, therefore, continued enrolling students for the fall--and the Department continued to issue debt to those students. But the Department's unlawful reprieve was short-lived: in December 2018, before the term was completed, Virginia College shut its doors, leaving students with thousands of dollars in debt and nothing in exchange. When Virginia College and ECA's other schools abruptly closed, students were unable to earn the credits for which they had worked and paid, but their debt remained. In other words, Defendants' decision gave Virginia College a lifeline that no accreditor properly recognized by the Department could or would provide--and left Plaintiffs with debts for the Fall 2018 term that they should not and do not properly owe, says the complaint. Plaintiffs studied to become occupational therapy assistants at Virginia College prior to its closure in December 2018. Betsy DeVos is sued in her official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Education.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Rothschild, Esq. Alexander S. Elson, Esq. National Student Legal Defense Network 1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 734-7495 Email: eric@nsldn.org alex@nsldn.org - and - John Lewis, Esq. Jeffrey B. Dubner, Esq. Javier M. Guzman, Esq. Democracy Forward Foundation 1333 H Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 448-9090 Email: jlewis@democracyforward.org jdubner@democracyforward.org jguzman@democracyforward.org UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Judge Scola Recuses Himself from Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Cory Doctorow, writing for boingboing, reports that US District Judge Robert N Scola recused himself from a class action suit against Unitedhealthcare that alleges that Unitedhealthcare denied them promising proton beam cancer treatments by falsely claiming that they were "experimental." In his recusal, Scola revealed that he was a prostate cancer survivor who was cornered into accepting surgical prostate removal because his own insurer refused the proton beam treatments his doctors recommended; he also discussed a friend whom Unitedhealthcare denied coverage to, presenting him with the prospect of a $150,000 bill (the friend successfully sued Unitedhealthcare). The judge closed by calling Unitedhealthcare's refusal to cover proton beam therapy "immoral" and "barbaric." The untenability of America's private, for-profit health-care system grows more manifest by the day, as more and more people are radicalized by the prospect of their own deaths and the deaths of those they love best in the world, at the hands of a bureaucratic death-panel run by an insurer whose execs and investors rake in millions by literally killing their customers. My latest book has a story in it about men in this situation who seek comfort on message-boards and end up egging themselves into murdering health care execs, lobbyists and their friendly lawmakers. I don't know that such a thing would ever happen, but reading the judge's remarks certainly suggests that we're closer than we suspected to it. The federal judge made his comments in response to a class-action lawsuit brought by Richard Cole, a cancer survivor and prominent Miami attorney. Cole was 70 when he was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer in April 2018. "The first concern you have is: Am I going to die?" Cole said. He said he consulted with his team of doctors at the Miami Cancer Institute and with others at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The consensus, he said, was that he needed proton beam therapy. But he said he soon learned his treatment was being delayed because UnitedHealthcare refused to cover it. He paid the $85,000 out-of-pocket to undergo treatment as soon as possible while his attorneys appealed his denial. "When delays occur because of bureaucracy," Cole said, "it gets you angry and upset." [GN] VAN RU CREDIT: Horvath Sues over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Van Ru Credit Corporation for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is captioned HORVATH v. VAN RU CREDIT CORPORATION et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-12569-RMB-KMW (D.N.J., May 16, 2019). This consumer credit-related case is assigned to Hon. Judge Renee Marie Bumb. Van Ru Credit Corporation provides accounts receivable management services in a wide range of industries, including: education, energy, financial services, government, healthcare, and telecommunications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com VENATOR MATERIALS: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Venator Materials PLC 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 class action suits related to its initial public offering (IPO). On February 8, 2019, the company, certain of its executive officers, Huntsman and certain banks who acted as underwriters in connection with the company's initial public offering (IPO) and secondary offering were named as defendants in a proposed class action civil suit filed in the District Court for the State of Texas, Dallas County by an alleged purchaser of the company's ordinary shares in connection with its IPO on August 3, 2017 and its secondary offering on December 1, 2017. The plaintiff, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System, alleges that inaccurate and misleading statements were made regarding the impact to our operations, and prospects for restoration thereof, resulting from the fire that occurred at the company's Pori, Finland manufacturing facility, among other allegations. Additional complaints making substantially the same allegations were filed in the Dallas District Court by the Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis on March 4, 2019 and by Oscar Gonzalez on March 13, 2019, with the third case naming two of the company's directors as additional defendants. The first two of the three cases have been consolidated into a single action, and the company expects the third to be consolidated with them as well. The plaintiffs seek to determine that the proceeding should be certified as a class action and to obtain alleged compensatory damages, costs, rescission and equitable relief. Venator said, "We may be required to indemnify our executive officers and directors, Huntsman, and the banks who acted as underwriters in our IPO and secondary offerings, for losses incurred by them in connection with these matters pursuant to our agreements with such parties. Because of the early stage of this litigation, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss and we have not accrued for a loss contingency with regard to this matter." Venator Materials PLC manufactures and markets chemical products worldwide. It operates through two segments, Titanium Dioxide and Performance Additives. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Stockton-On-Tees, the United Kingdom. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS: Martinez Faces Labor Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action complaint has been filed by Mayreli Martinez against Vision Precision Holdings, LLC. The case is captioned MARTINEZ vs. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. BCV-19-101374 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., May 17, 2019). It is assigned to Hon. Judge Stephen D. Schuett. Founded in 2006, Vision Precision Holdings, LLC owns and operates optical retail stores under the brand names, Stanton Optical and My Eyelab. The company is headquartered in Palm Springs, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David T. Mara, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM 2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 275-7429 VOYA RETIREMENT: Bid to Drop Goetz Class Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company 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 motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, is still pending. A putative class action Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Delaware, No. 1:17-cv-1289) (filed September 8, 2017), in which plaintiff, a participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to represent other participants in the plan as well as a class of similarly situated plans that "contract with (Voya) for recordkeeping and other services." Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its fiduciary duty to the plan and other plan participants by charging unreasonable and excessive recordkeeping fees, and that "Voya" distributed materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative and fund fee disclosures to conceal its excessive fees. The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 4, 2018, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint of February 8, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a stock life insurance company in the United States. The company was formerly known as ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company and changed its name to Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company in September 2014. The company is based in Windsor, Connecticut. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company operates as a subsidiary of Voya Institutional Plan Services, LLC. WASTE MANAGEMENT: Ayala Suit Moved From S.D. Texas to D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled NICHOLAS AYALA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ARIZONA, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00196, was transferred on May 16, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division). The Arizona District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03135-DWL to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, and the Arizona Wage Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Clifton Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. George Schimmel, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com geordie@a2xlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew J. Ruza, Esq. Abby L. Bochenek, Esq. John Anthony Ybarra, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 321 N Clark St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 795-3274 Facsimile: (312) 372-7880 E-mail: mruza@littler.com abochenek@littler.com jybarra@littler.com - and - Leila C. Clewis, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 1301 McKinney St., Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 652-4755 E-mail: lclewis@littler.com WELTMAN WEINBERG: Gardner Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is captioned GARDNER v. WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA et al, Case No. 5:19-cv-02179-CFK (E.D. Pa., May 16, 2019). This consumer credit-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Chad F. Kenney. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. is a debt collection law firm headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. The firm provides collection services and legal representation to the creditors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Cocco, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC 1500 Walnut St., Ste 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 351-0200 Facsimile: (215) 922-3874 E-mail: rcocco@rcn.com WESLEY APARTMENT: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Ruling in Whelan Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Avila Real Estate, LLC, Turner Hill Partners, LLC and Wesley Apartment Homes, LLC, filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Ryan Whelan v. Wesley Apartment Homes, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00235-SCJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants removed the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Georgia, County of Gwinnett (Case No. 18A70827) to the District Court on January 11, 2019. Euramex Management Group, LLC, doing business as Wesley Apartment Homes, LLC, engages in the investment, development, construction, and management of real estate properties. The company focuses on the acquisition of existing properties and development of new apartment communities. It owns and operates various apartment units in the metro Atlanta area. The Company was founded in 1981 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. The appellate case is captioned as Wesley Apartment Homes, LLC, et al. v. Ryan Whelan, Case No. 19-90005, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent RYAN WHELAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq. Michael B. Terry, Esq. BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 W Peachtree St. NW, Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4151 E-mail: ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com terry@bmelaw.com Defendants-Petitioners WESLEY APARTMENT HOMES, LLC, f.k.a. Euramex Management Group, LLC, AVILA REAL ESTATE, LLC, and TURNER HILL PARTNERS, LLC, are represented by: Michael Paul Bruyere, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 100 Galleria Pkwy. SE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30009 Telephone: (770) 818-0000 Facsimile: (770) 937-9960 E-mail: mbruyere@fmglaw.com - and - Arash Ali Sabzevari, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 661 Forest Parkway, Suite E Forest Park, GA 30297 Telephone: (404) 366-1000 Facsimile: (404) 361-3223 E-mail: asabzevari@fmglaw.com WOOD-MODE: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Marcia Moore, writing for The Daily Item, reports that hundreds of former Wood-Mode workers are facing the first week with mounting uncertainty following the sudden closure of the manufacturing plant. "I'm feeling like there are less answers," said Melinda Stuck, a Beavertown mother of two college-aged children who was laid off from the job she'd held for 25 years. To help ease some of the financial burden, agencies ranging from Geisinger to local food pantries are offering assistance to the 938 laid-off workers, many of whom were employed for decades at the 77-year-old plant. Tammy Heeter, a 59-year-old Beavertown woman who worked there 20 years, is visiting many of those agencies for advice and aid. "I don't even have a resume," she said. Even before Wood-Mode informed the displaced workers in an automated text on May 17 that all health and welfare insurance would cease by midnight that day Geisinger and Family Practice Center representatives were reaching out with offers of help. Customer care specialists will be available at the Susquehanna Valley Mall at a temporary, walk-in clinic Geisinger has set up for GHP members beginning on May 20 through June 1 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday. They will also be available on Memorial Day -- Monday, May 27 - from 10:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. The health system will also offer career guidance to all displaced Wood-Mode employees at events throughout the Valley. Family Practice Center put out a notice on its Facebook page that it would also be offering assistance to anyone whose insurance has been terminated. "We know healthcare and insurance can be confusing especially when you are faced with changes you have never had to worry about before like losing your health insurance. Please know that we are here for you," the online statement said. Area certified financial planners like Joshua Knauss, CEO of Omniwealth Group and John M. Machak, an investment advisor from The Wealth Factory, both of Lewisburg, are offering free financial counseling to former Wood-Mode employees and at least three firms have filed federal class-action lawsuits against the company for possible violation of the WARN Act that requires businesses give employees at least 60-day notice of a shutdown in most cases. Stuck said she's already started poring over her household budget looking for areas to cut. On May 19, she visited St. Peter's Lutheran Church in Kreamer where Geisinger human services representatives were available to help employees write a new resume. "I'll be going to the job fairs, too," said Stuck. A job fair at the VFW in Selinsgrove on May 15 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. was scheduled prior to Wood-Mode's abrupt closure and has more than 65 businesses taking part. Another job fair exclusively for former Wood-Mode employees will be held June 3 and the Union-Snyder Community Action Agency has a listing of available jobs in manufacturing, health care, construction and other fields from 100 mostly Valley businesses. Snyder County Coalition for Kids and students from the Midd-West High School's DECA and Student Council are looking to raise $7,500 over the next two weeks and with the help of a private donor who has offered to match it, will be using the money to help families in the Midd-West and Selinsgrove school districts impacted by Wood-Mode's closure. Requests for financial assistance may be made through the Midd-West School District messenger app or with the address:webmaster@mwsd.cc. Snyder County Commissioner Joe Kantz said the widespread support has been heartwarming and in contrast with the silence coming from Wood-Mode owners Robert and Brooks Gronlund. Kantz said he spoke with one New England dealer over the weekend who is waiting on $150,000 worth of product from Wood-Mode that he was supposed to collect on May 16. That dealer told him that all he's been told is that Wood-Mode would be "in touch." [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***