/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190708.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 8, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 135 Headlines 12291 CBW: Rogers Seeks Minimum wage & Overtime for Dancers A. O. SMITH: Bragar Eagel Notes of July 29 Plaintiff Deadline AAF PLAYERS: Schmidt Suit Moved to Northern District of California AEROPORT DE MONTREAL: Noise Pollution Class Action Can Proceed ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Faces Durgin Suit in W.D. Louisiana AMAZON.COM: Ortiz Seeks to Certify Class of Shift Managers AMERICAN AIRLINES: Verduzco Appeals Decision in Antitrust Suit AMERICORE HEALTH: Jackson-Bolinger Suit Moved to E.D. Kentucky AMN SERVICES: Removes Woehrle Suit to Central Dist. of California ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Rigrodsky & Long Announces Class Suit AO SMITH: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Wisconsin ASCENA RETAIL: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline AUDI: Faces Class Action Over Defective DSG Transmissions AVA INC: Brammer Sues over Improper Biometric Data Storage BAMBOO HR: Faces Aman et al. Suit in N.D. California BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Perry Suit BIG PICTURE LOANS: Williams et al. Case Moved to E.D. Virginia BIG TOP: Pizano Seeks to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Employees BIRD ELECTRIC: Certification of Electricians Class Sought BLACK RIDGE: Rosenblatt Says Merger Documents Misleading BLACKBERRY LTD: Class Action Over Severance Pay Can Proceed BONNIER CORPORATION: Court Certifies Settlement Class BP: Tampa Bay Buccaneers Won't Receive Oil Spill Settlement Money BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Jury Awards $68MM to Inmates in Class Action C&S MEDICAL: Shealy Seeks Overtime Wages for Sales Reps CAL. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES: $1.2B Lawsuit Over LT Care Gets Go Ahead CAPITAL ONE: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in McFarland Suit CBL & ASSOCIATES: Roy Jacobs First to File Class Action Suit CHASE RECEIVABLES: Secures Summary Dismissal of Class Action CITIZENS DISABILITY: Despres Sues over Unsolicited Calls CLOUDERA INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline CLOUDERA, INC: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline COLORADO STATE: Agrees to Pay Overtime Wages to Employees COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Notes of July 29 Plaintiff Deadline COMMUNITY PROBATION: Appeals Ruling in McNeil Suit to 6th Cir. CORRECT CARE: Removes Aguirre et al. Suit to W.D. Missouri CREDIT CONTROL: Aronne Certifies Settlement Class DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Settlement Sought in Sexual Harassment Case DIESEL ONE: Kern Seeks Meal and Rest Period Premiums, OT Pay EL AL: Ultra-Orthodox Shabbat Passengers File Class Action EQT CORP.: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit EQUITY BANCSHARES: Bronstein Notes of July 12 Plaintiff Deadline EROS INT'L: Bragar Eagel Notes of Aug. 20 Plaintiff Deadline ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Removes Parsons Suit to E.D. California FAF, INC: Campbell Suit Transferred to Eastern Dist. of Tennessee FAIRLIFE, LLC: Maltreated Dairy Cow, Sabeehullah Claims FCI LENDER: Court Denies Class Certification in Tabick Suit FEDERAL AVIATION: Johnson Suit Transferred to District of Columbia FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Hurlburt Sues over Debt Collection Practices FIRST AMERICAN: Gibbs Law Group Files Data Breach Class Action FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over Solitary Confinement Overuse FORD MOTOR: Persad et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses FORD MOTOR: Sued over Inaccurate Testing of Fuel Economy Ratings FORMOSA PLASTICS: Do et al. Sue over Toxic Waste Discharge FRESNO BEVERAGE: Intrastate Drivers Exempt from FAA, Court Rules GALILEE MEMORIAL: Fails to Implement Promises Under Class Action GC SERVICES: Court Denies Class Certification in Jaber Suit GEICO GENERAL: 11th Cir. Tosses PIP Policy Cass Action GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Reaves Suit over Defective 2.4L Engine GENERAL REVENUE: Thompson Moves to Certify two FDCPA Classes GHANA: Quarry Site Explosion Victims File Class Action GLADSTONE PORTS: Faces Class Action Over Expansion Project GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Faces Collins' Labor Suit in Ohio GOOGLE INC: Hit With Class Action Over Patient Data Sharing HARTFORD LIFE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Gorin Class Suit HEALTH NET: Ninth Cir. Appeal Initiated in Barkan Insurance Suit HECLA MINING: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of July 23 Deadline HERON THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Notes of Aug. 5 Plaintiff Deadline HOME DEPOT: Robinson & Cole Attorneys Discusses Court Ruling ICBC: Court of Appeal Okays Privacy Violation Class Action IZEA INC: Sept. 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set J G MOUSSE INC: Valdez-Padilla, Zamora Seek to Recover Unpaid Wage JANSSEN BIOTECH: Louisiana Health Transferred to D. New Jersey JOB OPTIONS: Rhodan Suit Moved to Southern District of California JOSHUA COLLINS: Schlesinger Sues over Unauthorized Calls KOTTEMANN LAW: Faces Banks Suit over Debt Collection Practices LAND HOME FINANCIAL: Faces Clayton Suit in Sacramento LIVENT CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of July 22 Deadline LOTO-QUEBEC: Appeal Court Refuses to Authorize Class Action LOWBRAU BIER: Faces Valencia Labor Suit in Sacramento California LYFT, INC: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of July 16 Plaintiff Deadline MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource Seeks to Certify Class MASTERS PHARMACEUTICAL: Grand Family Seeks to Certify Class MDL 2741: Jimenez et al. Sue over Dangers of Roundup Herbicide MDL 2741: Rodriguez v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MINNESOTA: Settlement Jurisdiction in METO Suit Extended to 2020 MISSION ROAD: Collins Seeks OT Pay for Service Specialists MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Stewart Sues over Autodialed Calls MONSANTO COMPANY: Blands Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Cohen Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Daigle Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Garred Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Isom Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Kendrick Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Lee Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Loper Blames Roundup Products for Cancer MONSANTO COMPANY: Pye Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Robbins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Products Cause Cancer, Colvin Alleges MONSANTO COMPANY: Tory Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MOVING SOLUTIONS: Rider Seeks Initial Nod of $470K Settlement MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Littler Mendelson Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Notes of July 8 Plaintiff Deadline NATIONAL EDUCATION: Wilford Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. NEW ORLEANS, LA: S&WB Employees Sign Onto Federal Class Suit O.C. COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement in Soto Suit Has Prelim Approval PILOT CORPORATION: Shumard Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Bragar Eagel Notes of Aug. 19 Plaintiff Deadline PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 19 Deadline POSTURE WORKS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed PRICESMART, INC: Bragar Eagel Notes of July 22 Plaintiff Deadline PYXUS INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline RA MEDICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline RAYTHEON: Cruz Sues over Non-Payment of Retiree Benefits RED ROBIN: Geraci Suit Transferred to District of Colorado REWALK ROBOTICS: Yan Appeals Mass. Dist. Ct. Ruling to 1st Cir. SENTRY WEST: Colleton Seeks Overtime Pay for Salespersons SOOK CORPORATION: Cruz Santiago Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay STATE FARM: MSP Recovery Seeks to Certify Class STELLAR IP: Fischler Sues over Web Accessibility for Blind Persons STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Settlement SUTTER HEALTH: Shares Medical Data to 3rd Parties, Suit Says TARGET: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Health Care Coverage Info TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bragar Notes of Aug. 23 Plaintiff Deadline U.S. BANK: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought UNITED STATES: Homeland Security Sued in Texas Southern District UNIV. OF CHICAGO: Medical Center Hit With Class Suit Over Data US ENRICHMENT: Sued Over Piketon School Radioactive Contamination VERIZON WIRELESS: Langere Appeals C.D. Cal. Decision to 9th Cir. VITALITE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Restigouche Negligence VOLKSWAGEN AG: Quebec Court Authorizes Securities Class Action WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Woodall, et al. Seek to Certify 4 Classes WEST SAINT JOHN: Class Action Over Water System Can Proceed WESTAMERICA BANK: Cook Sues over Robocalls WRIGHT OF PENNSYLVANIA: Shook Seeks OT Pay for Traffic Technicians ZUMIEZ INC: Chu Says Website Not Accessible for Disabled People [*] India Notifies Thresholds for Filing Class Action Suits [*] Ontario Law Aims to Help Province in Opioid Class Action [*] Plaintiffs Attorneys Diverge on Sexual Abuse Procedure Option [*] SCOTUS Limits on Class Actions Favorable for Businesses ********* 12291 CBW: Rogers Seeks Minimum wage & Overtime for Dancers ----------------------------------------------------------- Gabrielle Rogers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 12291 CBW, LLC d/b/a Temptations Cabaret and Eric Langan, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00266-MJT (E.D. Tex., June 18, 2019), seeks to redress Defendants' long-standing abuse of the federal minimum wage and overtime standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants allegedly do not pay its employees anything. The Plaintiff is a nonexempt former employee who worked at Temptations Cabaret. During her tenure as a dancer at Defendants' adult entertainment club, she did not receive the FLSA mandated minimum wage for all hours worked nor did she receive time and a half her regular rate for each hour worked over each week. In fact, Defendants refused to compensate her whatsoever for any hours worked. The Plaintiff's only compensation came in the form of tips from club patrons. Moreover, Plaintiff was required to divide her tips with Defendants and other employees who do not customarily receive tips. Therefore, Defendants have failed to compensate Plaintiff at the federal mandated minimum wage and overtime rate, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff & Putative Collective Action Members: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. BARON BUDD 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: marbuckl@baronbudd.com A. O. SMITH: Bragar Eagel Notes of July 29 Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of PriceSmart, Inc., Hecla Mining Company, A.O. Smith Corporation, and Community Health Systems, Inc. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. PriceSmart, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSMT) Class Period: October 26, 2017 - October 25, 2018 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 22, 2019 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the company's omni-channel business strategy had failed to reach key operating goals; (2) the company's South America distribution strategy had failed to realize key cost saving goals; (3) the company had invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into certificates of deposits with financial institutions; (4) these investments had been improperly classified as cash and cash equivalents; (5) the relevant corrections would materially impact financial statements; (6) there was a material weakness in the company's internal controls over financial reporting; (7) increasing competition negatively impacted the company's revenue and profitability; and (8) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the PriceSmart class action go to: http://bespc.com/pricesmart Hecla Mining Company (NYSE: HL) Class Period: March 19, 2018 - May 8, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 23, 2019 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants falsely and misleadingly represented that the Nevada operations would be "accretive" and cash flow positive, or at the very least "self-funding." Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants were aware from their extensive due diligence that the Nevada operations had material problems in terms of excessive water, equipment availability, achieving enough development to have consistent production, and lack of characterization of ore types, among other things. To learn more about the Hecla class action go to: http://bespc.com/hl/ A. O. Smith Corporation (NYSE: AOS) Class Period: July 26, 2016 - May 16, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that the company had used a distribution partner, Jiangsu UTP Supply Chain, to artificially inflate the company's sales and gross margins in the important Chinese market. To learn more about the A. O. Smith class action go to: http://bespc.com/aos/ Community Health Systems, Inc. (NYSE: CYH) Class Period: February 20, 2017 - February 27, 2018 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the company had understated its contractual allowances; (2) the company had understated its provision for bad debts; (3) as a result, the company had overstated its net operating revenue; (4) as a result, the company had understated its net loss; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the Community Health class action go to: http://bespc.com/cyh/ Contact: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Phone: (212) 355-4648 Website: www.bespc.com Email: investigations@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com walker@bespc.com [GN] AAF PLAYERS: Schmidt Suit Moved to Northern District of California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Colton Schmidt and Reggie Northrup, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintifffs, vs. AAF Players LLC doing business as: Alliance of American Football, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Thomas Dundon, an individual; Charles Ebersol, an individual; Legendary Field Exhibitions LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; AAF Properties LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Ebersol Sports Media Group Inc., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-575169 (Filed June 24, 2019), was removed from the San Francisco County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on June 24, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03666 to the proceeding. The Alliance of American Football was a professional American football league, founded by Charlie Ebersol and Bill Polian. The AAF consisted of eight centrally owned and operated teams, all in the southern and western United States.[BB] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. Attorneys for Thomas Dundon are: Jason I Bluver, Esq. 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1040 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (847) 571-6093 E-mail: jib@paynefears.com AEROPORT DE MONTREAL: Noise Pollution Class Action Can Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Leclair, writing for Global News, reports that a Quebec Superior Court judge gave the green light to a class action lawsuit against Aeroport de Montreal, NAV Canada and Transport Canada in April 2018, seeking financial settlement due to damages caused by aircraft noise pollution, or for the noise to simply stop altogether. The lawsuit covers those living under the eastern part of the flight path, but now, residents in the West Island of Montreal want to join the legal fight. "People from Dorval, Pointe-Claire and Lachine raised their hand and said, 'Hey we want to be part of the group'," said Pierre Lachapelle, plaintiff and president of Les Pollues de Montreal-Trudeau, the group spearheading the legal fight. The current lawsuit only covers residents living St-Laurent, Ahunstic-Cartierville, Villeray-St-Michel-Parc Extension and the Town of Mont-Royal, because those areas were equipped with measuring stations to monitor noise pollution. Lawyers went back to court with new evidence on May 14 in a effort to widen the scope of compensation to include people living in Montreal's west island. "We have been able to install two measuring stations, one in Dorval one in Pointe-Claire," said Lachapelle. The new data collected in the West Island reveals what many have long suspected: noise pollution is worse in communities closest to the airport. "It goes up to 94 decibels," said Dorval resident Mario Carangi. "When it's like this, it's difficult." Carangi lives directly under Trudeau airport's flight path. He moved into his Dorval home three years ago and despite installing new soundproof windows, he insists he can't get a good night sleep. He hopes the judge will agree to include those hit hardest. "I really don't believe people here know about it, or they just assumed that the lawsuit included Dorval," Carangi told Global News. According to Les Pollues de Montreal-Trudeau, up to 300,000 Montrealers living along the flight path are subjected to aircraft noise pollution. With a $4.5 billion dollar investment underway to expand Trudeau airport, many worry it will only get worse. "They're building ten to fifteen more terminals there so it would be really nice if they could get that curfew going," said Carangi. While compensation would be nice, what most residents want is for airport authorities to stop making exceptions to the rules and strictly enforce the take off and landing curfew from midnight to 7 a.m. "Other cities in the world have curfew for example Frankfurt airport -- that's a major city" Lachapelle said. "Montreal should do the same." [GN] ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Faces Durgin Suit in W.D. Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co. The case is captioned as GLENN DURGIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00721-RRS-CBW (W.D. La., June 7, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Robert R Summerhays and referred to Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance operates as an insurance service provider. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth D St Pe, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH D ST PE 311 W University Ave Ste A Lafayette, LA 70506 Telephone: (337) 534-4043 Facsimile: (337) 534-8379 E-mail: kds@stpelaw.com - and - Arthur Mahony Murray, Esq. MURRAY LAW FIRM 650 Poydras St Ste 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8100 Facsimile: (504) 584-5249 E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com - and - Benjamin H Dampf, Esq. John R Whaley, Esq. WHALEY LAW FIRM 6700 Jefferson Hwy Bldg 12 Ste A Baton Rouge, LA 70806 Telephone: (225) 302-8810 Facsimile: (225) 302-8814 E-mail: ben@whaleylaw.com jrwhaley@whaleylaw.com - and - Kenneth W DeJean, Esq. Law Offices of Kenneth W DeJean P O Box 4325 Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (337) 235-5294 Facsimile: (337) 235-1095 E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com - and - Stephen B Murray, Esq. Stephen B Murray , Jr. MURRAY LAW FIRM 650 Poydras St Ste 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8100 Facsimile: (504) 584-5249 E-mail: smurray@murray-lawfirm.com smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com AMAZON.COM: Ortiz Seeks to Certify Class of Shift Managers ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit MICHAEL ORTIZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMAZON.COM LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and GOLDEN STATE FC LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03820-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Michael Ortiz will move the Court for an Order certifying the case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 23(b)(3): "all persons employed as Level 4 Shift Managers in any of Defendants’ Delivery Centers, in California at any time between June 2, 2013 and the present." According to the complaint, since Plaintiff and the Level 4 Shift Managers he seeks to represent in this collective action have been categorically treated as exempt, they have been uniformly denied payment, including overtime, for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week -- a routine occurrence in light of the demands that Defendants put upon its Level 4 Shift Managers.[CC] Attorney for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class are: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC Web: www.scalaw.com 555 12th Street, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: scole@scalaw.com lvannote@scalaw.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Verduzco Appeals Decision in Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Cherokii Verduzco, and Interested Parties Theodore H. Frank and M. Frank Bednarz filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the matter entitled In re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:15-mc-01404-CKK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendants American Airlines, Inc. (American), Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta), Southwest Airlines Co. (Southwest), and United Airlines, Inc. (United), are the 4 largest commercial air passenger carriers in the United States. In addition to the four named defendants, plaintiffs allege that U.S. Airways prior to its merger with American, Air Canada, and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) willingly conspired with the Defendants to unlawfully restrain trade. The Plaintiffs are purchasers of air passenger transportation for domestic travel directly from defendants or their predecessors and/or through websites including Travelocity.com, Orbitz.com, Priceline.com, Expedia.com, and Flyfar.ca. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants colluded to limit capacity on their respective airlines in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for air passenger transportation services within the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 3), and that plaintiffs suffered pecuniary injury by paying artificially inflated ticket prices as a result of this purported antitrust violation. Plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy commenced in the first quarter of 2009 and continues until the present, and seek to recover treble damages for the period of July 1, 2011, to the present. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 19-7058, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Cherokii Verduzco, and Plaintiffs-Appellees Boston Amateur Basketball Club, III, Ltd., Katherine Rose Warnock, Kumar Patel, Samantha White, Howard Sloan Koller Group, Breanna Jackson, Stephanie Jung, Elizabeth A. Cumming and Steven Yeninas, Class Representatives on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com - and - Adam J. Zapala, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com Defendant-Appellee American Airlines, Inc., is represented by: Sloane Ackerman, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 E-mail: sackerman@omm.com - and - Katrina Robson, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-4001 Telephone: (202) 383-5300 E-mail: krobson@omm.com - and - Paul Thomas Denis, Esq. DECHERT, LLP 1900 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1110 Telephone: (202) 261-3300 E-mail: paul.denis@dechert.com - and - Richard G. Parker, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5306 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 E-mail: rparker@gibsondunn.com Defendant-Appellee Southwest Airlines Co. is represented by: Alden Lewis Atkins, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500W Washington, DC 20037-1701 Telephone: (202) 639-6500 E-mail: aatkins@velaw.com - and - Joseph Goldberg, Esq. FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD P.A. PO Box 25326 Albuquerque, NM 87125 Telephone: (505) 842-9960 E-mail: jg@fbdlaw.com - and - Roberta Liebenberg, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK R.P.C. 1845 Walnut Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com Interested Parties-Appellants Theodore H. Frank and M. Frank Bednarz are represented by: Theodore H. Frank, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1629 K Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (703) 203-3848 E-mail: ted.frank@hlli.org AMERICORE HEALTH: Jackson-Bolinger Suit Moved to E.D. Kentucky -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned, AMY JACKSON-BOLINGER, PAMELA JOHNSON, and MELISSA NORTH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICORE HEALTH, LLC, PINEVILLE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., CHARLES BISHOP, ALBEY BROCK, MATTHEW BROCK, HD CANNINGTON, JOHN COMBS, MANSFIELD DIXON, DAVID GAMBREL, TALMADGE HAYES, ESTATE OF JOHN GARFIELD HOWARD, JOHNNY JONES, GREG NUNNELLEY, JAY STEELE, JERRY WOOLUM, M.D., and The PINEVILLE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00450 (Filed June 20, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (London) on June 24, 2019. The Eastern District of Kentucky Court Clerk assinged Case No. 6:19-cv-00152-REW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert E. Wier. The case is a class action brought pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23 by participants in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act health insurance plan offered by Pineville Community Hospital, against Pineville Community Hospital and Americore Health, as sponsors of that plan and against the plan's administrators. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were injured as a result of the Defendants' fraudulent representations or omissions, and are entitled to compensatory damages, exemplary and/or punitive damages, to the extent allowable at law, costs and attorney's fees, as well as any other damages or relief allowable at law.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Ronald E. Johnson, Jr., Esq. Sarah Nicole Emery, Esq. SCHACHTER, HENDY & JOHNSON PSC 909 Wright's Summit Parkway, Suite 210 Ft. Wright, KY 41011 Telephone: (859) 587-4444 Facsimile: (859) 578-4440 E-mail: rjohnson@justicestartshere.com semery@justicestartshere.com AMN SERVICES: Removes Woehrle Suit to Central Dist. of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMN Services, LLC removes the case, SARA WOEHRLE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMN SERVICES, LLC a California Limited Liability Company; PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; an individual, and DOES 1-20 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV15213 (Filed May 2, 2019), from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District court for the Central District of California on June 17, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-05282 to the proceeding. On May 2, 2019, Plaintiff Sara Woehrle commenced an action against Providence in Los Angeles Superior Court asserting, on behalf of herself and various putative classes consisting of non-exempt employees of AMN who have worked in California since May 2, 2015, eight causes of action for failure to provide reporting time pay; failure to pay for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to authorize or permit meal breaks; failure to furnish accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties; and unfair business practices.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant are: Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq. Matthew Scholl, Esq. Nancy Sotomayor, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 909-7775 Facsimile: (424) 465-6630 E-mail: skroll-rosenbaum@constangy.com mscholl@constangy.com nsotomayor@constangy.com ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Rigrodsky & Long Announces Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the American Depository Shares ("ADS") of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV ("Anheuser-Busch" or the "Company") (NYSE: BUD) between March 1, 2018 and October 24, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint"). If you purchased ADS of Anheuser-Busch during the Class Period and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Seth D. Rigrodsky or Timothy J. MacFall at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public: (1) that Defendants' cost cutting measures had largely run their course; (2) that the devaluation of key emerging market currencies and input cost inflation was having a material adverse effect on the Company's margins, EBITDA and profitability; (3) that Anheuser-Busch had been experiencing less than expected growth and profits in certain key markets; (4) that Anheuser-Busch was not going to be able to maintain its then current dividend and still meet its deleveraging targets; (5) that Anheuser-Busch was at risk of having its credit ratings downgraded; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's dividend growth, its cost synergies, its liquidity, and Defendants' then current efforts to deleverage Anheuser-Busch's balance sheet; (7) that the liquidity and working capital disclosures in filings Anheuser-Busch made with the SEC were materially false and misleading; (8) that the risk factor disclosures in filings Anheuser-Busch made with the SEC were materially false and misleading; (9) that the representations about Anheuser-Busch's disclosure controls in filings the Company made with the SEC were materially false and misleading; (10) that the certifications issued by its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial and Solutions Officer on Anheuser-Busch's disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting were materially false and misleading; and (11) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of defendants' alleged false and misleading statements, the Company's ADS traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, on October 25, 2018, the Company cut its dividend by 50% to "accelerate deleveraging toward [its] optimal capital structure of around 2x net debt to EBITDA ratio." During a conference call on this same day with investors and analysts, the Company's Chief Financial and Solutions Officer reaffirmed the need to cut the dividend due to "currency volatility." On this news, ADS of Anheuser-Busch declined over 9%, closing at $74.54 per ADS on October 25, 2018, on heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 20, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Contact: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (888) 969-4242 (516) 683-3516 Fax: (302) 654-7530 Website: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. Email: info@rl-legal.com [GN] AO SMITH: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Wisconsin -------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 29 disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of A.O. Smith Corporation (AOS) common stock during the period between July 26, 2016 and May 16, 2019 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and is captioned Bleier v. A.O. Smith Corporation, et al., No. 19-cv-00786. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased A.O. Smith common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from May 29, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or Brian E. Cochran of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/aosmith/ The complaint charges A.O. Smith and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A.O. Smith is a leading manufacturer and marketer of water heaters and boilers. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the defendants failed to disclose that the Company had used a distribution partner, Jiangsu UTP Supply Chain ("UTP"), to artificially inflate the Company's sales and gross margins in the important Chinese market. As a result of this adverse information being withheld from the market, the price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period. On May 16, 2019, analyst firm J Capital Research USA LLC ("J Capital") published a report alleging that A.O. Smith used several manipulative practices to show higher sales and earnings in its China operations. The report stated that A.O. Smith had undisclosed business relationships and entanglements with UTP, accounting for up to 75% of the Company's product sales in China. The report also questioned whether A.O. Smith had unencumbered access to more than $530 million in cash on hand it claimed to hold in China. On this report, the price of A.O. Smith shares declined 6%. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of A.O. Smith common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller is a national law firm representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For five consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in both the amount recovered for shareholders and the total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also advocates for corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN] ASCENA RETAIL: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court and further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. Intersect ENT, Inc. (XENT) Class Period: August 1, 2018 - May 6, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : July 15, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/intersect-ent-inc-loss-form?prid=2141&wire=1 About the lawsuit: During the class period, Intersect ENT, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Intersect lacked adequate reimbursement representatives to ensure physicians had access to SINUVA, Intersect's sinus implant; (2) Intersect's sales force would focus on ensuring reimbursement; (3) Intersect's sales representatives were less focused on driving sales; (4) physicians were less likely to adopt Intersect's SINUVA due to transaction costs associated with seeking reimbursement; (5) Intersect would increase staffing to address these issues; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Intersect's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the Intersect ENT, Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. Ascena Retail Group, Inc. (ASNA) Class Period: September 16, 2015 - June 8, 2017 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 6, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ascena-retail-group-inc-loss-form?prid=2141&wire=1 About the lawsuit: Throughout the class period, Ascena Retail Group, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the ANN Acquisition was a complete disaster for the Company as Ann's operations were in far worse condition than had been represented to the public; (b) in order to mask the true condition of Ann, Defendants improperly delayed recognizing an impairment charge to the value of Ann's goodwill and, as a result, Ascena's reported income and assets were materially overstated and the Company's financial results were not prepared in conformity with GAAP; (c) many of the brands acquired in the ANN Acquisition were in steep decline and were also materially overvalued on Ascena's Class Period financial statements; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its operations and prospects. To learn more about the Ascena Retail Group, Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. Ra Medical Systems, Inc. (RMED) Class Period: stockholders that purchased Ra Medical securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's September 2018 initial public offering. Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 6, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ra-medical-systems-inc-loss-form?prid=2141&wire=1 About the lawsuit: Ra Medical Systems, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements during the class period and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's evaluation of sales personnel candidates was inadequate; (2) the Company's training program for sales personnel was inadequate; (3) as a result, the Company could not reasonably assure that its newly hired sales personnel were adequately experienced; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer a shortage of qualified sales personnel; (5) the Company's manufacturing process could not reasonably support increased catheter production; (6) as a result, the Company would suffer production delays; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the Ra Medical Systems, Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court appoint as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Contact: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] AUDI: Faces Class Action Over Defective DSG Transmissions --------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Audi DSG (direct-shift gearbox) transmission problems have caused a lawsuit that alleges 2010-2014 Audi S4, S5, S6, S7 and RS5 vehicles are defective. The class action says the DSG transmissions cause sudden rough shaking and violent jerking when drivers accelerate and shift into 2nd, 3rd or 4th gear. The lawsuit also alleges the vehicles shudder and judder when a driver slows down. The plaintiffs futher claim the direct-shift gearbox transmissions hesitate during acceleration, surge while driving and experience rough downshifts when drivers decelerate and accelerate. According to the lawsuit, the vehicles are too dangerous to drive, especially due to the allegedly sudden acceleration and deceleration problems. In addition, the plaintiffs claim Audi knew about the transmission problems but continued to sell and lease the vehicles without informing customers about the issues. The DSG class action references technical service bulletins (TSBs) related to the transmissions, with one bulletin that admitted customers were complaining about "[c]lacking or knocking noises." However, the TSB said that "[s]uch noises cannot be avoided and are normal." Another TSB was issued to dealers in July 2013 that talked about "[r]ough gear changes, both when accelerating and when slowing down" and "rough driving power disruption[s]." The bulletin went on to tell dealers that "sporadic driving power disruptions" were "normal, and these issues will decrease over time." Another transmission TSB recommended that Audi dealers use an "improved circuit board for the mechatronics unit." All four named plaintiffs claim their DSG transmissions suffered from problems, with three of the Audi owners alleging they took the vehicles to dealerships but had no transmission repairs or replacements that fixed the issues. The Audi DSG transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - Mandani, et al., v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. The plaintiffs are represented by Simmons Hanly Conroy, Whitfield Bryson Mason, and Greg Coleman Law. [GN] AVA INC: Brammer Sues over Improper Biometric Data Storage ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against AVA Inc. and Bajaj Medical, LLC for alleged violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in connection with their unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of their employees' sensitive biometric data. The case is captioned CHRISTIAN BRAMMER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, AVA INC. and BAJAJ MEDICAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH07379 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., June 19, 2019). Plaintiff Christian Brammer alleges that the Ava Inc and Bajaj Medical, LLC have violated BIPA by failing to provide their employees with a written, publicly available policy identifying their retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying employees' fingerprints when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining their fingerprints is no longer relevant. Bajaj is a registered limited liability company existing under the laws of Illinois. Bajaj produces and packages antiseptic products. Ava is a registered corporation existing under the laws of the state of Illinois. Ava is a subsidiary of Bajaj and also produces and packages antiseptic products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Haley R. Jenkins, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com hjenkins@stephanzouras.com BAMBOO HR: Faces Aman et al. Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bamboo HR, LLC. The case is captioned as ROBIN AMAN; ZIGMUND CAPULONG; BELL HAKALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAMBOO HR, LLC; and BAMBOO HR PAYROLL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03252-LB. (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2019). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. BambooHR LLC is a SaaS provider of human resources technology products for small to medium companies. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Patty W Chen, Esq. Robert James Dart, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com justin@wilshirelawfirm.com patty@wilshirelawfirm.com RDart@wilshirelawfirm.com BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Perry Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Deana Perry filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Deana Perry v. BergHOFF International, Inc., Case No. 4:18-CV-4552, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The complaint says BergHOFF violated the FLSA by employing Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees for a workweek longer than forty hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of forty hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or were employed. BergHOFF further violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees, adds the complaint. The appellate case is captioned as Deana Perry v. BergHOFF International, Inc., Case No. 19-20423, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DEANA PERRY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq. Melissa Ann Moore, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES 440 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002-1646 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net melissa@mooreandassociates.net Defendant-Appellee BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, is represented by: Andrea M. Johnson, Esq. KANE RUSSELL COLEMAN & LOGAN, P.C. 5051 Westheimer Road Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 425-7433 E-mail: ajohnson@krcl.com BIG PICTURE LOANS: Williams et al. Case Moved to E.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit titled, LULA WILLIAMS; GLORIA TURNAGE; GEORGE HENGLE; DOWIN COFFY; and FELIX GILLISON; JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIG PICTURE LOANS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-461, and the class action lawsuit titled RENEE GALLOWAY; DIANNE TURNER; EARL BROWNE; ROSE MARIE BUCHERT; REGINA NOLTE; TERESA TITUS; and KEVIN MINOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIG PICTURE LOANS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-406, request that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralize the eight related actions, as well as all subsequently filed related actions, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Big Picture Loans, LLC provides financial services. The Company lends loans, and provides financial planning and investment advisory services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net jalbanese@bm.net - and - Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com elizabeth@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com jmurray@terrellmarshall.com eadams@terrellmarshall.com - and - Matthew Wessler, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER PLLC 1735 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 Facsimile: (202) 888-7792 E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com BIG TOP: Pizano Seeks to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE PIZANO, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, vs. BIG TOP & PARTY RENTALS, LLC d/b/a BIG TOP TENT & PARTY RENTALS, LLC, and MARLENE LEONARD, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-11190 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff move the Court for order: 1. certifying a class for claims arising under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law: "all individuals employed by Big Top & Party Rentals, LLC and Marlene Leonard as hourly employees and who worked in excess of 40 hours in any individual work weeks for the period of December 11, 2012 through the date of judgment." 2. appoiting Jose Pizano as class representatives; 3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel to serve as counsel for the class; and 4. authorizing notice to the class of the action and their right to opt out. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have had a policy or practice of paying Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt employees their regular rate of pay for the first 50 hours of work in individual work weeks, categorizing 10 hours as "Ride Time" on the employees' paycheck stub paid at the regular rate of pay.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK 53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1224 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 795-9121 BIRD ELECTRIC: Certification of Electricians Class Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIRD ELECTRIC ENTERPRISES, LLC, the Defendant, Case 7:18-cv-00231-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order certifying an agreed class consisting of: "all hourly-paid current and former electricians, including foremen and general foremen, who worked in Department 16 or Department 22 at any time between June 24, 2016 and the date when the Agreed Order is entered." On June 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Corrective Notice, in which he asked the Court to invalidate arbitration agreements with potential class members, to modify the language of proposed notice and consent forms, and to prohibit Defendant from offering arbitration agreements to putative class members until after the notice period closes. The Defendant filed its response in opposition to the Motion for Correction Notice, and Plaintiff filed his reply. The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation on June 10, 2019, recommending that the Conditional Certification Motion be granted. The Parties were guveb until June 24 in which to file objections to the R&R. In light of these proceedings, the Parties stipulate and agree to conditional certification of the electricians class.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Daniel Anthony Verrett, Esq. Edmond S. Moreland, Jr. MORELAND VERRETT, P.C. 2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 782-0567 Facsimile: (512) 782-0605 E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com edmond@morelandlaw.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Brett L. Myers, Esq. Molly M. Jones, Esq. WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN, LLP 3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 692-6200 Facsimile: (214) 692-6255 E-mail: brett.myers@wickphillips.com molly.jones@wickphillips.com BLACK RIDGE: Rosenblatt Says Merger Documents Misleading -------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BLACK RIDGE ACQUISITION CORP., KEN DECUBELLIS, BRADLEY BERMAN, BENJAMIN OEHLER, JOSEPH LAHTI, and LYLE BERMAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01117-UNA (D. Del., June 17, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proxy statement for a merger transaction. On December 19, 2018, the Board of Directors of Black Ridge Acquisition Corp. caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Black Ridge Merger Sub Corp., Allied Esports Entertainment, Inc., Noble Link Global Limited, Ourgame International Holdings Ltd., and Primo Vital Ltd. On June 12, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which seeks Black Ridge stockholder approval of the Proposed Transaction at a special meeting scheduled for June 28, 2019. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Black Ridge will acquire Allied Esports and WPT, which are two of Ourgame’s global esports and entertainment assets. In exchange for 100% of the equity in the entities comprising the Allied Esports business and WPT business, Black Ridge will issue approximately 11.6 million shares, with a value of $118 million, to Ourgame, management team members of Allied Esports, and Ourgame-related investors. Black Ridge will also issue the Ourgame investor group warrants to purchase a total of 3.8 million shares of Black Ridge common stock at a price per share of $11.50. An additional $50 million of contingent stock consideration will be available to Ourgame subject to certain milestones. Assuming that no Black Ridge stockholders elect to convert their shares into cash as permitted by the Company's certificate of incorporation, current Black Ridge stockholders will own only approximately 62.23% of the Company's common stock following the consummation of the Proposed Transaction. However, if the maximum number of Black Ridge shares are converted into cash, current Black Ridge stockholders will own even less -- approximately 53.22% -- of the Company's common stock following the close of the Proposed Transaction. Black Ridge is a special purpose acquisition company sponsored by Black Ridge Oil & Gas, Inc. for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or similar business combination with one or more businesses or assets.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. 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: sdr@rl-legal.com 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 BLACKBERRY LTD: Class Action Over Severance Pay Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that an Ontario judge has cleared the way for a class action on behalf of about 300 former employees of BlackBerry Ltd. who are seeking severance or termination pay from the technology company. The suit alleges, among other things, that BlackBerry had attempted to avoid paying the employees what they were owed by arranging to transfer the work they did to another employer, Ford Motor Company of Canada. Most of the former employees were based in Waterloo, Ont., which is BlackBerry's global head office, and Ottawa, where its QNX automotive software research facility is based. The remaining employees were elsewhere in Ontario and in Nova Scotia. BlackBerry's spokeswoman said on May 28 that the company doesn't comment on pending litigation. The company had argued during a three-day hearing in Ottawa that the case didn't qualify as a class action. However, Justice Michel Charbonneau says in a six-page ruling dated May 27 that the suit had satisfied the criteria outlined by the Class Proceedings Act. Class action laws are designed to give people with a common grievance the ability to pursue one lawsuit rather than several individual actions that would be prohibitively expensive for the plaintiffs. In this case, David Parker is named as the representative plaintiff on behalf of most former BlackBerry employees who accepted work at Ford after Jan. 1, 2017, following town hall meetings on Dec. 8 and 9, 2016. "The class members were told by BlackBerry that if they refused Ford's offer, BlackBerry would make serious efforts to redeployment in other tasks at BlackBerry but there was no guarantee that they would be employed," the judge writes. "Ford told the class employees that if they accepted Ford's offer they would not be entitled to retain their seniority, or any benefits and entitlements they had acquired during their years of service with BlackBerry." Charbonneau writes that it will be up to a trial judge to determine whether the process was designed to terminate the plaintiffs' employment without having to pay them severance. "Although difficult to prove, the theory of the plaintiff is not without merit," the judgment says. "It must be remembered that the merits of the action are not an issue as long as there is a viable cause of action." [GN] BONNIER CORPORATION: Court Certifies Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, REBECCA FRISKE, the Plaintiff, vs. BONNIER CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-12799-DML-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David M. Lawson entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's unopposed motions to certify a settlement class and for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement and procedure for providing class notice; 2. preliminarily approving proposed settlement agreement, subject to objections by absent class members and except for the determination of the attorney's fees and costs; 3. conditionally certifying settlement class of: "all Michigan residents who subscribed to or received one or more subscriptions to a magazine published by Bonnier between July 28, 2010 and the date of Preliminary Approval of the Agreement, and who did not purchase such subscriptions through a Third-Party Subscription Agent"; 4. appointing Attorneys Gary Lynch, Jamisen Etzel, and Daniel Myers, as counsel for the designated settlement class; 5. appointing Rebecca Friske as the class representative; 6. appointing Angeion Group as the claims administrator for the settlement; 7. approving the deposit within 30 days of the settlement funds into an escrow account to be held pending final disposition of all settlement claims, or until further order of the Court, and the Court orders the defendant's compliance with this term; 8. directing Defendant to provide notice of this proposed class settlement on or before July 10, 2019, to the appropriate state and federal authorities. The defendant must file proof that it has provided the required notice with the Court, in compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1715(b); 9. directing Plaintiff's counsel or their designated representative to cause notice of the proposed settlement to be given to class members in the following manner: (a) On or before July 10, 2019, a copy of the Notice of Class Action Settlement Agreement, substantially in the form attached as ECF No. 62-1, Page.ID 751-763 to the plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement and notice, and modified as directed herein, must be mailed by first-class mail, with postage prepaid, to each class member. The class administrator shall ensure that the creation of a claims website is accomplished by that same date. (b) The notice to class members must explain that objections to, and requests to be excluded from, the class settlement must be filed with the Court and the parties' counsel on or before August 26, 2019. (c) In lieu of the notice, an abbreviated notice may be mailed by first-class mail, with postage prepaid, to each class member for whom plaintiff's counsel or his designated representative can confirm has an active email account with access to the Internet. 10. directing Plaintiff's counsel to file proof of mailing of the class notice in conformity with this order on or before July 17, 2019; 11. scheduling that the expenses of printing and mailing and publishing all notices required shall be paid as described in the settlement agreement; 12. scheduling that the notice of class settlement must inform the absent class members that Proofs of Claim and supporting documentation must be submitted on or before August 23, 2019. Proofs of Claim sent by mail shall be deemed submitted when postmarked if mailed by first class, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed in accordance with the instructions in the Proof of Claim. All other Proofs of Claim shall be deemed submitted at the time of actual receipt.; 13. directing Plaintiff's counsel to file on or before September 3, 2019, a motion for final approval of the settlement identifying absent class members who opt out or object. The Defendant's response, if the motion is opposed, must be filed on or before September 10, 2019, and the plaintiff's reply, if any, must be filed on or before September 17, 2019.; 14. scheduling a hearing to be held at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 23, 2019 in Room 767 of the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, Michigan 48226, to consider any objections to the settlement agreement and to determine whether the settlement agreement should be finally approved as having been negotiated in good faith and as being fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the class members; and 15. directing any class member may appear at the settlement hearing and be heard to the extent allowed by this Court, either in support of or in opposition to the good faith, fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement or the Plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of attorney's fees, reimbursement of expenses, and an incentive award to the representative plaintiff. However, no class member shall be entitled to be heard or entitled to contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement or the judgment to be entered pursuant thereto approving the same, or the plaintiff's counsel's fee, expense and incentive award application, unless, on or before August 23, 2019, such person: (a) has filed with the Clerk of Court a notice of such person's intention to appear, together with a statement that indicates the basis for such opposition along with any supporting documentation, and (b) has served copies of such notice, statement, and documentation, together with copies of any other pleadings that such person has filed with the Clerk of the Court and each parties' counsel at the following addresses: Clerk of the Court United States District Court 231 Lafayette Boulevard Detroit, MI 48226 Re: Rebecca Friske v. Bonnier Corporation Case Number 16-12799 Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Gary Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 36 N. Jefferson St. P.O. Box 7635 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: 724-656-1555 Facsimile: 724-656-1556 - and - Daniel Myers, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL O. MYERS 4020 Copper View Ste. 225, Suite 225 Traverse City, MI 49684 Telephone: 231-943-1135 Counsel for the Defendant are: Daniel T. Stabile, Esq. Francis A. Zacherl, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-415-9063 Facsimile: 305-347-7714 - and - John J. Gillooly, Esq. GARAN LUCOW 1155 Brewery Park Blvd., Suite 200 Detroit, MI 48207-2641 Telephone: 313 446 5501 Any class member who does not serve and file an objection to the proposed settlement of the litigation or the fee, expense and incentive award application, in the manner provided for, shall be deemed to have waived the right to object, including the right to appeal, and shall be forever foreclosed from making any objection to the settlement, the fee, expense and incentive award application, or to any order or judgment filed or entered thereon, as applicable. Counsel for the plaintiff must notify all absent class members of this requirement. 16. scheduling that applications for incentive awards, attorney's fees, or reimbursable expenses under Rule 23(h) must be filed on or before September 3, 2019. Counsel must provide notice to class members in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h)(1); 17. directing class counsel to be responsible for maintaining a file of all responses to the notice of settlement and any and all other written communications received from the class members. Class counsel immediately shall provide copies of such responses and communications to defendant's counsel; and 18. reserving Court the right to adjourn the settlement hearing from time to time without further notice and to approve the settlement agreement at or after the settlement hearing.[CC] BP: Tampa Bay Buccaneers Won't Receive Oil Spill Settlement Money ----------------------------------------------------------------- FNR TIGG reports that a federal court of appeals has ruled BP is not entitled to pay the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for any damages related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Bucs believed they suffered a significant drop in revenue following the incident, according to their accountant. The organization sought out $19.5 million in damages from the multinational oil and gas company, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to uphold a decision that ruled in BP's favor. The 2010 rig explosion was the worst offshore oil spill in United States history. It killed 11 workers and leaked millions of oil barrels into the ocean, devastating the shoreline of several states. Because the team's stadium is located 360 miles southeast of the spill site, Tampa Bay thinks the accident scared fans from coming to their games. The team had to prove that their revenue from May-June 2010 was at least 10 percent lower than it was in other years, but the profits didn't show a significant difference during this time frame. This is the latest decision in a string of legal issues stemming from the incident. While in 2015, the BP was forced to pay $18.7 billion in penalties to the states federal government and five states affected by the spill. The year after, the company agreed to pay $175 million to shareholders who filed a class action lawsuit against the company. [GN] BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Jury Awards $68MM to Inmates in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Jo Ciavaglia, writing for Bucks County Courier Times, reports that the attorney representing the lead plaintiff in the federal lawsuit said he hopes the verdict sends a message to public officials about the "reckless handling" of personal information. Bucks County and its jail violated the privacy rights of tens of thousands of former inmates, which will cost it an estimated $68 million in punitive damages in what could be a precedent-setting federal class action suit, a jury decided on May 28. Following two hours of deliberations, a federal jury at the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia awarded what will amount to $1,000 for each violation of the Criminal History Records Information Act, known as CHRIA, which would be divided among the roughly 67,000 class members and its attorneys. The damage award is mandatory because the jury found the county "willfully" violated federal law when it posted criminal information online of individuals held or incarcerated at the Bucks County prison from approximately 2011 until 2013. The case is considered significant because it's the first time the court has set a standard for what actions rise to the level of a willful violation of CHRIA. "We are gratified by the jury's verdict. We believe that the jury sent a message to Bucks County and all other government entities that reckless handling of private, personal information this time in the form of criminal records will not be tolerated," said attorney Jonathan Shub, who represents the original plaintiff in the case Daryoush Taha, of Sicklerville, New Jersey. Bucks County spokesman Larry King said on May 28 that the county commissioners had just learned of the decision and would have no immediate comment. "The county may have more to say on this matter" King added. Taha originally filed his lawsuit in 2012 alleging it violated his civil rights when it included his arrest information and mugshot on a publicly accessible website of Bucks County Corrections inmates. Bensalem police arrested Taha in 1998 on charges of harassment, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. He was later accepted into a one-year trial diversion probation program for first-time nonviolent offenders, which he completed, and his arrest information was ordered expunged in January 2000. Eleven years later, Taha alleges that he learned that his arrest information and mugshot appeared on a searchable electronic database that Bucks County created that listed individuals held or incarcerated at its county jail. After Taha filed his federal civil suit, the county removed all inmate mugshots and most arrest information from the lookup tool in 2013. The suit originally included multiple defendants including Bensalem Police and Mugshots.com LLC, but they were dropped, leaving only the county and its correctional center as defendants. The civil case had already secured several critical judgments favoring Taha and class members including that the county violated the CHRIA, when it posted arrest information and mugshots. The statute prohibits counties and county jails from releasing criminal information except to other agencies. While the judge did not award Taha actual damages because he did not contend that he suffered any economic losses as a result of his arrest information being posted online, because the county was found to have willfully violated CHRIA it entitles Taha and class members to mandatory punitive damages of $1,000 to $10,000 for each violation. [GN] C&S MEDICAL: Shealy Seeks Overtime Wages for Sales Reps ------------------------------------------------------- LARRY SHEALY, MATTHEW AMODEO and BRITTANI PAYTON individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees who consent to their inclusion in a collective action, the Plaintiff, v. C&S MEDICAL SUPPLY INC., d/b/a C&S INSTRUMENTS LLC., SKLAR CORPORATION d/b/a SKLAR INSTRUMENTS and DONALD TAYLOR individually, the Defendants., Case No. 3:19-cv-00718-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs all worked for Defendants as inside sales representatives (ISRs). The Plaintiffs and all ISRs were all paid an hourly wage in addition to commissions based upon sales. ISRs made sales for Defendants by cold calling new and existing customers to sell SKLAR and other medical equipment and supplies from the C&S offices. In the performance of their job duties, ISRs were regularly required and encouraged to work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants maintained a time clock system to keep track of ISRs' hours. Despite Defendants' time keeping efforts, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the putative class of ISRs overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. The Defendants did not pay overtime for all of the overtime hours that ISRs worked. The Defendants willfully failed to pay any overtime hours in excess of 45 hours per week. When Defendants did pay overtime, Defendants failed to include the value of the ISRs' commissions in the calculation of ISRs' overtime rate. The Defendants failed to properly pay ISRs' commissions earned and failed to provide ISRs' monthly commissions statements detailing the commissions earned and paid. As a result, ISRs' were denied the total commissions owed, and ISRs overtime compensation was reduced, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Representative Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: Benjamin Lee Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW PA 10752 Deerwood Park Blvd., Suite 100 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Telephone: 904-580-6060 E-mail: bwilliams@williamslawjax.com CAL. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES: $1.2B Lawsuit Over LT Care Gets Go Ahead --------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Venteicher, writing for Sacramento Bee, reports that public workers and retirees who sued CalPERS over an 85 percent rate increase to long-term care insurance plans could find out next week whether their lawsuit will move forward. The lawsuit cleared a potential hurdle when a judge tentatively ruled that it shouldn't be thrown out based on how much time passed before it was filed, and a decision on a second piece of the trial is expected July 1 or July 2. A few people who bought the plans filed a class-action lawsuit after the California Public Employees' Retirement System notified them it planned to hike premiums in 2015 and 2016. The suit's class includes up to about 100,000 people who faced the rate hikes. Plaintiffs claim the increases and associated costs amount to about $1.2 billion. The people who filed the lawsuit said the rate hike violated contracts and promises in marketing materials for the plans. CalPERS said it had the authority to raise the rates and needed to do so to sustain the insurance plans. The people who filed the lawsuit said the rate hike violated contracts and promises in marketing materials for the plans. CalPERS said it had the authority to raise the rates and needed to do so to sustain the insurance plans. [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in McFarland Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Capital One, N.A., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Anthony McFarland v. Capital One, N.A., Case No. 8:18-cv-02148-TDC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt. The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions. The appellate case is captioned as Anthony McFarland v. Capital One, N.A., Case No. 19-1691, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on August 6, 2019; and -- Response Brief is due on September 5, 2019.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ANTHONY MCFARLAND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Cory Lev Zajdel, Esq. Z LAW, LLC 2345 York Road Timonium, MD 21093 Telephone: (443) 213-1977 E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com Defendant-Appellant CAPITAL ONE N.A., d/b/a Capital One Auto Finance, is represented by: Sarah Warren Howlett, Esq. Jonathan S. Hubbard, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP 1001 Haxall Point Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 697-1208 E-mail: sarahwarren.howlett@troutman.com jon.hubbard@troutman.com - and - Syed Mohsin Reza, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP 401 9th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-2134 Telephone: (202) 274-1932 E-mail: mohsin.reza@troutmansanders.com CBL & ASSOCIATES: Roy Jacobs First to File Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Roy Jacobs & Associates reports that it was the first to file a class action lawsuit against CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. (NYSE: CBL) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of CBL. A class period has been proposed that would cover purchases of CBL securities between April 29, 2016 and March 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose in its SEC filings that the Company was the target of a class action suit that could result in tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars in liability. The Complaint alleges that CBL was the subject of a class action lawsuit that could potentially result in tens or hundreds of millions in liability for the Company. The Company completely ignored its disclosure obligations pertaining to the lawsuit to minimize the bad publicity from its dishonest actions. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the Class Period. When the market learned the truth about CBL, investors suffered significant damages. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of CBL during the Class Period should contact Roy Jacobs & Associates prior to the July 16, 2019 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact: Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES Toll Free: 1-888-609-0503 Email: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com [GN] CHASE RECEIVABLES: Secures Summary Dismissal of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Chase Receivables ("CR") secured summary dismissal of a federal class-action lawsuit which challenged an initial debt collection notice under section 1692g of the FDCPA. See Poplin v. Chase Receivables, Inc., Civil No. 18-404 (D.N.J.). Although the notice's validation language tracked the FDCPA, the Court denied CR's initial motion to dismiss by concluding that the language was potentially confusing to the least sophisticated consumer. Rather than attempt to settle the case, CR moved both to certify that denial for immediate appeal and for summary judgment, while opposing the plaintiff's motions to certify the proposed class and to file an amended complaint. CR's persistence paid off when the Court granted its summary judgment motion by reconsidering its prior decision and concluding that the notice's validation language is "clear and effective," and therefore did not violate section 1692g as a matter of law. CR's victory should significantly benefit the debt collection industry, which has been inundated with similar lawsuits brought by plaintiffs' attorneys contending that such notices are actionable because they allegedly fail to clearly convey to consumers that disputes must be submitted in writing. Federal court decisions in such lawsuits have yielded mixed results, thereby frustrating debt collectors by exposing them to litigation expense and potential liability for notices which comply with section 1692g. Notably, the favorable ruling obtained by CR was issued a week after the CFPB proposed a model notice which would provide a safe harbor against litigation. CR wishes to thank its outside counsel, Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel, and the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA International) for their expertise and support in achieving this successful result and important precedent. Media Contact Information Erin Walker ewalker@brandyourself.com 1-(646) 578-8484 (Ext: 925) Chase Receivables is not affiliated, associated, endorsed by, or in any way officially connected with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. or any of its affiliates including, without limitation, Chase Bank. [GN] CITIZENS DISABILITY: Despres Sues over Unsolicited Calls -------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Citizens Disability LLC for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned RICK DESPRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS DISABILITY LLC, a Massachusetts company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11367 (D. Mass., June 20, 2019). Despres alleges that Citizens Disability LLC has violated the TCPA by making unsolicited, prerecorded and autodialed calls to consumers without their consent, including calls to consumers registered on the National Do Not Call registry. Accordingly, Despres seeks to obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by the conduct of Defendant. Headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, Citizens Disability is a for-profit company that assists consumers to receive disability benefits that they me be entitled to receive through Social Security. The company allegedly outsources a significant part of its outbound telemarketing in order to distance itself from the illegal telemarketing practices conducted on its behalf. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Campbell Esq. 250 First Avenue, Unit 602 Charlestown, MA 02129 Telephone: (617) 872-8652 E-mail: jasonrcampbell@ymail.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com CLOUDERA INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that approximately five weeks remain to make a motion to serve as lead plaintiff in a class action pending against Cloudera Inc. ("Cloudera" or the "Company") (NYSE: CLDR) between April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to recover damages for Cloudera investors under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action, you must move the court no later than August 6, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Cloudera securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Cloudera CLDR Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Cloudera was finding it increasingly difficult to identify large enterprises interested in adopting the Company's Hadoop-based platform; (ii) Cloudera needed to expend an increasing amount of capital on sales and marketing activities to generate new revenues; (iii) Cloudera had materially diminished sales opportunities and prospects and could not generate annual positive cash flows for the foreseeable future; (iv) the primary motivation for the Company's merger with Hortonworks was to generate growth through the acquisition of Hortonworks' existing customers (as opposed to obtaining them organically); and (v) that the purported synergies and other benefits of the merger with Hortonworks were materially overstated. The truth began to be revealed to the market on April 3, 2018, when, in connection with its Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2018 financial results, the Company provided a disappointing outlook for fiscal 2019. This news contradicted Defendants' prior positive statements and shocked the market as it had come less than a year after Cloudera went public. In response, the price of Cloudera common stock fell 40% to $13.29 per share. Then on June 5, 2019, Cloudera reported that its first quarter revenues were $187.5 million, but that several customers had elected to "postpone renewal and expansion" of their subscription agreements. At this time, the Company also announced that its losses from operations had ballooned to $103.8 million, roughly double the year-over-year period, and that its CEO, Tom Reilly, would be abruptly retiring from the Company. On this news, the price of Cloudera common stock fell another 40% to just $5.21 per share. Contact: Michael S. Bigin, Esq. Matthew Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 1001 Phone: (877) 779-1414 (212) 779-1414 Website: https://www.bernlieb.com Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Bigin@bernlieb.com [GN] CLOUDERA, INC: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court and further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. Pivotal Software, Inc. (PVTL) Class Period: investors who purchased common stock pursuant or traceable to the April 2018 initial public offering and/or Pivotal securities between April 24, 2018 and June 4, 2019. Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 19, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pivotal-software-inc-loss-form?prid=2135&wire=1 The lawsuit alleges: Pivotal Software, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements throughout the class period and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Pivotal was facing major problems with its sales execution and a complex technology landscape; (ii) the foregoing headwinds resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales cycles, and diminished growth as its customers and the industry's sentiment shifted away from Pivotal's principal products because the Company's products were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with the industry-standard platform; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To learn more about the Pivotal Software, Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. Cloudera, Inc. (CLDR) Class Period: April 28, 2017 - June 5, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 6, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cloudera-inc-loss-form?prid=2135&wire=1 The lawsuit alleges: Cloudera, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cloudera was finding it increasingly difficult to identify large enterprises interested in adopting the Company's Hadoop-based platform; (ii) Cloudera needed to expend an increasing amount of capital on sales and marketing activities to generate new revenues, even as new revenue opportunities were diminishing; and (iii) Cloudera had materially diminished sales opportunities and prospects and could not generate annual positive cash flows. To learn more about the Cloudera, Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. FedEx Corporation (FDX) Class Period: September 19, 2017 - December 18, 2018 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 26, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fedex-corporation-loss-form?prid=2135&wire=1 The lawsuit alleges that, during the class period, FedEx Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) TNT's overall package volume growth was slowing as TNT's large customers permanently took their business to competitors after the Cyberattack; (2) as a result of the customer attrition, TNT was experiencing an increased shift in product mix from higher-margin parcel services to lower-margin freight services; (3) the anticipated costs and timeframe to integrate and restore the TNT network were significantly larger and longer than disclosed; (4) FedEx was not on track to achieve TNT synergy targets; and (5) as a result of these undisclosed negative trends and cost issues, FedEx's positive statements about TNT's recovery from the Cyberattack, integration into FedEx's legacy operations, customer mix, customer service levels, profitability, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the FedEx Corporation class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court appoint as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Contact: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] COLORADO STATE: Agrees to Pay Overtime Wages to Employees --------------------------------------------------------- Alex Burness, writing for The Colorado Independent, reports that Colorado State University has agreed to pay potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid overtime wages to more than 1,500 current and former school employees, many of them low-wage workers. The settlement agreement stems from a class-action suit filed in early 2018 by Devin Banton, who was a translator in CSU's Resources for Disabled Students office. He alleged improper pay for overtime work, and his suit was filed on behalf of more than 1,500 other former and current university staffers. Banton, as lead plaintiff, made several claims, including: CSU was miscalculating overtime: For example, he argued, someone could put in 45 hours of work one week -- that's 5 hours of overtime, which is to be paid out at 1.5 times the worker's regular wage -- and then work 35 hours the following week. In total, that's 80 hours -- a standard, full-time slate for a two-week pay period. The problem, Banton said, is that he wasn't being compensated for the overtime he'd put in during such pay periods, and was instead being paid as though he'd worked 80 hours of non-overtime. Banton alleged that this miscalculation was a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. CSU wasn't giving sufficient comp time for people who'd worked overtime: Workers who put in extra hours could also be eligible for "comp time" the following week to make up for the extra hours. But, the lawsuit alleged, workers putting in 45-hour weeks were given five hours off the following week, which does not sufficiently reflect the fact that the 5 overtime hours they worked should be equivalent to 7.5 hours of comp time at the overtime rate. Timecard issues: In some cases, Banton and others said, workers would be required to keep their official recorded hours below overtime limits. This, the suit contended, led to underpayment for some workers. The more than 1,500 individuals involved in this class action came from about 40 different CSU departments. The university, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment on May 28, agreed in front of a federal judge magistrate to settle Banton's suit, and now all others involved in the suit will be notified that they are eligible to receive payments from CSU to make up for any lost pay. Submitted claims will be evaluated by the judge. "I think we're gonna see claims that run from a hundred bucks to a couple thousand, or more," said David Miller, the Denver-based attorney for the plaintiffs. "The point of this all is to get people paid what they're owed." In the settlement agreement, the university maintained denial of "any and all allegations of wrongdoing" -- with "minor exceptions." CSU spokesman Mike Hooker also issued a statement, chalking up the unpaid wages to miscalculation. "CSU aims to be the workplace of choice in our region," the statement read. "When CSU learns that errors may have occurred in the calculation of compensation for an employee, it strives to determine the facts and correct any errors. As part of that effort, we are actively involved in discussions with counsel to ensure that our employees receive full compensation for work performed. [GN] COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Notes of July 29 Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of PriceSmart, Inc., Hecla Mining Company, A.O. Smith Corporation, and Community Health Systems, Inc. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. PriceSmart, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSMT) Class Period: October 26, 2017 - October 25, 2018 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 22, 2019 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the company's omni-channel business strategy had failed to reach key operating goals; (2) the company's South America distribution strategy had failed to realize key cost saving goals; (3) the company had invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into certificates of deposits with financial institutions; (4) these investments had been improperly classified as cash and cash equivalents; (5) the relevant corrections would materially impact financial statements; (6) there was a material weakness in the company's internal controls over financial reporting; (7) increasing competition negatively impacted the company's revenue and profitability; and (8) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the PriceSmart class action go to: http://bespc.com/pricesmart Hecla Mining Company (NYSE: HL) Class Period: March 19, 2018 - May 8, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 23, 2019 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants falsely and misleadingly represented that the Nevada operations would be "accretive" and cash flow positive, or at the very least "self-funding." Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants were aware from their extensive due diligence that the Nevada operations had material problems in terms of excessive water, equipment availability, achieving enough development to have consistent production, and lack of characterization of ore types, among other things. To learn more about the Hecla class action go to: http://bespc.com/hl/ A. O. Smith Corporation (NYSE: AOS) Class Period: July 26, 2016 - May 16, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that the company had used a distribution partner, Jiangsu UTP Supply Chain, to artificially inflate the company's sales and gross margins in the important Chinese market. To learn more about the A. O. Smith class action go to: http://bespc.com/aos/ Community Health Systems, Inc. (NYSE: CYH) Class Period: February 20, 2017 - February 27, 2018 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the company had understated its contractual allowances; (2) the company had understated its provision for bad debts; (3) as a result, the company had overstated its net operating revenue; (4) as a result, the company had understated its net loss; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the Community Health class action go to: http://bespc.com/cyh/ Contact: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Phone: (212) 355-4648 Website: www.bespc.com Email: investigations@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com walker@bespc.com [GN] COMMUNITY PROBATION: Appeals Ruling in McNeil Suit to 6th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Community Probation Services, Community Probation Services L.L.C., Community Probation Services, LLC and Patricia McNair filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Karen McNeil, et al. v. Community Probation Services, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00033, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Columbia. The appellate case is captioned as Karen McNeil, et al. v. Community Probation Services, et al., Case No. 19-5660, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporte, Defendants Giles County, Tennessee, and Kyle Helton filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is titled as Karen McNeil, et al. v. Community Probation Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-5262. On March 29, 2019, the Hon. William L. Campbell, Jr., denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In his Order of February 21, 2019, Magistrate Judge Chip Frensley granted the Plaintiffs' request to extend the deadline for moving to amend or add parties to April 1, 2019, in order to allow them to substitute a class representative for Sandra Beard, who they represent is now unavailable for medical reasons. Given the possibility that the individuals, who seek to proceed as class representatives may change if the Plaintiffs are permitted to replace Ms. Beard, the Court concludes the pending Motion for Class Certification should be denied, without prejudice to refiling after the identity of class representatives has been finalized.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees KAREN MCNEIL, LESLEY JOHNSON, TANYA MITCHELL, INDYA HILFORT and LUCINDA BRANDON, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Scott P. Tift, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: stift@barrettjohnston.com Plaintiffs-Appellees INDYA HILFORT and LUCINDA BRANDON, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Chirag Gopal Badlani, Esq. Kate Ellen Schwartz, Esq. Matthew J. Piers, Esq. HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD. 70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 580-0100 Facsimile: (312) 580-1994 E-mail: cbadlani@hsplegal.com kschwartz@hsplegal.com mpiers@hsplegal.com - and - David W. Garrison, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com - and - Eric Ian Halperin, Esq. Jonas Wang, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 910 17th Street, N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 599-0953 Facsimile: (202) 609-8030 E-mail: eric@civilrightscorps.org jonas@civilrightscorps.org - and - Elizabeth Rossi, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 916 G. Street, N.W., Suite 701 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 793-9105 E-mail: elizabeth@civilrightscorps.org Defendants-Appellants COMMUNITY PROBATION SERVICES, LLC, PATRICIA MCNAIR, COMMUNITY PROBATION SERVICES L.L.C. and COMMUNITY PROBATION SERVICES are represented by: Andre Sean Greppin, Esq. Daniel Rader, IV, Esq. Randall A. York, Esq. MOORE, RADER & FITZPATRICK PC P.O. Box 3347 Cookeville, TN 38502 Telephone: (931) 526-3311 CORRECT CARE: Removes Aguirre et al. Suit to W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the case of NICHOLE RENEE AGUIRRE; DOMINIC MICHAEL BONAVIA; and MIKA RAE THURMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, L.L.C.; JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI; SHONIREE YVONNE DeBUSK; MIRANDA VAN STRATTEN; BRYAN E. VAN STRATTEN; SGT. CHIMEZIE AKANULIGO; JESSICA E. LePAGE; and JOSEPH PICCININI, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Missouri, County of Jackson (Case No. 1916-CV12993) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on June 7, 2019. The clerk of court for the Western District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00446. The case is assigned to Gary A Fenner. Correct Care Solutions, LLC provides healthcare services. The Company offers medical, dental, mental, and behavioral health services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cynthia M. Dodge, Esq. CYNTHIA M. DODGE, LLC 312 SW Greenwich Drive, Suite 10 Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (816) 246-9200 Facsimile: (819) 246-9201 E-mail: cindy@cdodgelaw.com - and – John Kurtz, Esq. HUBBARD & KURTZ, L.L.P. 1718 Walnut Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 467-1776 Facsimile: (816) 472-5464 E-mail: jkurtz@mokanlaw.com CREDIT CONTROL: Aronne Certifies Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, LANA ARONNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability Company; and JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03744-ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arthur D. Spatt entered an order: 1. certifying a Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons with addresses in the State of New York to whom Credit Control, LLC mailed a collection letter between October 6, 2017, and July 19, 2018, to collect a debt on behalf of Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. which debt was charged-off by the creditor prior to the date the letter was sent to the consumer and the letter stated: "because of interest, late charges and other charges that may be assessed by your creditor that vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay, may be greater. Thus, it you pay the total amount shown within this notice, an adjustment may be necessary after we receive your check, in which event we will inform you."" and 2. approving form of notice for mailing to the Settlement Class. Credit Control shall create a class settlement fund of $23,500.00 ("Class Recovery"), which Class Counsel through the Administrator will distribute pro rata among those Class Members who did not exclude themselves and who timely returned a claim form ("Claimants"). Claimants will receive their pro rata share of the Class Recovery by check. Checks issued to Claimants will be void sixty (60) days from the date of issuance. Credit Control shall pay Plaintiff $1,500.00. Credit Control shall pay Class Counsel $30,000.00 for their attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in the action based upon their requested hourly rates. Class Counsel shall not request additional fees or costs from Credit Control or Class Members.[BN] DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Settlement Sought in Sexual Harassment Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Feely, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reports that attorneys representing Dartmouth College and nine women who have sued the school seeking $70 million in damages for allowing a "21st century Animal House" culture of drinking, rape and sexual harassment for years say both sides have agreed to try to settle the lawsuit out of court. Copies of a joint motion filed on May 24 in U.S. District Court in Concord show attorneys for Dartmouth College and the women have asked a judge for a stay of all deadlines and rulings until three days after agreed-to mediation or July 31, whichever comes first. As of May 27, a judge had yet to respond to the request. The motion filed on May 24 reports that both sides in the dispute have chosen retired state Superior Court judge Robert Morrill, now working as a professional mediator, and are attempting to finalize a date to meet. The lawsuit, filed by seven women last November, accuses Dartmouth College of failing to protect them from three professors in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences -- Todd Heatherton, William Kelley and Paul Whalen. The lawsuit alleges that the women were subjected to sexual harassment that included groping, sexting, alcohol-fueled hot tub parties and even rape. All three professors have since left Dartmouth. Two more women joined the lawsuit in May, prompting two student and alumni organizations to publicly call for drastic changes on campus. "We are writing to reiterate our demand of January 25th that the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences (PBS) be put into academic receivership," wrote members of the Dartmouth Community against Gender Harassment and Sexual Violence on May 27. "In light of the appalling allegations brought forward by two new plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, Dartmouth leadership must take this crucial step toward accountability, transparency, and institutional reparation," the student and alumni organization's leadership wrote. One of the new plaintiffs, Jane Doe 2, states in her complaint that she attended the college from 2008-12, and that Whalen got her drunk and raped her in a November 2012 incident, according to the amended lawsuit. She also alleges he choked her during a sexual encounter to the point she was scared for her safety, according to the lawsuit. The other new plaintiff, Jane Doe 3, attended Dartmouth from 2003-09, working in labs Heatherton and Kelley ran, according to court paperwork. The lawsuit claims that Kelley coerced her into an ongoing sexual relationship and regarded her as a sexual object rather than a scientist. "Kelley told her that she was 'too pretty to be smart' and was only at Dartmouth because of her good looks. He confided that he found it gratifying that he was the one who 'got to have' her when other faculty members in the department sexually desired her," the lawsuit states. A U.S. District Court judge in Concord has previously approved a schedule for this lawsuit that would result in a two-week trial starting in mid-March 2021. Dartmouth has responded in court filings by stating that while there was an "unacceptable environment involving excess alcohol consumption, an inappropriate level of fraternization, and inappropriate personal comments and contact" between the three professors and several students, it has yet to see evidence supporting the more serious assault allegations. [GN] DIESEL ONE: Kern Seeks Meal and Rest Period Premiums, OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Diesel One and John Gold for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code. The case is captioned ROBERT KERN, individually, and as a representative of other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, vs. DIESEL ONE, an unknown business entity, JOHN GOLD, an individual; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV21218 (Cal. Super., June 17, 2019). Among other things, Kern alleges that the Defendants have violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay meal and rest period premiums; failing to pay proper overtime compensation; failing to pay minimum wage; failing to provide itemized wage statements; and for untimely payment of wages owed at termination. Accordingly, Kern seeks monetary relief on the basis that Defendants violated such statutes, decisional law and regulations. In or about November 2018, Plaintiff became a full-time Sales Associate for Defendants and continued in this position until in or about June 2018. Plaintiff was provided a smart phone, and later a laptop and tablet, to perform the sales work for Defendants, which included calling companies with trucks in order to sell them Defendants' services. John Gold would also regularly provide names and other information on companies for Plaintiff to call as part of his job. Plaintiff worked long hours and was to be compensated with a certain percentage of the bill for initial services, and then a certain percentage going forward. However, Plaintiff was never paid this compensation. Essentially, Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent contractor in violation of California Labor Code. Diesel One is a business entity with a principal place of business in the state of California. The company provides repair services for commercial trucks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Heather K. Cox, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP 301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1550 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432-8933 Facsimile: (562) 435-1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com heather@carlinbuchsbaum.com EL AL: Ultra-Orthodox Shabbat Passengers File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Times of Israel reports that Ultra-Orthodox passengers on an El Al flight who were diverted to Athens during a New York-Tel Aviv flight for fear that they would not reach Israel before Shabbat, have filed a class action lawsuit against the airline. According to Channel 12 news, 52 passengers have filed the suit, demanding hundreds of thousands of shekels in compensation from El Al. Attorney Asher Rotenbaum said the company had behaved irresponsibly and said the claimants wanted compensation for the "great anguish and distress caused," with passengers forced to spend three days in Athens without a change of clothes and in sub-par conditions. The November 2018 flight made headlines due to allegations that religious passengers were abusive to cabin crew. El Al initially accused religious passengers of physically and verbally assaulting the crew, but then appeared to walk back the claims following vehement denials and threats of a boycott from the ultra-Orthodox community. El Al's flight 002 to Tel Aviv on November 15 was delayed by more than five hours due to bad weather and was racing against the clock to leave with enough time to get to Israel before the start of Shabbat. Dozens of passengers had demanded that the plane return to the gate at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport so that they could disembark, but instead the plane took off. The plane was eventually diverted to Athens, where it landed before the start of Shabbat on Friday night. Passengers spent the weekend in Greece before another flight brought them to Israel on Sunday. Religious passengers pushed back against the reports of physical violence on board, accusing El Al staff of causing one of the delays, and saying that the cabin crew had falsely told them they would be allowed to disembark and that the plane would make it to Israel on time. Several accounts on social media and in blog posts offered differing reports of what occurred on the flight. El Al later offered compensation to all 400 passengers on the flight in the form of a free round-trip ticket to any destination in Europe. [GN] EQT CORP.: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired EQT Corporation (NYSE: EQT) securities between June 19, 2017 and October 24, 2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until Aug. 26, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Complaint filed on June 26, 2019 alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants falsely stated that EQT's acquisition of Rice, a rival gas producer, would yield billions of dollars in synergies based on purported operational benefits. Specifically, on June 19, 2017, Defendants announced that EQT had entered into an agreement to acquire Rice for $6.7 billion. Defendants represented that because Rice had an acreage footprint largely contiguous to EQT's existing acreage, the acquisition would allow EQT to achieve "a 50% increase in average lateral [drilling] lengths" (as opposed to more traditional vertical well drilling). EQT claimed that as a result, the merger would result in $2.5 billion in synergies, including $100 million in cost savings in 2018 alone. After the closing in November 2017, the Company continued to tout the "significant operational synergies" of the merger. As a result of Defendants' misrepresentations, EQT shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. On March 15, 2018, just five months after the acquisition closed, EQT announced the sudden and unexpected resignation of its CEO. Then, on October 25, 2018, the Company reported poor third-quarter financial results caused by an increase in total costs, and disclosed that its estimated capital expenditures for well development in 2018 would increase by $300 million. As a result, the Company reduced its full-year forecast for 2018. These disclosures caused EQT shares to decline by 13%, dropping from a close of $40.46 per share on October 24, 2018 to $35.34 on October 25, 2018. If you purchased EQT securities during the Class Period or continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. Contact: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Phone: (212) 355-4648 Website: www.bespc.com E-mail: investigations@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com walker@bespc.com [GN] EQUITY BANCSHARES: Bronstein Notes of July 12 Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC (NBRV) Class Period: November 1, 2018 - April 30, 2019 Deadline: July 8, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/nbrv On April 30, 2019, Nabriva disclosed receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") seeking marketing approval of CONTEPO™ (fosfomycin) for injection for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI), including acute pyelonephritis. Nabriva advised investors that "[t]he CRL requests that Nabriva address issues related to facility inspections and manufacturing deficiencies at one of Nabriva's contract manufacturers prior to the FDA approving the NDA." On this news, Nabriva's stock price fell $0.82 per share, or 27.42%, to close at $2.17 per share on May 1, 2019. Equity Bancshares, Inc. (EQBK) Class Period: May 11, 2018 and April 22, 2019 Deadline: July 12, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/eqbk The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to assess credit risk; (2) that, as a result, certain of the Company's loans posed an increased risk of loss; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses for certain substandard loans; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz Investor Relations Analyst Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Phone: 212-697-6484 Email: info@bgandg.com peretz@bgandg.com [GN] EROS INT'L: Bragar Eagel Notes of Aug. 20 Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel and Squire reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of stockholders of Pivotal Software, Inc., Eros International Plc, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Pivotal Software, Inc. (NYSE: PVTL) Class Period: Securities pursuant or traceable to Pivotal's April 2018 initial public offering ("IPO") and/or securities purchased or acquired between April 24, 2019 and June 4, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 19, 2019 The complaint filed on June 21, 2019 alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Pivotal was facing major problems with its sales execution and a complex technology landscape; (ii) the foregoing headwinds resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales cycles, and diminished growth as its customers and the industry's sentiment shifted away from Pivotal's principal products because the Company's products were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with the industry-standard platform; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 4, 2019, post-market, Pivotal reported its financial and operating results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2020, advising investors that "sales execution and a complex technology landscape impacted the quarter." Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives called the quarter a "train wreck" and characterized the Company's operating results as "disastrous," asserting that Pivotal's "management team does not have a handle on the underlying issues negatively impacting its sales cycles and the activity in the field which gives us concern that this quarter will be the start of some 'dark days ahead' for Pivotal (and its investors)." On this news, Pivotal's stock price fell $7.60. To learn more about the Pivotal Software class action go to: https://bespc.com/PVTL-2 Eros International Plc (NYSE: EROS) Class Period: July 28, 2017- June 5, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2019 According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Eros and its executives engaged in a scheme to use related-party transactions to fabricate receivables that they reported in Eros's public financial disclosures; (2) because of this scheme, Eros's financial position was weaker than what the Company disclosed; (3) consequently, the Company's Indian subsidiary, Eros International Media Ltd, missed loan payments and had its credit downgraded; and (4) due to the foregoing, defendants' statements about Eros's receivables, business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To learn more about the Eros class action go to: https://bespc.com/eros-2 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA) Class Period: August 4, 2017- May 10, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 23, 2019 The complaint filed on June 21, 2019 alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements denying that Teva "engaged in any conduct that would give rise to liability" in various antitrust proceedings and investigations that enveloped the company. In truth, and as Defendants failed to disclose to investors, (i) contrary to its public denials, Teva had in fact engaged in a vast, industry-wide price-fixing scheme and other collusive misconduct since at least 2012; (ii) Teva was not only a participant, but the company at the heart of the anticompetitive scheme; and (iii) several Teva employees had such deep involvement in the scheme that they would ultimately be named personally as defendants in a sweeping civil enforcement action filed by the AGs of virtually every state in the nation. On December 9, 2018, it was publicly disclosed that the scope of the State AG's investigation had expanded greatly to include 300 drugs and at least 16 companies, exposing "the largest cartel in the history of the United States." On this news, the price of Teva ADS fell $0.97 per share or 5%, to close at $18.44 per share on December 10, 2018. On May 10, 2019, a coalition of 44 states filed a 524-page antitrust complaint revealing previously undisclosed facts regarding Teva's participation in the generic drug price-fixing conspiracy. Among other things, the action detailed Teva's role as a "consistent participant" in the conspiracy, implementing price increases on upwards of 110 generic drugs and colluding with competitors regarding over 85 different generic drugs. On this news, the price of Teva ADS fell $2.13 per share or approximately 15%, to close at $12.23 per share on May 13, 2019. For more information on the Teva class action go to: https://bespc.com/teva Contact: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Phone: (212) 355-4648 Website: www.bespc.com Email: investigations@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com walker@bespc.com [GN] ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Removes Parsons Suit to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the case of ROBERT PARSONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESTENSON LOGISTICS, LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento (Case No. 34-2019 00252929) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 5, 2019. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01030. The case is assigned to Troy L Nunley and referred to Magistrate Kendall J Newman. Estenson Logistics, LLC provides logistics services. The Company offers container, supply chain consulting, warehousing, inventory management, and other related services. Estenson Logistics serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Max W. Gavron, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 FAF, INC: Campbell Suit Transferred to Eastern Dist. of Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, KEVIN CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FAF, INC., FORWARD AIR CORPORATION, PRIROITY CAPITAL GROUP D/B/A PRIORITY LEASING, ODYSSEY TRANSPORT, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00142 (Filed Jan. 22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Greeneville) on June 24, 2019. The Eastern District of Tennessee Court Clerk assinged Case No. 2:19-cv-00107-PLR-MCLC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Pamela L. Reeves. The case is a class and collective action lawsuit challenging Defendants' policy and practice of unlawfully misclassifying its non-exempt hourly Driver employees as independent contractors exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California wage and hour laws. As a result of its unlawful misclassification policy and practice, Defendants have failed to provide meal and rest periods and pay premiums for missed breaks, failed to compensate for all hours worked, unlawfully deducted expenses from Drivers' wages, failed to pay for waiting time penalties, failed to provide timely and itemized wage statements, and engaged in unfair business practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code, the lawsuit says. FAF, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Forward Air Corporation. Forward Air Corp. provides time-definite surface transportation and related logistics services to the North American deferred air freight market.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. David C. Leimbach, Esq. Michelle S. Lim, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com - and - Robert S. Boulter, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT S. BOULTER 1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 235 San Rafael, CA 94901 Telephone: (415) 233-7100 Facsimile: (415) 233-7101 E-mail: rsb@boulter-law.com Attorneys for the Defendants are: Christopher J Eckhart, Esq. Christopher C McNatt, Jr., Esq. James H Hanson, Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C. (IN) 10 West Market Street, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-1777 Facsimile: (317) 687-2414 E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com jhanson@scopelitis.com FAIRLIFE, LLC: Maltreated Dairy Cow, Sabeehullah Claims ------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMMAD SABEEHULLAH and NABIL KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FAIRLIFE, LLC, MIKE McCLOSKEY, and SUE McCLOSKEY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00222 (N.D. Ind., June 17, 2019), seeks to hold Defendants liable for engaging in a massive consumer fraud involving the sale of milk products. The Defendants advertised, promoted, and sold a variety of milk products at premium prices justified solely by the representation that the milk was obtained from dairy cows that receive "extraordinary" care. That was false. Fair Oaks Farms, run by defendants Mike and Sue McCloskey, abused and tortured the dairy cows and young calves on the farm. Undercover video exposed the sickening treatment of these animals -- treatment that one hopes is far worse than the treatment of dairy cows and calves on any other dairy farm that produces and sells milk at a non-premium price. The Plaintiffs were deceived into purchasing Defendants' products. Mr. Sabeehullah is willing to pay a premium price to buy from companies that humanely treat the animals used to produce their products. Sabeehullah purchased a Fairlife ultra-filtered milk product. Throughout the Indiana Class Period, Fairlife advertised on its label that it provided "extraordinary" care for the dairy cows that produced the milk. Mr. Sabeehullah purchased this product because he believed and relied on this representation. Mr. Sabeehullah was injured in fact and lost money because of the false representation. Mr. Sabeehullah stopped purchasing this product after learning of Defendants' inhumane treatment of the dairy cows that produced the milk, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq. Laura C. Fellows, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 E-mail: Ashlea@PaulLLP.com Laura@PaulLLP.com - and - Syed Ali Saeed, Esq. SAEED & LITTLE, LLP 18 W. Vermont Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 614-5741 E-mail: Ali@Sllawfirm.com FCI LENDER: Court Denies Class Certification in Tabick Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit CHRISTOPHER TABICK, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, vs. FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-4577 (RJD) (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Raymond J. Dearie entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification of: "Class A for consumers who received a letter materially identical or substantially similar to Plaintiffs letter regarding a debt which imposed interest when it was unlawful to do so"; and "Class B, for consumers who were sent, but did not receive, a letter materially identical or substantially similar to the letter Plaintiff received." The Court said, "Defendant opposes the motion arguing that Plaintiffs claims present unique issues of fact and law that are not suitable for litigation as a class action. Despite discovery having been completed in this case. Plaintiff provides no evidence to support certification of either of the proposed classes. The Plaintiffs complaint contains mostly highly individual allegations relating to an alleged implicit waiver of interest later sought to be collected by a different debt collector. There are no allegations that any, much less many, other members of proposed Class A received collection letters imposing unlawful interest under similar circumstances, and Plaintiffs papers in support of their motion for certification contain no facts or documents from which the Court can determine that there is a large enough group of consumers with claims sufficiently similar to Plaintiffs to warrant class litigation. Additionally, the Court sees no basis on which to certify proposed Class B given that there is no indication that any of the members of this proposed class suffered any cognizable injury under the FDCPA since they did not receive Defendant's allegedly violative letters. Based on the dearth of information submitted by Plaintiff and the highly individualized circumstances and harms alleged in the Complaint." The Plaintiff brought the action under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, alleging that Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter which failed to accurately state the amount of debt owed because the letter reflected interest due on Plaintiffs home loan even though, as Plaintiff asserts, the interest had been waived by Plaintiffs creditor, in violation of 15 U.S.C. sections 1692e, 1692e(a)(2), 1692e(10), 1692f and 1692g(a)(l).[CC] FEDERAL AVIATION: Johnson Suit Transferred to District of Columbia ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Lucas K. Johnson, on behalf of himself and the Class he seeks to represent, the Plaintiff, vs. United States Department of Transportation; E laine L. Chao, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation; Federal Aviation Administration; and Daniel K. Elwell, Acting Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02431 (Filed Sept. 12, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC) on June 26, 2019. The District of Columbia Court Clerk assinged Case No. 1:19-cv-01916-RDM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Randolph D. Moss. The case involves the decision by Federal Aviation Administration policymakers to engage in racial balancing by screening and eliminating qualified applicants for air traffic control positions based upon their race. It is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make hiring decisions based upon race unless a bona fide occupational qualification exists. A BFOQ is a quality or an attribute that employers are allowed to consider when making decisions on the hiring and retention of employees. A general desire for racial diversity in the workplace does not constitute a BFOQ. The Plaintiff brings this action alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to challenge Defendant FAA policy, pattern, and practice of discriminatory hiring practices regarding applicants for air traffic controller positions. The FAA implemented these policies and practices in 2014 intending them to have a disparate impact on Title VII protected groups. FAA has engaged in intentional disparate treatment of the same Applicant Groups to unlawfully advantage African-American ATC Applicants, the lawsuit says. United States Department of Transportation (DOT) is a cabinet-level department within the Executive Branch of the federal government. Through its various agencies, the DOT promulgates regulations and policies governing transportation within the United States, including aviation matters. FAA is the national aviation authority of the United States. As a DOT agency, the FAA has authority to regulate all aspects of American civil aviation. The FAA is responsible for setting policies for the hiring of air traffic controllers in the United States and ensuring the safest aerospace system in the world.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Michael W. Pearson, Esq. CURRY, PEARSON, & WOOTEN PLC 814 West Roosevelt Phoenix, AZ 85007 Telephone: (602) 258-1000 Facsimile: (602) 523-9000 E-mail: mpearson@azlaw.com FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Hurlburt Sues over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND HURLBURT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00690-GLS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., June 10, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe and referred to Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel. Financial Recovery Services, Inc. provides debt collection services. The Company offers comprehensive coverage, auditing, monitoring, electronic file transfer, legal collections, skiptracing, bilingual capability, and comprehensive data security services. Financial Recovery Services serves clients in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com FIRST AMERICAN: Gibbs Law Group Files Data Breach Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Gibbs Law Group LLP has filed the first nationwide class action lawsuit accusing First American Title Company of failing to properly secure 885 million sensitive customer files, instead choosing to store them in a "woefully insecure," publicly-accessible system. "First American has turned the American dream of home ownership into a financial security nightmare for its customers," according to the complaint. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that First American Title Company was negligent, and violated its contracts with customers, in the way it stored their personal information, which included bank account numbers, Social Security numbers, financial and tax records, and photos of their drivers' licenses. This grave lapse in security resulted in publicly exposing hundreds of millions of customers' personal files, leaving them vulnerable to identify theft and other cybercrimes. The victims assert that despite First American's purported "commit[ment] to safeguarding customers' personal information," and its repeated promises to provide "secure, reliable, and affordable records storage solutions," the title insurance company, which is the largest of its kind in the United States, was negligent in storing its records and violated the law by exposing sensitive files to anyone who wanted to access them. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that First American chose to maintain these careless security practices despite repeated warnings from the FBI about an exponential increase in cyberattacks targeting the real estate industry. "Consumers did not deserve for their personal information to be treated so recklessly," said Andre Mura of Gibbs Law Group. "It is shocking that a company of this magnitude would blatantly disregard the most basic safety protocols when housing troves of highly-sensitive, personal information," added data breach attorney David Berger. First American customers who believe they were affected by the First American data leak and would like to learn more about their legal rights in the First American Data Breach Lawsuit may contact our team at (510) 350-9700. About Gibbs Law Group Gibbs Law Group is a national litigation firm representing consumers in lawsuits in state and federal courts. The firm serves individuals in cases involving financial fraud and consumer protection laws. Gibbs Law Group's attorneys have been named among the Best Lawyers in America (c) and have been recognized among the Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar and Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California. [GN] FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over Solitary Confinement Overuse ------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Ross, writing for WJCT, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed challenging the use of solitary confinement in Florida prisons. Florida corrections officials are overusing the practice of solitary confinement in the state's prisons, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. A growing body of medical evidence shows extended periods of solitary confinement can lead to suicidal thoughts and can cause permanent psychological damage. "Solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment, it violates the 8th Amendment to the federal Constitution. And we say that because the impact of solitary confinement on individuals, there's a substantial risk of mental health damage," said Shalini Goel Agarwal, a supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center. Nationwide, about 4.5 % of the prison population is in solitary. In Florida it's more than double that with about 10 percent of the population in solitary. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Persad et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit, SURESH PERSAD, DANIEL G. WRIGHT and ROBERT S. DRUMMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12599-TGB-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: 1. certifying a plaintiff class defined as: "all persons or entities who currently own or lease a "Class Vehicle" which means retail 2016 and 2017 model year Ford Explorers; 2. certifying plaintiff Classes and Subclasses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) of individuals or entities who purchased or leased a "Class Vehicle" which means retail 2016 and 2017 model year Ford Explorers and who fall within one or more of the following Classes and appointing Plaintiffs as Class or Sub-Class Representatives: The Unjust Enrichment Class: "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Class Representatives: Suresh Persad (GA), Daniel G. Wright (PA), and Robert S. Drummond (PA). Fraudulent Concealment Classes: The Fraudulent Concealment by Clear and Convincing Evidence Sub-Class: "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in Florida, Iowa, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin. Class Representatives: Daniel G. Wright (PA) and Robert S. Drummond (PA). The Fraudulent Concealment by Preponderance of the Evidence Sub-Class: "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in California, Colorado, Georgia, and North Carolina. Class Representative: Suresh Persad (GA). The Express Warranty Class: "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Class Representatives: Suresh Persad (GA), Daniel G. Wright (PA), and Robert S. Drummond (PA). The Implied Warranty Classes: The Implied Warranty, Without Proof of Privity, Sub-Class: all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Class Representatives: Daniel G. Wright (PA) and Robert S. Drummond (PA). The Breach of Implied Warranty, Third Party Beneficiary, Sub-Class: "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in California, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, New York, Ohio, and Washington. Class Representative: Suresh Persad (GA). The Georgia Class: in the alternative, or for purposes of Consumer Protection and Negligent Misrepresentation claims, all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in Georgia. Class Representative: Suresh Persad (GA). The Pennsylvania Class: in the alternative, or for the purposes of Consumer Protection and Negligent Misrepresentation claims, all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in Pennsylvania. Class Representatives: Daniel G. Wright (PA) and Robert S. Drummond (PA). Excluded from all Classes are: (a) all Judges who have presided over the Action and their spouses; (b) all current employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives of Defendant, and their family members; (c) any affiliate, parent or subsidiary of Defendant and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; (d) issuers of extended vehicle warranties and service contracts; (e) any person or entity who settled with and released Defendant from any causes of action asserted in Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint; and (f) any person or entity who files a timely and proper request for exclusion. 4. appointing the law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and the Miller Law Firm, P.C. as Co-Lead Counsel. 5. directing that Notice to the Class be disseminated in accordance with a Notice Place to be submitted to the Court for the Court’s approval. 6. any other such relief in furtherance of class certification.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. William Kalas, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com wk@millerlawpc.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. James P. McEvilly, III, Esq. Tyler S. Graden, Esq. Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com jmcevilly@ktmc.com tgraden@ktmc.com ebarlieb@ktmc.com nlesser@ktmc.com FORD MOTOR: Sued over Inaccurate Testing of Fuel Economy Ratings ---------------------------------------------------------------- RIVERSIDE TURF FARM, INC. and FRANK B. FLANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00102-LAG (M.D. Ga., June 17, 2019), seeks relief for the injuries sustained as the result of the inaccurate testing methods used by Ford to ascertain the fuel economy ratings of its vehicles and material misstatements regarding those ratings used in the marketing and sales of certain 2017-2019 Ford vehicles in the United States. The case is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of current and former owners or lessees of model year 2017 through 2019 Ford automobiles that were marketed and sold with false fuel-economy ratings. Such vehicles include the 2019 Ford Ranger and 2017- 2019 Ford F-150. The Plaintiffs' experts have examined nominal road load numbers that Ford used for fuel economy and emissions certifications for the 2018 F-150 and 2019 Ranger as reported to the EPA and CARB. When compared with other vehicles of the same class with similar weights and dimensions, Ford's road loads plotted against speed produced curves that were abnormally low, especially in the lower speed ranges more heavily weighted in federal MPG determinations. Ford represented to customers their vehicles had achieved specific MPG estimates. Ford, however, concealed that it conducted inadequate and inaccurate EPA fuel economy testing, resulting in Class Vehicles with overstated miles-per gallon EPA fuel economy ratings. Ford's EPA fuel economy ratings and advertising statements overstated by a material amount the actual numbers that the required testing would have produced. These misstatements are material because the EPA numbers provide a necessary tool for vehicle comparison for consumers when evaluating vehicles to lease or purchase, and they exist to help foster realistic numbers with which consumers can compare one of the most important factors in new-car buyers' purchase decisions. The use of EPA's testing methods is required by federal law, but Ford's testing methods were flawed and insufficient. They produced inaccurate fuel economy ratings that did not comply with federal regulations. Ford itself admits that its U.S. emissions certification process is a cause for concern. Ford knew or should have known facts indicating the inaccuracies in the promised gas mileages of its vehicles. Ford consciously or recklessly disregarded facts that indicated the fuel economy ratings were erroneous and overstated. Since at least September of 2018 Ford has been aware of concerns pertaining to gas mileage inaccuracies through Ford's "Speak Up" employee reporting channel. Furthermore, standard internal testing and investigation should have revealed the problem. Ford willfully and uniformly failed to identify and correct its misstatements. Ford's failure to disclose the defects in its fuel economy testing constitutes an actionable Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or add to the vehicle models included in the definition of Class Vehicles after conducting discovery. The Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged by Ford's misrepresentations, concealment, and non-disclosure of the incorrect fuel economy numbers, because they were misled into purchasing Ford vehicles of a quality different than they were promised and paying more for their Class Vehicles than they otherwise would have, and by paying higher fuel costs that they would otherwise have not paid.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are: Charles Hudson, Esq. L. Shane Seaborn, Esq. PENN & SEABORN LLC 1971 Berry Chase Place Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: 334 676-1626 Facsimile: 334 687-5111 E-mail: Charlie@pennandseaborn.com Shane@pennandseaborn.com FORMOSA PLASTICS: Do et al. Sue over Toxic Waste Discharge ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., Formosa Plastics Corporation, Ltd., and Susan Wang, Formosa Ha Tinh Steel Corporation, Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. and Formosa Plastics Corporation, Ltd for alleged violations of the Vietnamese Civil Code, the Vietnamese Law on Fisheries, the Vietnamese Law on Environmental Protection, the Vietnamese Law on Water Resources, the Vietnamese Law on Natural Resources and Environment of Sea and Islands, and for public nuisance. The case is captioned Hoa Thi Do, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., Formosa Plastics Corporation, Ltd., and Susan Wang, individually and as director of Formosa Ha Tinh Steel Corporation, Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. and Formosa Plastics Corporation, Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-14390 (D.N.J., June 27, 2019). This case arises out of Defendants' responsibility for the largest environmental disaster in the history of Vietnam, the 2016 Formosa Ha Tinh toxic waste discharge. The disaster resulted in loss of life, devastation of the local economy and environment, and substantial health risks for the local population. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are liable for their acts and omissions that created a public nuisance, by which Plaintiffs have each been uniquely injured, actionable under New Jersey law and the laws of any other applicable jurisdiction. Defendants are liable for this nuisance in part because they engaged in ultra-hazardous activities, namely, the construction and operation of a steel mill. Formosa Plastics Group is a vertically-integrated network of corporations, subsidiaries and affiliates under common family ownership and direction, which together form an integrated corporate enterprise. The Formosa Group itself has no separate corporate personality, but controls multiple corporations under its umbrella, including Defendants Formosa U.S.A. and Formosa Plastics. Defendant Susan Wang has been a top executive in the leadership of the Formosa Group since at least 2006 and is also a director of Defendants Formosa U.S.A. and Formosa Plastics, as well as a director of Formosa Ha Tinh. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Judith Brown Chomsky, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JUDITH BROWN CHOMSKY 8120 New 2nd Street Elkins Park, PA 19027 Telephone: (215) 266-7170 Facsimile: (866) 216-4358 E-mail: judithchomsky@icloud.com - and – Marco Simons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARCO SIMONS 1050 Connecticut Ave #65225 Washington, DC 20035 Telephone: (917) 696-3304 E-mail: marco.b.simons@gmail.com FRESNO BEVERAGE: Intrastate Drivers Exempt from FAA, Court Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Abernethy, Esq. -- rabernethy@weintraub.com -- of Weintraub Tobin, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in this age of expensive class-action litigation, many California companies have found solace in their arbitration agreements. Under certain circumstances, the enforcement of such agreements includes the dismissal of class action claims. This has largely been made possible by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) which requires judges to enforce a wide range of written arbitration agreements notwithstanding contrary state law. California courts have a long history of delivering rulings that attempt to narrow the scope and effect of the FAA. As one of the latest examples, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth District held that truck drivers who complete only intrastate deliveries are exempt from the FAA because their work was part of a "continuous stream of interstate travel." In Nieto v. Fresno Beverage Company, Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 274, a Fresno-based driver who delivered products for a beverage company filed a class action lawsuit against his employer alleging various wage and hour violations under California Labor Law. The employer responded by filing a petition to compel arbitration based on the written arbitration agreement the driver signed when he was hired. The employer argued that courts were required to enforce all arbitration agreements "involving" interstate commerce under the FAA, regardless of any contrary state law. The driver argued that he was exempt from arbitration pursuant to Section 1 of the FAA, and thus should be able to maintain his class action in state court. Section 1 provides a narrow exemption from the FAA's coverage to certain transportation workers "engaged in" foreign or interstate commerce. The employer contended that a delivery truck driver who does not personally cross state lines is, by definition, not "engaged in interstate commerce" or engaged in the movement of interstate commerce for purposes of Section 1 of the FAA, and therefore cannot qualify for the exemption. The court sided with the driver, concluding that though the drivers' individual deliveries were made entirely within the state of California, they were merely the final leg of a continuous journey of beverages to the employer's warehouse from out-of-state. The Court held that "'[i]nterstate commerce' includes not only goods that travel across state lines but also 'the intrastate transport of goods in the flow of interstate commerce.'" Nieto, 33 Cal.App.5th at 282-83. An actual crossing of state lines is not a necessary condition for the exemption to apply. The court cited cases like Palcko v. Airborne Express, Inc. (3d Cir. 2004) 372 F.3d 588, where the FAA exemption was applied to workers whose duties involved monitoring and directing drivers who physically delivered interstate packages, even though they weren't driving at all. The court therefore found the driver to be a transportation employee exempt from the FAA. Consequently, the arbitration agreement was not enforced and the case was permitted to proceed as a class action in state court. So what's the takeaway for California employers? Given this Court of Appeals' interpretation of the FAA, employees who facilitate the transportation of goods from out of state -- as a driver, monitor, director or otherwise -- are now more likely to successfully bring class actions against their employers, whether or not they signed bilateral arbitration agreements. The minimum degree of involvement required by employees in the transportation process is likely to be the subject of future litigation. In the meantime, arbitration agreements remain enforceable against employees who are not exempt from the FAA. [GN] GALILEE MEMORIAL: Fails to Implement Promises Under Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Jackson, writing for Memphis Commercial Appeal, reports that Morris Jones was setting flowers on the gravesite of his uncle and brother on Memorial Day morning at the re-opened Galilee Memorial Gardens in Bartlett as he began to reflect on the dedication his relatives made. Jones, 54, of Cordova, said his brother Darryl Jones died at age 20 while serving in the Army. His uncle, Willie Jones, passed in 1990 after serving in World War II. Morris Jones said his uncle faced issues of segregation during the war but thinks his uncle was just glad it was over. "They had to go through things that I'm sure they were not proud of, but to serve their country, they did what they had to do. And that is what makes it so special," Jones said. Darryl Jones enlisted in the Army in 1979 and was killed 12 days before his 21st birthday during a fight. Morris Jones has younger relatives in the Navy, some of which have retired. For the Jones' family, the observance of Memorial Day is a priority for them. "It means a lot. They care enough for their country to serve their country. So we just want to honor them, not just this day, but all days because they gave so much," Jones said. Walter Pegges, a pastor at Fullview Baptist Church in Bartlett, said he knows at least 50 people that were members of his church or had family members that served in the military and are buried at Galilee Memorial Gardens. Pegges said he has been meeting with representatives from the State of Tennessee for the last five years to "get the cemetery where it's supposed to be." The cemetery faced controversy last year after a class-action lawsuit said that funeral directors habitually left bodies at the cemetery to be buried, but did not wait to see if that happened, according to a report from the Commercial Appeal last year. The lawsuit said that Galilee mishandled bodies that were supposed to be buried there and that the funeral homes failed in their obligation to the families that hired them by not overseeing the burial of their loved ones. Galilee had been closed since owner Jemar Lambert was arrested in 2014. Families were awarded $7,500 for each body represented in the class-action lawsuit, but still were unhappy with the result. Pegges said things have gotten better at the cemetery, but there are still a lot of things that have been promised but have not been completed. "They promised us a memorial wall that would keep the names of the people that were buried. We also asked for a pedestrian gate so people could come in at anytime," Pegges said. The state decided the cemetery will be open to the public on weekends and holidays as a part of a new court-approved plan by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance. After an April 23 court hearing, the decision was approved May 20. The cemetery is open for limited visits on Saturdays, Sundays and specific holidays from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The holidays are: the Fourth of July, Labor Day Monday, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Thursday, Christmas Day, Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday and President's Day. [GN] GC SERVICES: Court Denies Class Certification in Jaber Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit SABAH JABER, individually, and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-13971-VAR-SDD (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Jugde Victoria A. Roberts entered an order denying, without prejudice, Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of: "(i) all persons at a Michigan address, (ii) to whom Defendant sent, or caused to be sent, a letter that was not returned by posta service, (iii) in an attempt to collect a credit card debt referred by a credit card company, and which, as shown by the nature of the alleged debt, Defendant's records, or the records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, (iv) during the one year period prior to the date of filing this action". The Court said, "Because Jaber's class definition is too broad, and because she fails to satisfy the numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements, the Court declines to discuss the remaining requirements of Rule 23. Without determining whether Jaber has a valid claim or not, the Court finds Jaber's unique situation -- that she was a victim of identity theft -- prevents her from establishing that her claim is typical of those of the proposed class members."[CC] GEICO GENERAL: 11th Cir. Tosses PIP Policy Cass Action ------------------------------------------------------ King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reported that on April 19, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit threw out a putative class action seeking declaratory relief against GEICO, citing the lead plaintiff's lack of standing. The Eleventh Circuit's decision was based on the long-settled rule that a party seeking declaratory relief must allege a reasonable expectation of future injury. Gerber filed suit in September 2016, claiming that GEICO was wrongfully withholding payment of certain medical expenses in personal injury protection ("PIP") cases. In lieu of monetary relief, Gerber sought a declaration that GEICO had breached the terms of its policy on behalf of a purported class of healthcare providers who had been assigned PIP benefits from GEICO insureds. In June 2017, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom certified a class, and the Judge granted summary judgment in favor of the healthcare providers five months later. GEICO appealed both orders. On appeal, GEICO argued that Gerber lacked standing because Carruthers, the assignor, received more than the applicable policy limits on his claim. Gerber countered that the class would experience future harm in disputes about other, similar claims. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with GEICO because "Gerber, as assignee, stands in Carruthers' shoes," and the possibility of future, similar harm to Carruthers was too contingent to satisfy Article III. Accordingly, the panel reversed the district court's decisions and ordered the case dismissed. This case serves as a reminder that lack of standing can defeat a claim at any phase of litigation, regardless of whether the claim presents an "important issue" that "has been pending for several years and has consumed a lot of both judicial and attorney resources." The case is A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. GEICO General Insurance Co. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Reaves Suit over Defective 2.4L Engine ------------------------------------------------------------ PHILIP REAVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV20121 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 7, 2019) alleges that the Defendants' motor vehicles equipped with a 2.4L engine, including the 2010-2013 Chevrolet Equinox, contained one or more design and manufacturing defects in their engines that cause them to be unable to properly utilize engine oil and, in fact, to improperly burn off and consume abnormally high amounts of oil. The Plaintiff alleges that the 2.4L engine in 2010-2013 vehicles manufactured by the Defendants, equipped with the 2.4L engine, including 2010-2013 Chevrolet Equinox vehicles, contains one or more design and manufacturing defects that causes it to be unable to properly utilize engine oil and, in fact, to improperly burn off and consume abnormally high amounts of oil. General Motors LLC was incorporated in 2009 and is based in Wilmington, Delaware. General Motors LLC operates as a subsidiary of General Motors Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tionna Dolin, Esq. Daniel Tai, Esq. STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 929-4900 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 E-mail: tdolin@slpattomey.com dtai@slpattorney.com GENERAL REVENUE: Thompson Moves to Certify two FDCPA Classes ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled RACHEL M. THOMPSON, On Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:16-cv-00734-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), moves for certification of two classes pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), 23(c)(4) and 23(c)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to certain issues under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The proposed classes are: * CLASS 1 (As to the Issues of FDCPA Liability and Statutory Damages): All persons to whom Defendant mailed at least one written communication dated July 27, 2014 to the present; to collect a non-tax debt owed to the State of Ohio and/or its related entities, which debt was referred to Defendant for collection by the Ohio Attorney General ("OAG") pursuant to a Third Party Collection Vendor Agreement; and in which Defendant sought to recover "collection costs" pursuant to (former) Ohio Revised Code Sections 109.081 and 131.02. Specifically excepted from this Class are all persons to whom Defendant mailed written communications relating to any accounts placed with Defendant for collection of debts incurred after April 5, 2017, and/or for all accounts placed with Defendant for debts that were not incurred for personal, family or household purposes; and * CLASS 2 (As to the Issue of Disgorgement (or Payment Reapplication) of "Collection Costs" Paid): All persons to whom Defendant mailed at least one written communication dated July 27, 2014 to the present; to collect a non-tax debt owed to the State of Ohio and/or its related entities, which debt was referred to Defendant for collection by the Ohio Attorney General ("OAG") pursuant to a Third Party Collection Vendor Agreement; and in which Defendant sought to recover "collection costs" pursuant to (former) Ohio Revised Code Sections 109.081 and 131.02; and after which resulted in any payment from such persons of any funds applied to "collection costs". Specifically excepted from this Class are all persons to whom Defendant mailed written communications relating to any accounts placed with Defendant for collection of debts incurred after April 5, 2017, and/or for all accounts placed with Defendant for debts that were not incurred for personal, family or household purposes. In addition, with regard to Class 2, the Plaintiff seeks certification as to the issue of whether payments made on the identified accounts and applied to "collection costs" should be disgorged (or reapplied). The Plaintiff further asks that the Court to appoint her as the class representative for each of the two described Classes, and to appoint her counsel as Class counsel for each of the two Classes.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Nobile, Esq. NOBILE & THOMPSON CO., L.P.A. 4876 Cemetery Road Hilliard, OH 43026 Telephone: (614) 529-8600 Facsimile: (614) 629-8656 E-mail: jenobile@ntlegal.com GHANA: Quarry Site Explosion Victims File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ GhanaWeb reports that five years after an explosion at a quarry site at Paebo in the Nsawam-Adoagyiri Municipality in the Eastern Region, 757 residents of the area have initiated a class action against the government and three private entities, seeking compensation of GH¢13.78 million for the injuries they suffered and the destruction of their properties. The December 23, 2015 explosion killed one person, injured more than 20 people, destroyed many houses and displaced more than 1,200 people. The class action is being led by three of the residents -- Mr Lukman Osman, Mr Ali Ibn E. Chambas and Ms Angela Adu-Poku In the suit filed at the Human Rights Division of the Accra High Court by their counsel, Mr Chris Osei Yeboah, the plaintiffs accuse the defendants of negligence and for failing to control and regulate the storage of the explosives as stipulated by law. The defendants include the Attorney-General (A-G), the Minister of the Interior, the Minerals Commission and the Nsawam-Adoagyiri Municipal Assembly. Other are AKY Mining Services Limited, the company which owned the warehouse which housed the explosives, Alhaji Adam Kofi Yamoah, the Managing Director of AKY Mining Services, and Paebo Quarry Limited, the quarry company. Reliefs Apart from the damages, the plaintiffs, also, want the court to ban the defendants from ever using the quarry to store explosives. They are further seeking interests on all the sums that will be awarded to them by the court until the final payment of their compensation. Negligence It is the case of the plaintiffs that Paebo Quarry illegally allowed AKY Mining Services to construct a warehouse for the storage of explosives. They also aver that the Minerals Commission, the minister of the interior and the Nsawam-Adoagyiri Municipal Assembly failed in their duty to ensure that the warehouse housing the explosives was constructed in accordance with the stipulated rules and regulations. Other particulars of negligence filed by the plaintiffs include the illegal use of a mining concession for unapproved storage of explosives, the non-existence of an explosive operating plan and failure to maintain a security and an emergency response plan at the quarry site. Committee report The plaintiffs argued that a committee, set up by the minister of the interior to investigate the explosion, established that the warehouse was constructed and was being operated contrary to acceptable standards and laid down regulations. "Due to the negligence of the defendants, the plaintiffs have suffered various degrees of injury to their person and properties. Despite repeated demands and meetings with the defendants, the defendants have failed or refused to pay any compensation to the plaintiffs for the damages suffered. The refusal to pay compensation has caused the plaintiffs very serious economic hardship and embarrassment," the statement of claim added. Extension of time Meanwhile, at the hearing of the case, the court, presided over by Justice Gifty Agyei Addo, granted two separate motions by the A-G and the Minerals Commission for an extension of time to file their defence. The court has, subsequently, ordered the two state institutions to file their defence within 10 days. Dynamite explosion The warehouse that exploded was said to contain ammonia and dynamite chemicals. The explosion affected houses as far as three kilometres away from the quarry site with either the whole or part of the roofings, doors, windows and louvre blades shattered by the explosion of two containers containing ammonia and dynamite chemicals. Some of the affected buildings sighted by a Daily Graphic team, which visited the area on December 28, 2015, included those of the St Martin's Senior High School (SHS) and the St Joseph the Worker Catholic Church, both at Adoagyiri, and the Voltic Mineral Water Company at Yawkrom. The Daily Graphic team saw some of the metals that flew from the explosion and caused damage to roofing sheets, louvre blades and other valuables. [GN] GLADSTONE PORTS: Faces Class Action Over Expansion Project ---------------------------------------------------------- Maurice Thompson, Esq. -- maurice.thompson@clydeco.com -- of Clyde & Co LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that Murphy Operator Pty Ltd and two other plaintiffs have commenced a class action against Gladstone Ports Corporation Ltd (GPC) for loss and damage alleged to have arisen from GPC's Gladstone Port expansion project in 2011 and 2012. The action is also commenced on behalf of persons who fit within the definition 'group member', namely certain persons, companies or partnerships engaged in commercial fishing in an area defined as the 'Affected Waters', or fish handling and processing, and wholesale fishing businesses reliant on such catch. Background to the class action Clyde & Co are acting for Murphy Operator Pty Ltd, Tobari Pty Ltd and SPW Ventures Pty Ltd (the plaintiffs) who have brought a class action against the Gladstone Ports Corporation Limited (the defendant) (GPC) in connection with GPC's handling of the Gladstone Port "expansion" project in 2011 and 2012. The plaintiffs allege that: From early September 2011, GPC excavated spoil during harbour-dredging operations and stored the spoil in a reclamation area behind a "bund" wall, in circumstances where GPC knew or ought to have known that the bund wall was not adequate to stop the spoil from escaping back in to the harbour waters; The spoil escaped and contaminated the waters in the harbour, and also waters in a wide geographic area; The contamination caused harm to commercial fish stocks across an area extending from north of Gladstone up to in the vicinity of Yeppoon, to south of Fraser Island down to Bribie Island (the Affected Waters); and The loss of and decreased value of commercial fish stocks caused financial loss to the plaintiffs and the group members (together the "claim group"). The plaintiffs also make claims under the legal heading of "public nuisance", alleging that GPC's conduct caused an unreasonable interference in the claim group's enjoyment of their public rights to fish in the Affected Waters, which has caused damage including a lost chance to process fish caught in the Affected Waters. The defendant, GPC, denies the plaintiffs' allegations and is defending the class action. This class action is being funded by commercial litigation funder, LCM Operations Pty Ltd (LCM). [GN] GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Faces Collins' Labor Suit in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Goodwill Industries of Greater Cleveland & East Central Ohio, Inc. for alleged overtime violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the Ohio wage-and-hour laws, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Section 4111.03 and Ohio Revised Code 4113.15, which requires prompt payment of earned wages. The case is captioned JAMISE COLLINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF GREATER CLEVELAND & EAST CENTRAL OHIO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01433 (N.D. Ohio, June 20, 2019). Collins worked for Defendant as an hourly non-exempt employee in one of Defendant's Ohio retail stores and on numerous occasions she worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek. However, the Defendant failed to pay proper overtime compensation and unlawfully excluded the non-discretionary bonus in determining Plaintiff's regular rates for purposes of overtime compensation. Goodwill Industries of Greater Cleveland & East Central Ohio, Inc. is an Ohio corporation maintaining business location in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. It operates stores that provides revenue to help fund skill-building programs and services. Its stores also serve job training sites. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Lalak, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 614 West Superior Avenue, Suite 1148 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 E-mail: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com GOOGLE INC: Hit With Class Action Over Patient Data Sharing ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Google and the University of Chicago Medical Center are facing a class action lawsuit accusing the hospital of violating federal privacy law by sharing patient health records with Google, which the internet giant allegedly used to create its own electronic health record management system. On June 26, 2019, attorneys from the firm of Edelson P.C. filed a complaint in Chicago federal court on behalf of named plaintiff Matt Dinerstein. The lawsuit alleges Google "pulled off what is likely the greatest heist of consumer medical records in history." Saying personal information such as credit card and Social Security numbers is "run-of-the-mill" data, the lawsuit said "the personal medical information obtained by Google is the most sensitive and intimate information in an individual's life, and its unauthorized disclosure is far more damaging to an individual's privacy." According to the complaint, Google in 2017 enacted a plan to obtain electronic health records from nearly every UC Medical Center patient from 2009 to 2016 and then "file a patent for its own proprietary and commercial EHR system that wouldn't be published until well after it had obtained hundreds of thousands of EHRs from the University." Dinerstein's complaint said the university's patient admission forms promise to not disclose records to third parties for commercial purposes, and further alleged Google and UC falsely claimed the records didn't contain individual patient information because they "included detailed datestamps and copious free-text notes," and using detailed geolocation information "Google — as one of the most prolific data mining companies — is uniquely able to determine the identity of almost every medical record the University released." The complaint said Google used a direct subsidiary called DeepMind to analyze medical records and create commercial products, using its artificial intelligence machine learning to make connections between hospital records and Google user data. It also said most "hospitals, researchers and health care providers alike" rebuffed Google's efforts, until it got UC to agree to provide records that should've been protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Dinerstein said he spent parts of eight days at the UC Medical Center in June 2015, generating "numerous pages of health records." He said he used his smartphone during the stay, including Google software and accounts, allowing the company to link his unnamed records to his other personal information. He said UC and Google jointly published a January 2018 article in Digital Medicine, at nature.com, describing the research and methodology while acknowledging the contents of the records. "Only months after the transfer was complete did it become public that the datestamps, along with free-text notes data, were only provided by the University, and not by any other hospital working with Google," Dinerstein said. "That's not simply a coincidence or a failure to persuade on the part of Google. Rather, the reason no other hospital, including the other health care providers partnering with Google, provided this type of information is because it would be a prima facie violation of HIPAA to share or even receive medical records in this form." Formal complaints include a violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and breach of express or implied contract against UC, tortious interference with contract and unjust enrichment against Google and intrusion upon seclusion against both. Dinerstein said the class would include "hundreds of thousands of individuals." In addition to damages, class certification and a jury trial, Dinerstein seeks an injunction forcing UC to comply with HIPAA regulations, a court order barring it from disclosing records without patient consent and another order prohibiting Google from using and forcing it to delete records it obtained from the school. [GN] HARTFORD LIFE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Gorin Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Alex Gorin filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Alex Gorin v. Hartford Life Insurance Co., Case No. 2:18-cv-03729-DMG-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The nature of suit is stated as employee retirement. The appellate case is captioned as Alex Gorin v. Hartford Life Insurance Co., Case No. 19-55743, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Alex Gorin's opening brief is due on August 26, 2019; -- Appellee Hartford Life Insurance Company's answering brief is due on September 24, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ALEX GORIN, and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Glenn R. Kantor, Esq. Peter S. Sessions, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net psessions@kantorlaw.net Defendant-Appellee HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Marissa Marie Franco, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 E-mail: marissa.franco@ogletree.com - and - Sean P. Nalty, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Steuart Tower One Market Plaza San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-4810 E-mail: sean.nalty@ogletreedeakins.com - and - Mark E. Schmidtke, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 56 S. Washington Street Valparaiso, IN 46383 Telephone: (219) 242-8668 E-mail: mark.schmidtke@ogletreedeakins.com HEALTH NET: Ninth Cir. Appeal Initiated in Barkan Insurance Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Ohad Barkan filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Ohad Barkan v. Health Net of California, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-06691-MWF-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit (assigned Case No. BC711987) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the District Court on August 3, 2018. Health Net provides health insurance coverage for individuals, families, small business, large groups and Medicare Advantage recipients. The appellate case is captioned as Ohad Barkan v. Health Net of California, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-55749, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by July 29, 2019; -- Transcript is due on August 27, 2019; -- Appellant Ohad Barkan's opening brief is due on October 7, 2019; -- Appellees Centene Corporation, Health Net Life Insurance Company, Health Net of California, Inc., Health Net, Inc. and Managed Health Network, Inc.'s answering brief is due on November 7, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellants OHAD BARKAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Daniel J. Callahan, Esq. Richard T. Collins, Esq. Edward Susolik, Esq. CALLAHAN & BLAINE APLC 3 Hutton Centre Drive Santa Ana, CA 92707 Telephone: (714) 241-4444 E-mail: DCallahan@callahan-law.com RCollins@callahan-law.com ESusolik@callahan-law.com - and - Damon D. Eisenbrey, Esq. SONGSTAD & RANDALL LLP 2201 Dupont Drive Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 757-1600 - and - Lisa S. Kantor, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 E-mail: lkantor@kantorlaw.net - and - John D. Van Ackeren, Esq. FREEMAN, FREEMAN & SMILEY, LLP 1920 Main Street, Suite # 1050 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 252-2777 E-mail: john.vanackeren@ffslaw.com Defendants-Appellees HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation; HEALTH NET LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation; MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK, INC., a Delaware corporation; HEALTH NET, INC., a Delaware corporation; and CENTENE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, are represented by: Ileana Maria Hernandez, Esq. John Michael LeBlanc , Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-4116 E-mail: ihernandez@manatt.com jleblanc@manatt.com - and - Brendan Vincent Sullivan, Jr., Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5800 E-mail: bsullivan@wc.com HECLA MINING: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of July 23 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP reminds investors that three weeks remain to make a motion for lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Hecla Mining Company ("Hecla" or the "Company") (NYSE:HL) between March 19, 2018 and May 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to recover damages for Hecla investors under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the court no later than July 23, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you purchased HL securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Hecla Mining Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants falsely and misleadingly represented that the Nevada operations would be "accretive" and cash flow positive, or at the very least "self-funding", but this was not true. As admitted by the Defendants at the end of the Class Period, the Defendants knew from their extensive due diligence that the Nevada mines faced many undisclosed material problems that would prevent the operations from being cash flow positive, or even cash flow neutral. Specifically, Defendants were aware from their extensive due diligence that the Nevada operations had material problems in terms of excessive water, equipment availability, achieving enough development to have consistent production, and lack of characterization of ore types, among other things. On May 9, 2019, Hecla shocked investors when, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release entitled "Hecla Reports First Quarter Results Nevada operations under review" (the "May 9 Press Release"), in which the Company disclosed a "comprehensive review" of its Nevada operations that it characterized during the ensuing conference call as "really just asking the question, are we going to get the return for the investment we're making." Defendants admitted that the Nevada operations suffered from negative cash flow and other negative operating metrics, that Defendants were not sure if Hecla would ever get a positive return on its investment in the Nevada operations and that they might write off the Nevada operations. Additionally, the Company reported a net loss of over $25 million for the first quarter of 2019 based in large part on a gross loss of $13.8 million from its Nevada operations. After these disclosures, Hecla's common stock declined by 23.5% over two trading days, from a closing price of $2.04 per share on May 8, 2019, to close at $1.56 per share on May 10, 2019. The stock price has not recovered and on May 23, 2019 closed at $1.38 per share. Contact: Michael S. Bigin, Esq. Matthew Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 1001 Phone: (877) 779-1414 (212) 779-1414 Website: https://www.bernlieb.com Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Bigin@bernlieb.com [GN] HERON THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Notes of Aug. 5 Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announced that approximately a few weeks remain to make a motion to serve as lead plaintiff in a class action pending against Heron Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: HRTX) on behalf of those who purchased Heron securities between October 31, 2018 and April 30, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, seeks to recover damages for Heron investors under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased HRTX securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit Heron Therapeutics HRTX Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Heron had failed to include adequate Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls ("CMC") and non-clinical information in its new drug application ("NDA") for HTX-011, a drug for management of post-operative pain; (ii) the foregoing increased the likelihood that the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would not approve Heron's NDA for HTX-011; and (iii) as a result, Heron's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 1, 2019, Heron announced that it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA on April 30, 2019 regarding the Company's NDA for HTX-011. Heron advised investors that "[t]he CRL stated that the FDA is unable to approve the NDA in its present form based on the need for additional CMC and non-clinical information." On this news, Heron's stock price fell $3.93 per share, or 18.13% to close at $17.75 per share on May 1, 2019. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Heron class action, you must move the court no later than August 5, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no action, you may remain an absent class member. Contact: Matthew Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 1001 Phone: (877) 779-1414 Website: https://www.bernlieb.com Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] HOME DEPOT: Robinson & Cole Attorneys Discusses Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court held on May 29 that a third-party defendant could not remove a class action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because the term "defendant" as used in CAFA refers only to the party or parties sued by the original plaintiff. The Court's opinion also has implications beyond the class action context because it addresses the scope of removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(a). The key implication of this decision in class actions is that a company that regularly brings suit against consumers (typically in collections matters) may be forced to defend a class action counterclaim filed by the consumer in state court, without any opportunity to remove the case to federal court. Companies may be able to avoid this outcome if there is a governing arbitration provision or forum selection clause in the applicable consumer contract. In Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 1701471, the lawsuit began as a collections suit by Citibank, N.A. against George Jackson, seeking to recover for an unpaid balance on a Home Depot credit card. Jackson counterclaimed against Citibank, and brought third-party class action claims against Home Depot and Carolina Water Systems, Inc. After Citibank dismissed its claims against Jackson, Home Depot removed the case to federal court. The district court remanded the case on the grounds that Home Depot as a third-party defendant had no right of removal. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court affirmed as well. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. The Court first addressed the scope of the right of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), the removal statute enacted long before CAFA, which provides for removal of a civil action "by the defendant or the defendants . . . ." The Court noted that it was plausible that the term "defendant" referred to any person or entity sued in a civil case, but concluded that was not the best interpretation of the statute. Instead, the Court concluded that Section 1441(a) focuses on whether there is jurisdiction over the "civil action," not particular claims or counterclaims made therein. The Court concluded that "Section 1441(a) thus does not permit removal based on counterclaims at all, as a counterclaim is irrelevant to whether the district court had 'original jurisdiction' over the civil action." Slip op. at 6. The Court also reasoned that: (1) the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure distinguish between "defendants," "third-party defendants," and "counterclaim defendants"; (2) other removal statutes in the bankruptcy and patent/copyright context allow "any party" to remove; and (3) the Court held in Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941) that a counterclaim defendant that was the original plaintiff had no right of removal under a predecessor statute to § 1441. The Court then addressed the scope of the right of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b), part of CAFA, which provides for removal of a putative class action "without regard to whether any defendant is a citizen of the State in which the action is brought, except that such action may be removed by any defendant without the consent of all defendants." The Court concluded that the use of the words "any defendant" in this statute were simply intended to clarify that the in-state defendant limitation and consent requirement do not apply to a removal under CAFA. The Court noted that, in other contexts, the word "any" is given an "expansive meaning," but concluded that Congress did not intend an expansive meaning in this context. Slip op. at 10. The Court noted that "[o]f course, if Congress shares the dissent's disapproval of certain litigation 'tactics,' it certainly has the authority to amend the statute. But we do not." Id.at 11. Justice Alito wrote a lengthy dissent, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. I won't belabor the dissent here because it does not appear to provide guidance on the scope of the majority opinion that is now the governing law. In brief, the dissent's key points included: (1) the purpose of CAFA was to expand defendants' right of removal, contrary to the tactic employed by Jackson's counsel here; (2) the ordinary meaning of the word "defendant," i.e., a party being sued, includes a counterclaim defendant or third-party defendant; (3) the word "any" should be given an expansive meaning; and (4) the Court previously stated that there is no anti-removal presumption under CAFA. This decision upholds prior rulings by some lower courts that counterclaim defendants have no right of removal. In the class action context, the decision is likely to have the most impact on companies that regularly bring suits against consumers that may result in a class action counterclaim, or get brought into such suits as third-party defendants. Other than lobbying Congress to amend CAFA, potential strategic options from the defense perspective may include the use of arbitration provisions in consumer contracts that the Supreme Court's decisions have upheld, and potentially the use of forum selection clauses that could attempt to restrict the filing of CAFA-eligible class actions to federal courts. [GN] ICBC: Court of Appeal Okays Privacy Violation Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Tom Zytaruk, writing for Cloverdale Reporter, reports that the B.C. Court of Appeal has broadened the scope of a class-action lawsuit against ICBC that involves violation of the privacy of 78 customers whose information was sold by an employee to a criminal organization. Justice Elizabeth Bennett rendered her decision in the case of Ufuk Ari versus ICBC on May 28, with Justices Anne MacKenzie and Gail Dickson concurring. Ari is the representative plaintiff in a class action lawsuit brought against ICBC for violation of privacy resulting from an ICBC employee accessing the information of 78 ICBC customers and provided it to a criminal organization. The corporation, Bennett noted, retains an enormous collection of personal and private information about British Columbians. The court heard a former ICBC employee, Candy Elaine Rheaume, "for no business purpose" accessed the personal information – names, addresses, drivers license numbers, vehicle descriptions and identification numbers, licence plate numbers and claim histories -- and gave this to an acquaintance in the drug trade, for $25 per name. Rheaume pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining a computer service and received a suspended sentence and nine months' probation. Bennett noted the illegally obtained information was used to target 13 of the plaintiffs for vandalism, arson and shootings between April 2011 and January 2012. "Two people have been found criminally responsible for their involvement in the attacks," she noted. "The attackers thought they were targeting police officers solely because the vehicles were parked at or near the Justice Institute" in New Westminster. While Rheaume was not named as a defendant in the class action lawsuit Ari's lawyer argued ICBC is vicariously liable for her wrongdoing. The plaintiffs are claiming general and pecuniary damages for violation of privacy, expenses paid for alternate accommodation, security and moving expenses, and loss of past and future income. There is a publication ban on information that could identify any potential class members except in the case of those who have already begun proceedings in B.C. Supreme Court. The matter was brought to appeal after a lower court judge found no evidence of misconduct on ICBC's part and concluded Rheaume hadn't violated the privacy of other affected residents at the primary plaintiffs' premises because she didn't accessed their names. The court heard that after the breach ICBC cooperated with police and strengthened its security protocols. "The chambers judge certified the class proceeding but declined to include other residents at the premises of the primary plaintiffs in the class or to certify the issue of punitive damages," Bennett noted. "It is not plain and obvious that the statute is not broad enough to extend to the other residents, and ICBC's subsequent laudable conduct does not necessarily insulate it from an award of punitive damages." Bennett decided to allow the appeal, include the other residents in the class action and also certified punitive damages as a common issue. "The targets of the criminal organization were individuals and their families who attended at the Justice Institute, who were not necessarily the registered owners of the vehicles," Bennett said. "It is arguable that anyone living at the address where the vehicle was registered had a reasonable expectation that their address would not be provided to a criminal organization." [GN] IZEA INC: Sept. 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Federman & Sherwood and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JULIAN PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IZEA, INC., EDWARD MURPHY, and LEANN C. HITCHCOCK. Defendants Case No. 2:18-cv-02784-SVW-GJS SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING THEREON TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF IZEA, Inc. ("IZEA") DURING THE PERIOD MAY 15, 2015 THROUGH APRIL 3, 2018, INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that Lead Plaintiffs in the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") have reached a proposed settlement with Defendants for $1,200,000.00 in cash, plus interest earned (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held on September 23, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Stephen V. Wilson, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 10A of the United States District Court, Central District of California, at 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90012 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the Court should certify the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (2) whether the proposed Settlement of $1,200,000.00 in cash, plus any return thereon, should be approved by the Court as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as against Defendants and Defendants' Released Parties as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of April 15, 2019; (4) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and, therefore, should be approved; (5) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with the Action should be approved; and (6) such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. If you purchased IZEA's common stock during the period from May 15, 2015 through April 3, 2018, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the settlement of the Action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim, you may obtain copies by writing to IZEA Securities Settlement c/o KCC Class Action Services, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 404128, Louisville, KY 40233-4128, or by calling 1-866-680-4835. You may also obtain copies on the internet at www.IZEASecuritiesSettlement.com. Complete information concerning the Action may be obtained from the Court files on this matter. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must timely submit a Proof of Claim to the Claims Administrator's address provided above and postmarked no later than August 19, 2019. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, at the address above and postmarked no later than September 3, 2019, in the manner and form detailed in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or Fee and Expense Application must be filed in the manner detailed in the Notice with the Clerk of the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and Counsel for Defendants, such that it is received by each party no later than September 3, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Any questions should be directed to: Claims Administrator: IZEA Securities Settlement c/o KCC Class Action Services P.O. Box 404128 Louisville, KY 40233-4128 Louisville, KY 40233-4128 www.IZEASecuritiesSettlement.com Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs: William B. Federman A. Brooke Murphy FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 (405) 235-1560 wbf@federmanlaw.com abm@federmanlaw.com Phillip Kim THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York City, New York 10016 (212) 686-1060 pkim@rosenlegal.com DATED: May 7, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN] J G MOUSSE INC: Valdez-Padilla, Zamora Seek to Recover Unpaid Wage ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against J G Mousse, Inc. et al for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned FAUSTO VALDEZ-PADILLA and FELICIANO SUSANO ZAMORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), J G MOUSSE, INC d/b/a ROMA PIZZA AND PASTA, and JALEH MOUSSAPOU, as an Individual, Defendant(s), Case No. 1:19-cv-03594-DLI-SJB (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2019). Plaintiffs Fausto Valdez-Padilla and Feliciano Susano Zamora seek to recover unpaid wages from the Defendant. This employment-related class action is assigned to Hon. Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry. J G Mousse, Inc. owns and operates Roma Pizza and Pasta, an Italian restaurant located in Astoria, New York. The restaurant serves pasta, pizza, calzones, sandwiches & burgers, with free local delivery. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erica Williams, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: +1 (202) 389-5044 E-mail: erica.williams@kirkland.com JANSSEN BIOTECH: Louisiana Health Transferred to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY D/B/A BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA, and HMO LOUISIANA, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., JANSSEN ONCOLOGY, INC., JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and BTG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00474 (Filed April 18, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on June 24, 2019. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-14146-SDW-LDW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton. The Plaintiff and the proposed class seek to recover damages, including treble damages, under the state antitrust and consumer protection laws enumerated below or in the alternative, damages under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Absent the Defendants' unlawful conduct, generic competition for Zytiga would have entered as early as December 2016 and no later than October 2017. Instead, the defendants' unlawful conduct prevented generic manufacturers from entering the market with competing abiraterone acetate products for more than year, delayed the entry of additional generic competitors, and has cost purchasers hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharge damages. Janssen Biotech, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, specializes in the development and commercialization of therapeutic products for patients and the healthcare community. Its products are developed primarily through monoclonal antibody technology.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq. Marc C. Greco, Esq. Kip A. Harbison, Esq. Michael A. Glasser, Esq. William D. Moore, III, Esq. Anders T. Sleight, Esq. GLASSER & GLASSER PLC 580 E Main St., Suite 600 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 625-6787 E-mail: bill@glasserlaw.com marcg@glasserlaw.com kip@glasserlaw.com michael@glasserlaw.com wmoore@glasserlaw.com asleight@glasserlaw.com - and - Wyatt B. Durrette , Jr., Esq. DURRETTE ARKEMA GERSON & GILL PC 1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-6900 Facsimile: (804) 775-6911 - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Lauren G. Barnes, Esq. Gregory T. Arnold, Esq. Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com lauren@hbsslaw.com grega@hbsslaw.com bradleyv@hbsslaw.com - and - James R. Dugan II, Esq. David S. Scalia, Esq. THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, LLC One Canal Place, Suite 1000 365 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 648-0180 Facsimile: (504) 648-0181 E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com Attorneys for the Defendants: Gordon Dwyer Todd, Esq. Kimberly Ann Leaman, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP (DC) 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-8000 Facsimile: (202) 736-8711 - and - Perry Andrew Lange, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP (DC) 1875 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 663-6000 Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 JOB OPTIONS: Rhodan Suit Moved to Southern District of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- PIERRE RHODAN, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JOB OPTIONS, INC., a California corporation; JEFFREY A. JOHNSON, an individual; RICHARD SKAY, an individual; JOUNINA BOKA, an individual; and DOES 4 through 10 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00060219-CU-OE-CTL (Filed March 25, 2019), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 17, 2019. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01141-CAB-BGS to the proceeding. The case is an employment related wage and hour class and representative Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and Labor Code Private Attorney General Act, the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs bring this proposed class action against Defendants for wage and hour violations of the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders , all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition. The Plaintiffs seeking damages, penalties, restitution, injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Isaac Dawoodjee, Esq. DAWOODJEE LAW FIRM 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 940-6171 Facsimile: (619) 488-6600 - and - Thomas D. Rutledge, Esq. 500 West Harbor Drive, Suite 1113 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 886-7224 Facsimile: (619) 259-5455 JOSHUA COLLINS: Schlesinger Sues over Unauthorized Calls -------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN SCHLESINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOSHUA COLLINS, an individual, d/b/a/ XPRESSCAPITALGROUP.COM, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-03483-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 18, 2019), seeks to stop its illegal practice of making unauthorized calls that play prerecorded voice messages to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. Defendant did not obtain consent prior to placing these calls and, therefore, are in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Collins sells business capital loans. As a primary part of his marketing efforts, Defendant and his agents placed thousands of automated calls employing a prerecorded voice message to consumers' cell phones nationwide. Congress enacted the TCPA in 1991 to restrict the use of sophisticated telemarketing Congress found that these calls were not only a nuisance and an invasion of privacy to consumers specifically but were also a threat to interstate commerce generally. By placing the calls at issue, the Defendant has violated the privacy and statutory rights of Plaintiff and the Class. On April 11, 2019, the Plaintiff received a call from 813-906-5219. When Plaintiff answered the call, he heard a prerecorded voice message asking him to press one to receive a business capital loan. The Plaintiff did not need a business capital loan, but Plaintiff "pressed one" to see who was calling. The Plaintiff was connected to Defendant Xpress and/or its agents. Xpress and/or his agents emailed him an application from a website operated by Defendant Collins at www.xpresscapitalgroup.com. The Plaintiff never consented to receive calls from Defendant. Plaintiff has no relationship with Defendant and has never requested that Defendant contact him in any manner, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. MARK L. JAVITCH, ATTORNEY AT LAW 210 S. Ellsworth Ave No. 486 San Mateo CA 94401 Telephone: 402-301-5544 Facsimile: 402-396-7131 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com KOTTEMANN LAW: Faces Banks Suit over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- ERICKA BANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOTTEMANN LAW FIRM, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00375 (M.D., La., June 10, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge John W. deGravelles and referred to Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder Doomes. Kottemann Law Firm provides legal services. It is also serve as a debt collection agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Raburn, Esq. MCCARTY & RABURN, A CONSUMER LAW FIRM, PLLC 2931 Ridge Rd., Suite 101 Rockwall, TX 75032 Telephone: (225) 412-2777 E-mail: jonathan@geauxlaw.com LAND HOME FINANCIAL: Faces Clayton Suit in Sacramento ----------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Land Home Financial Services Inc. The case is captioned as JENAY CLAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAND HOME FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 34-2019-00258005-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 7, 2019). Land Home Financial Services, Inc. provides financial services. The Company offers mortgage loans on house construction, remodeling, and on land selling. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 North Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 LIVENT CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of July 22 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announced that approximately three weeks remain to make a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff in a class action pending against the Livent Corporation ("Livent," "LTHM" or the "Company") (NYSE: LTHM) alleging claims on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Livent shares pursuant to or traceable to Livent's initial public offering ("IPO") on or around October 12, 2018. If you purchased Livent securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit Livent LTHM Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Livent Securities Class Action you must move the Court no later than July 22, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements in the offering documents relating to the IPO, including failing to disclose that: (i) a supply contract with Nemaska Lithium Inc. had been terminated; (ii) the Company would be forced to fulfill its customer contracts using alternative vendors at reduced revenues and lower margins; (iii) the Company had a long-standing contract to supply lithium hydroxide to a customer at a much lower price than any of Livent's existing contracts; (iv) the Company's margins were squeezed due to that customer's increased orders; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about Livent's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On February 11, 2019, Livent released its fourth quarter 2018 financial results that missed top line sales targets, citing difficulties negotiating contracts with existing customers. On this news, Livent's share price fell $0.57, over 4%, to close at $12.55 per share on February 12, 2019. On May 8, 2019, Livent announced disappointing financial results for first quarter 2019, citing further customer issues. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.70, nearly 16%, to close at $9.03 per share on May 8, 2019. Contact: Michael S. Bigin, Esq. Matthew Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 1001 Phone: (877) 779-1414 (212) 779-1414 Website: https://www.bernlieb.com Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Bigin@bernlieb.com [GN] LOTO-QUEBEC: Appeal Court Refuses to Authorize Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Dominic Dupoy, Esq., of Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on May 9, 2019, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Karras v. Societe des loteries du Quebec in which it dismissed an application for authorization to institute a class action against Loto-Quebec. In its decision, the Court of Appeal reviewed the principles governing authorization of a class action and confirmed that the authorization judge, in exercising his role as a filter, must dismiss any action that has no reasonable chance of success in light of the evidence tendered. The facts The plaintiff had been buying lottery tickets for over 20 years when she sought authorization to institute an action in damages against Loto-Quebec on the grounds that it failed to disclose to lottery ticket buyers the actual odds of winning a jackpot. The plaintiff also alleged that Loto-Quebec was making false representations since its advertising suggested the existence of a life of luxury while failing to disclose the actual odds of winning the lottery. The plaintiff claimed that Loto-Quebec violated various provisions of the Civil Code of Quebec (CCQ) and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), which provide that merchants have a duty to inform consumers about important facts likely to influence their decision whether or not to purchase a product. As a result, the plaintiff sought damages equal to the profits Loto-Quebec generated on lottery ticket sales over the past three years, as well as $150 million in punitive damages. The Court of Appeal's decision In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment and dismissed the action in its entirety. The Court pointed out that the evidence filed by Loto-Quebec clearly showed that it provides lottery ticket buyers, on its website for example, with all relevant information regarding the odds of winning for each type of product available. The Court added that the information on the odds of winning can be lengthy and that it would be unreasonable to reproduce the information on the back of every ticket. The Court also found that the information on the back of the lottery tickets was in all respects compliant with the applicable regulations. The Court found that Loto-Quebec's advertising contained no false or misleading representations. According to the Court, the mere fact that their ads convey an appearance of happiness does not violate the provisions of the law prohibiting false or misleading representations. According to the Court, Loto-Quebec is not required to reproduce on each of its ads the statistics on the odds of winning. The Court also issued certain comments regarding the plaintiff's role and her ability to represent the interests of all class members. The Court mentioned that, during her examination on discovery, the plaintiff acknowledged that she believed her chances of winning were around one in five million (in reality, her chances were one in fourteen million). According to the Court, the important fact for the consumer is the low likelihood of winning rather than the specific mathematical statistics. The Court added that the plaintiff had no individual claim since consumers are required to inform themselves and that she failed to do so even though the relevant information was fully available. The Court added that the representative had not shown any interest in the issues raised in this matter until the attorney ad litem suggested she act as a representative. Lastly, the Court found that the alleged causal connection was, at the very least, problematic in this case and that the very existence of the proposed class seemed vague. In light of such circumstances, the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for authorization to institute a class action. Importance of the decision The Court of Appeal's decision confirms that it is possible to have a class action dismissed at the authorization stage when the defendant files evidence in the Court record (with its authorization) to establish that the key allegations of the motion are false and are nothing more than mere assumptions, opinions or inferences of facts that the Court should not assume to be true at the authorization stage. * Loto-Quebec was represented before the Court of Appeal by Mtre Olivier Kott Ad. E. -- olivier.kott@nortonrosefulbright.com -- and Mtre Dominic Dupoy from Norton Rose Fulbright. [GN] LOWBRAU BIER: Faces Valencia Labor Suit in Sacramento California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lowbrau Bier Garten LLC. The case is captioned as WILLIAM VALENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN LLC; MICHAEL HARGIS; BROCK MACDONALD; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00258038-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 7, 2019). Lowbrau Bier Garten LLC is engaged in the restaurant business. The Company also sells draft brews & pub grub, including various sausages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. SHIMODA LAW CORP. 9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200 Elk Grove, CA 95624 Tel: (916) 525-0716 E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com LYFT, INC: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of July 16 Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announced that that approximately two weeks remain to make a motion for lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit against Lyft Inc. ("Lyft" or the "Company) (NASDAQ: LYFT) alleging claims on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Lyft shares pursuant to or traceable to Lyft's initial public offering ("IPO") on or around March 29, 2019. The complaint, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933. If you purchased Lyft securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit Lyft Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 16, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. According to the lawsuit, Lyft's offering materials issued in connection with its IPO failed to disclose that: (1) Lyft's claimed ridesharing position was overstated; (2) more than 1,000 of the bicycles in Lyft's rideshare program suffered from safety issues that would lead to their recall; (3) Lyft's drivers were becoming disincentivized from driving for Lyft; (4) Lyft failed to warn investors that a labor disruption could affect its operations; and (5) as a result, Lyft's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As the true facts emerged in the wake of the IPO, the Company's shares fell from the offering price of $72 per share to $57 per share on April 15, 2019. Contact: Michael S. Bigin, Esq. Matthew Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 1001 Phone: (877) 779-1414 (212) 779-1414 Website: https://www.bernlieb.com Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Bigin@bernlieb.com [GN] MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE INC., and RHADA GEISMANN M.D. P.C., the Plaintiffs, v. MASIMO CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 8:14-cv-00001-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on August 26, 2019, to certify a class of: "all persons or entities who were successfully sent one or more faxes stating: "Go from OW! to Wow! Noninvasive & Quick HEMOGLOBIN," with the Masimo "Pronto" device, sent on or about October 12, 2011; or (2) "Go from OW! to Wow! A New Solution for Noninvasive Spot checking Hemoglobin," with the Masimo "Pronto 7" device, sent on or about April 10, 2012. (the "Class")."[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Ben J. Meiselas, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411 Telephone: (213) 625-3900 Facsimile: (213) 625-1600 E-mail: meiselas@geragos.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Glenn Hara, Esq. Ross M. Good, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com ghara@andersonwanca.com rgood@andersonwanca.com - and - Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq. Montgomery Jonson LLP 600 Vine Street, Suite 2650 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 241-4722 Facsimile: (513) 241-8775 E-mail: mstubbs@mojolaw.com MASTERS PHARMACEUTICAL: Grand Family Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, GRAND FAMILY IMMEDIATE MEDICAL CARE P.C., a New York professional corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. MASTERS PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, and MASTERS DRUG COMPANY, INC. d/b/a MASTERS PHARMACEUTICAL, a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03321-DLI-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. taking class certification motion under submission and deferring further activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order, or alternatively; 2. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.[CC] Attorneys for GRAND FAMILY IMMEDIATE MEDICAL CARE P.C., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, are: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: 914-358-5345 Facsimile: 212-571-0284 E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com - and - Ross M. Good, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: 847-368-1500 E-mail: rgood@andersonwanca.com MDL 2741: Jimenez et al. Sue over Dangers of Roundup Herbicide -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Monsanto Company for strict product liability claim for the defective design and for failure to warn; for negligence; for fraud, misrepresentation, and suppression; for wrongful death; and for violations of the state consumer protection statutes. The case is captioned CESILIO JIMENEZ, a California consumer; MIRJANA DJURDJEVIC as proposed administrator of the estate of GORAN MILOSEVIC (deceased), an Illinois consumer; BARBARA RITCHEY as proposed administrator of the estate GREGORY RITCHEY (deceased), a Tennessee consumer; MARK WASILESKI, a Pennsylvania consumer; DIANE MONTGOMERY as proposed administrator of the estate of STEPHEN SCHARFE (deceased), a Nevada consumer; KENNETH BAUCOM, a Texas Consumer; MARILYN LYDON, an Arizona consumer; KENNETH LOVING, a Tennessee consumer; LARRY POPLIN, Sr., a Virginia consumer; MARY CLINE as proposed administrator of the estate of GARRY CLINE (deceased), a Tennessee consumer; WILLIAM RINAMAN, a North Carolina consumer; DARWIN TYLER, a Tennessee consumer; TERESA WADE, a West Virginia consumer; VERNON REDMON, a Kentucky consumer; Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 16-MD-02741-VC (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2019). Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for the injuries sustained by them as the direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Plaintiffs maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsustainable 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 in active status with a principle place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Burke, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP. 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 Facsimile: (212) 779-3218 E-mail: dburke@bernlieb.com dweck@bernlieb.com MDL 2741: Rodriguez v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- LETICIA RODRIGUEZ, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 2:19-cv-355 (Filed May 30, 2019) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on June 24, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03619-VC to the proceeding. The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax. The Pritchett Case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiffs allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. The Plaintiffs also alleges that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Palmanova Plaza Humacao, PR 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 E-mail: andrew@kaganlegalgroup.com - and - Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LAW FIRM 8191 College Pkwy Suite 303, Fort Myers, FL 33919 Telephone: (239) 466-1161 Facsimile : (239) 466-7226 E-mail: liz@kagan-law.com - and - Jennifer A. Moore, Esq. MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC 1473 South 4th Street Louisville, KY 40208 Telephone: (502) 717-4080 Facsimile: (502) 717-4086 E-mail: jennifer@moorelawgroup.com MINNESOTA: Settlement Jurisdiction in METO Suit Extended to 2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota issued an Order extending Jurisdiction on Settlment Agreement in the case captioned James and Lorie Jensen, as parents, guardians, and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen; James Brinker and Darren Allen, as parents, guardians, and next friends of Thomas M. Allbrink; Elizabeth Jacobs, as parent, guardian, and next friend of Jason R. Jacobs; and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Director, Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Clinical Director, the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Douglas Bratvold, individually and as Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Scott TenNapel, individually and as Clinical Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; and the State of Minnesota, Defendants. Civil No. 09-1775 (DWF/BRT). (D. Minn.). The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants asserting multiple violations of federal and state law arising out of allegations of abusive, inhumane, cruel, and improper use of seclusion and mechanical restraints routinely imposed upon [residents] of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options program (METO). The parties entered into a Stipulated Class Action Settlement Agreement, which was approved by the Court on December 5, 2011. The Stipulated Class Action Settlement Agreement provided for the closure of the METO facility, established requirements regarding restraint and seclusion at successor facilities, and established requirements for the Department of Human Services (DHS) to internally and externally monitor restraint use. The Settlement Agreement also provided that the State shall exercise best efforts for appropriate discharge of residents to the most integrated setting through transition planning. In addition, the Settlement Agreement imposed requirements relating to other practices at METO and its successor facilities. The Settlement Agreement also included System Wide Improvements which identified goals and objectives in the areas of long-term monitoring, crisis management, and training. The Settlement Agreement further required the development of an Olmstead Plan within eighteen months of the Settlement Agreement's approval. The Settlement Agreement also established requirements relating to other state facilities, the modernization of state administrative rules relating to positive behavioral supports (Rule 40), and the substitution of offensive terminology in DHS publications. The Court issued an Order requesting a comprehensive Summary Report to evaluate Defendants' overall compliance with the Agreement in lieu of the scheduled reporting requirements. The Court explained, the Court must evaluate Defendants' compliance to assess the impact of the Jensen lawsuit on the well-being of its class members and to determine whether the Court's jurisdiction may equitably end. In order to accomplish this, the Court requested reporting in three areas: Internal Compliance Oversight Structure; Class Members' Update; and assessment of all Evaluation Criteria. In light of the previous Compliance Reports that removed conclusions about whether each EC was met, the Court specifically asked Defendants to state whether each EC was met and to provide specific data supporting each conclusion. It was the Court's intent that the Summary Report would serve as a tool to facilitate a thorough review of compliance that would help establish a road map for an equitable end to the Court's jurisdiction. The January 4, 2019 Order advised the parties to review the Summary Report to assess compliance and identify next steps at a Status Conference in April 2019. Defendants timely submitted the Summary Report on March 19, 2019 and self-assessed all ECs as in compliance. The Court held the Status Conference on April 16, 2019. While the Court reviewed a number of Defendants' Compliance Reports, a special focus was placed on the Summary Report. In advance of the Status Conference, the Parties and the Consultants were invited to comment on Defendants' status of compliance. The parties addressed the comments during the Status Conference; however, they failed to agree on the status of compliance or a plan to move forward. They disagreed over whether Defendants have complied with the Agreement. While Defendants contend that they have met the requirements for each EC and that the Court should end its jurisdiction immediately, Plaintiffs strongly contest compliance and ask the Court to reengage the Court Monitor to investigate multiple violations of abusive conduct in state operated and licensed facilities. The Plaintiffs also request an evidentiary hearing. The Consultants also have concerns with respect to Defendants' assessment of compliance. They found that Defendants' limited analysis and lack of external verification in their Summary Report make it difficult to conclude whether Defendants are truly in compliance. Taking into account Defendants' Summary Report and the Plaintiffs' and Consultants' responses to the Summary Report. The Court will then identify specific required actions. Next, the Court will address the Olmstead Plan, including the March 2019 proposed Revision. Finally, the Court will discuss next steps necessary to address remaining disputes. The Jensen Agreement Defendants' Summary Report and Responses The Defendants' Summary Report addressed each of the three areas required by the Court's January 4, 2019 Order on reporting. First, Defendants discussed DHS's Internal Compliance Oversight structure. The Summary Report also included updates on individual class members. Finally, it provided an internal self-assessment of all ECs. Defendants concluded that they are in full compliance with the Agreement. They request an immediate end to the Court's jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs filed a letter response to Defendants' Summary Report. Plaintiffs vehemently contest Defendants' compliance with the Agreement, citing multiple violations including allegations of abusive conduct in state operated and licensed facilities. Plaintiffs' counsel have consistently highlighted the need for the elimination of restraints as fundamental to the settlement. The Plaintiffs ground their noncompliance arguments in the Agreement, the Positive Supports Rule, and previous Court Orders. Focused on the lack of meaningful external review, Plaintiffs request that the Court actively involve the Independent Court Monitor and hold an evidentiary hearing on the use of prohibited restraints. Issues Requiring Further Investigation and Review The Court has reviewed the Summary Report, letters, presentations offered at the April 16, 2019 Status Conference, and relevant historical materials of records and identifies several issues in need of further investigation and review as set forth below. Use of Prohibited Techniques The Defendants state repeatedly in their Summary Report that "the Jensen Internal Reviewer has monitored the use of restraints at Minnesota Life Bridge and has found that Minnesota Life Bridge has used no prohibited restraints or techniques or has used restraints only on an emergency basis. Defendants, however, appear to be verifying this information via sampling and without more comprehensive verification. Defendants provide little detail regarding the total number of reports, the basis of any emergency, an assessment of any trends, or an explanation on how Defendants quantify known use of prohibited restraint or techniques by a third party. Thus, the Court cannot conclude whether Defendants have complied with the obligations set forth in the Agreement. The Court finds that external review is required. As discussed above, David Ferleger, who was initially appointed as Court Monitor, assumed the role of External Reviewer pursuant to the consent of both sides. Thus, the Court could direct the Court Monitor to perform this work, as requested by Plaintiffs. However, Defendants have objected to the ongoing involvement of Mr. Ferleger. While the Court does not concede that Defendants' objection has any merit, the Court will allow Defendants the option to demonstrate that they have indeed developed the external review mechanisms to provide independent and objective assurance, advisory, and investigative services to the Department in relation to the Jensen Settlement Agreement. The Independent Subject Matter Experts were developed by DHS to bring "significant improvements to the care and treatment of persons with developmental disabilities, as outlined in the Settlement Agreement" through a master contract program. The Independent Subject Matter Experts have a minimum of five years' experience in one or more specified Specialty Services Areas. One of the four specific areas identified includes positive behavior practices. Accordingly, the Court will require Defendants to engage Subject Matter Experts to conduct an external review of Defendants' compliance regarding prohibited restraints. Scope of the Settlement Agreement and CPA Relating to Prohibited Restraints Plaintiffs have raised ongoing concerns surrounding the treatment of persons with developmental disabilities at Minnesota Security Hospital and Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center. As one example, Plaintiffs claim ongoing use of mechanical restraints on people with developmental disabilities at Minnesota Security Hospital, including use of restraint chairs on vulnerable citizens with disabilities as violations of the Settlement Agreement and CPA. PROHIBITED TECHNIQUES The Plaintiffs argue that Defendants agreed that the Settlement Agreement precludes the use of prohibited restraints at the Minnesota Security Hospital and elsewhere. Citing the Court's directive letter to the Court Monitor. Plaintiffs argue that Anoka Regional Treatment Center and Minnesota Security Hospital are within the scope of the changes in restraint and seclusion policy and practice" contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. The Defendants appear to disagree that the ECs pertaining to prohibited techniques obligate the Defendants beyond the Facility or Facilities defined in the CPA. Consistent with this position, Defendants have limited their reporting on Facilities to Stratton Lake, Donnelly, and Bromberg's Lake. The Defendants also assert full compliance with the Agreement's provisions regarding the Positive Supports Rule Rule 40, to prohibit procedures that cause pain, whether physical, emotional or psychological, and establish a plan to prohibit use of seclusion and restraints for programs and services licensed or certified by the department. The dispute about scope on the use of prohibited restraints must be resolved before the Court can confirm whether compliance must be further investigated and reviewed by a Subject Matter Expert or the Court Monitor. Accordingly, the parties must meet and confer no later than August 1, 2019, to discuss their positions on whether provisions of the Agreement on prohibited techniques include the Minnesota Security Hospital and Anoka Regional Treatment Center or beyond. The parties must also meet and confer to determine whether there are disputes relating to the ECs regarding the Positive Supports Rule for the Court to decide. If the parties are unable to enter into a Stipulation, they must inform the Court no later than August 15, 2019 of their separate views and propose a process for the Court to consider the dispute consistent with the applicable enforcement proceedings set forth in the Settlement Agreement or other procedures permitted pursuant to the Agreement. Following the parties' submission, the Court will set a hearing and issue a briefing schedule. Once any disputes regarding scope are resolved, the need for further external investigation and review will be determined. The Staff Training The Court also concludes that external investigation and review is necessary to ensure that Defendants have complied with certain ECs relating to staff training. Accordingly, the Court requires Defendants to assign an Independent Subject Matter Expert to review: The CPA states, Facility treatment staff received training in positive behavioral supports, person-centered approaches, therapeutic interventions, personal safety techniques, crisis intervention and post crisis evaluation. While the Summary Report indicates that training is offered, it fails to show that all Facility treatment staff actually received the training. The CPA states, Facility staff training is consistent with applicable best practices, including but not limited to the Association of Positive Behavior Supports, Standards of Practice for Positive Behavior Supports (http://apbs.org).Staff training programs will be competency-based with staff demonstrating current competency in both knowledge and skills. Although the Summary Report provides a detailed description of the training curriculum provided to staff and the process to determine staff competency, it provides no documentation or verification that staff has actually achieved competency. The Subject Matter Expert must assess overall compliance with ECs 54-56, including but not limited to verifying that each staff member has actually received and achieved competency in all areas of required training. The Subject Matter Expert must complete an initial report prior to October 15, 2019, unless a different date is adopted by the Court. Defendants will have ten days to respond to the initial Subject Matter Expert report. The Subject Matter Expert will submit a final report within ten days after receipt of Defendants' response, or within ten days of submission of the initial report, if Defendants do not make a response. Defendants will share the final reports with Plaintiffs' Class Counsel, the Consultants, and the Court. Treatment Homes The Court also finds that additional verification and review is necessary regarding the number of treatment homes needed to satisfy the Agreement. The Consultants have repeatedly raised concerns that the current number of homes may be insufficient. They cite Diversion Minutes and referral lists which illustrate lengthy wait lists. The Court notes that EC 88 specifically discusses an assessment of need. Further, EC 93 states that DHS will create stronger diversion supports through appropriate staffing and comprehensive data analysis. Accordingly, the Court requires Defendants to supplement their Summary Report to present their assessment and analysis on the treatment homes no later than October 15, 2019. The Court encourages, but does not require, the Defendants to engage a Subject Matter Expert to assist with the assessment and analysis. Olmstead Plan The Court approved the Olmstead Plan. The Court declined to approve several previous versions, finding that they failed to comply with the standards and requirements set forth in the Agreement or Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). The Olmstead Plan includes significant and strategic goals, as well as specific and realistic strategies for achieving each goal and clear indication of the agencies responsible for ensuring that the goals are met. On February 22, 2016, the Court ordered Defendants to submit quarterly and annual status reports on Olmstead Plan implementation and progress towards measurable goals. The Court further directed that all potential amendments to the Olmstead Plan should be identified and included in each annual report on or before December 31, and that adopted amendments must be reported to the Court on or before February 28, or in the case of a leap year, February 29. The Court also reserved the right to request further or other information upon receipt of each report. The Defendants have timely submitted multiple reports and proposed revisions. Olmstead Plan March 2019 Proposed Revision The Court requires additional information before it can determine whether the goals set forth in the March 2019 Revision to the Olmstead Plan, are acceptable under the Agreement's requirements. Plaintiffs and the Consultants have raised concerns about the adoption and implementation of the Positive Supports Rule (formally called Rule 40) as set forth in the Agreement. Accordingly, the Court must determine whether the Agreement provisions relating to Olmstead require incorporation of additional or modified goals relating to prohibited restraints. Extended Jurisdiction and Next Steps Extended Jurisdiction The Court's jurisdiction over this matter was scheduled to end on December 4, 2019. However, as set forth above, the Court requires additional information to determine whether issues of noncompliance remain. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Section XVII.B, and the Eighth Circuit's ruling that this Court may extend its jurisdiction as it deems just and equitable, the Court's jurisdiction is extended to September 15, 2020. The Court expressly reserves the authority and jurisdiction to order an additional extension of jurisdiction, depending upon the status of Defendants' compliance and absent stipulation of the parties. Until the Court's jurisdiction ends, all reporting requirements remain unchanged. The Court's jurisdiction is extended to September 15, 2020. The Court expressly reserves the authority and jurisdiction to order an additional extension of jurisdiction, depending upon the status of Defendants' compliance and absence stipulation of the parties. Use of Prohibited Techniques: Defendants must identify and assign a Subject Matter Expert to review and report on ECs 5-40 by August 1, 2019. Defendants must first reach out to Dr. Gary LaVigna. The Subject Matter Expert must complete an initial report prior to October 15, 2019, unless a different date is adopted by the Court. Defendants will have ten days to respond to the initial Subject Matter Expert report. The Subject Matter Expert will submit a final report within ten days after receipt of Defendants' response, or within ten days of submission of the initial report, if Defendants do not make a response. Defendants will share the final reports with Plaintiffs' Class Counsel, the Consultants, and the Court. Scope of the Settlement Agreement and CPA Relating to Prohibited Restraints: The parties must meet and confer no later than August 1, 2019 to discuss their positions on whether provisions of the Agreement on prohibited techniques include the Minnesota Security Hospital and Anoka Regional Treatment Center (or beyond). The parties must also meet and confer to determine whether there are disputes relating to the ECs regarding the Positive Supports Rule for the Court to decide. If the parties are unable to enter into a Stipulation, they must file a Joint Statement to inform the Court of their respective positions no later than August 15, 2019 and propose a process for the Court to resolve the dispute consistent with the enforcement proceedings set forth in the Settlement Agreement or other procedure permitted pursuant to the Agreement. The Court will set a hearing and issue a briefing schedule. Following the Stipulation or the Court's determination on scope, the external review of prohibited restraints may be amended. Staff Training: Defendants must identify and assign a Subject Matter Expert to review and report on ECs 54-56 no later than August 1, 2019. The Subject Matter Expert must assess overall compliance with ECs 54-56, included but not limited to verifying that each staff member has actually received and achieved competency in all areas of required training. The Subject Matter Expert must complete an initial report prior to October 15, 2019, unless a different date is adopted by the Court. The Defendants will have ten days to respond to the initial Subject Matter Expert report. The Subject Matter Expert must submit a final report within ten days after receipt of Defendants' response, or within ten days of submission of the initial report, if Defendants do not make a response. Defendants must share the final reports with Plaintiffs' Class Counsel, the Consultants, and the Court. Treatment Homes: The Defendants must supplement their Summary Report no later than October 15, 2019 to present their assessment and analysis on the need for and current availability of treatment homes. Positive Support Rule: The parties must meet and confer no later than August 1, 2019 to determine whether there are issues related to the Positive Support Rule that must be resolved before the Court considers the Olmstead Plan March 2019 Revision. If the parties are unable to enter into a Stipulation, they must inform the Court no later than August 15, 2019 of their separate positions and propose a process for the Court to resolve the dispute consistent with the enforcement proceedings set forth in the Settlement Agreement or other procedure permitted pursuant to the Agreement. The Court will set a hearing and issue a briefing schedule. Reporting Requirements: All reporting requirements remain unchanged. Requests: The Plaintiffs' request for an evidentiary hearing is denied pending receipt of the Independent Subject Expert's initial report and final report. The Defendants' request that the Court "address the applicable legal standard the Court is using to determine the circumstances under which it will end its involvement in this matter, including what specific actions remain outstanding" is also denied as premature. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2g7h69x from Leagle.com. James Jensen, as parents, guardians and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen and others similarly situated, Lorie Jensen, as parents, guardians and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen and others similarly situated, James Brinker, as parents, guardians and next friends of Thomas M. Allbrink and others similarly situated, Darren Allen, as parents, guardians and next friends of Thomas M. Allbrink and others similarly situated & Elizabeth Jacobs, as parent, guardian and next friend of Jason R. Jacobs and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark R. Azman -- MRAzman@olwklaw.com -- O'Meara Leer Wagner & Kohl, PA & Shamus P. O'Meara -- SPOMeara@olwklaw.com -- O'Meara Leer Wagner & Kohl, PA. Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota & State of Minnesota, Defendants, represented by Aaron Winter, Minnesota Attorney General's Office,Anthony R. Noss, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, Michael N. Leonard, Minnesota Attorney General's Office & Scott H. Ikeda, Minnesota Attorney General's Office. Director, Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota, Clinical Director, the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota & Douglas Bratvold, individually, and as Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program o f the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota, Defendants, represented by Aaron Winter, Minnesota Attorney General's Office & Scott H. Ikeda, Minnesota Attorney General's Office. Scott TenNapel, individually, and as Clinical Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program o f the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota, Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, Christopher A. Stafford -- cstafford@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, PA, Samuel D. Orbovich -- sorbovich@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, PA &Scott H. Ikeda, Minnesota Attorney General's Office. MISSION ROAD: Collins Seeks OT Pay for Service Specialists ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Mission Road Ministries for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned REBECCA COLLINS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF, vs. MISSION ROAD MINISTRIES, DEFENDANT, Case No. 5:19-cv-00713 (W.D. Tex., June 19, 2019). Plaintiff and other service specialists recorded their hours worked via a computer time clock with their fingerprints, which logged their hours into a payroll system maintained by Defendant. However, Defendant failed to accurately record all of the time worked off the clock by Plaintiff and other service specialists and failed to properly compensate all of their off the clock hours. Plaintiff's and other service specialists' after-hours work is not recorded on Defendant's time clock. Accordingly, Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, bring this action under the FLSA for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime compensation for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Mission Road Ministries owns and operates a center that assists children and adults with intellectual and other developmental disabilities in residential, day activity services and vocational programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Stewart Sues over Autodialed Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- DEAN STEWART, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03585 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2019), seeks to stop Monitronics from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making autodialed collection calls to consumers who have not given Monitronics consent to call them using an autodialer (and to stop calling them after repeated stop requests), and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Monitronics' conduct. According to the complaint, Monitronics operates using the d/b/a Brinks Home Security. Monitronics operates one of the largest home security alarm monitoring companies in the US. In order to attempt to collect on debts from its own clients, Monitronics calls telephone numbers of people it believes may be associated with the clients from whom they are trying to collect but who in fact are not Monitronics customers. In Plaintiff's case, Monitronics placed over autodialed debt collection calls to his cellular phone number despite the fact that he has never been a Monitronics client and has never consented to Monitronics calling him.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff and the putative Classes are: Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Blands Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- HOMER A. BLAND JR. and JANIS E. BLAND, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01833(E.D. Mo., June 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Homer A. Bland Jr.'s injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 MONSANTO COMPANY: Cohen Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- SAUL COHEN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-03632 (N.D. Cal., June 21, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori E. Andrus, Esq. Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. Leland H. Belew, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com jennie@andrusanderson.com leland@andrusanderson.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Daigle Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ NICOLE B. DAIGLE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00410-SDD-EWD (M.D. La., June 21, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard L. Root, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24 th Floor New Orleans LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 E-mail: bbarnes@morrisbart.com rroot@morrisbart.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Garred Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN GARRED, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01766-JAR (E.D. Mo., June 21, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Isom Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- SHIRLEY G. ISOM, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00136-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss., June 22, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Enochs, Esq. Richard L. Root, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24 th Floor New Orleans LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 E-mail: bbarnes@morrisbart.com rroot@morrisbart.com jenochs@morrisbart.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Kendrick Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- WENDY W. KENDRICK, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03326-VC (M.D. La., May 16, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren E. Godshall, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. Richard L. Root, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24 th 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 COMPANY: Lee Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------- MARCUS M. LEE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00795 (W.D. La., June 22, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard L. Root, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24 th Floor New Orleans LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 E-mail: bbarnes@morrisbart.com rroot@morrisbart.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Loper Blames Roundup Products for Cancer ---------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH LOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; BAYER AG; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13546 (D.N.J., June 7, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate which causes cancer. According to the complaint, the Defendants market and sell their Roundup products containing glyphosate. Glyphosate has been found to be carcinogenic, linked to causing various forms of cancer, and in particular non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. As such, Roundup is dangerous to human health and unfit to be marketed and sold in commerce, particularly without proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018, Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Morris Dweck, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 Facsimile: (212) 779-3218 E-mail: dweck@bernlieb.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Pye Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------- HORACE PYE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01770 (E.D. Mo., June 21, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Robbins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- GWENDOLYN ROBBINS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00338-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss., June 24, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Enochs, Esq. Richard L. Root, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 E-mail: bbarnes@morrisbart.com rroot@morrisbart.com jenochs@morrisbart.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Products Cause Cancer, Colvin Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG COLVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; BAYER AG; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13542-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., June 7, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate which causes cancer. According to the complaint, the Defendants market and sell their Roundup products containing glyphosate. Glyphosate has been found to be carcinogenic, linked to causing various forms of cancer, and in particular non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. As such, Roundup is dangerous to human health and unfit to be marketed and sold in commerce, particularly without proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018, Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Morris Dweck, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 Facsimile: (212) 779-3218 E-mail: dweck@bernlieb.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Tory Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- HAMILTON TORY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00057-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss., June 24, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Enochs, Esq. Richard L. Root, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 E-mail: bbarnes@morrisbart.com rroot@morrisbart.com jenochs@morrisbart.com MOVING SOLUTIONS: Rider Seeks Initial Nod of $470K Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Gary Middle Rider, et al. v. Moving Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-04015-LHK (N.D. Cal.), move for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The case is a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of nonexempt movers against the Defendants. On July 17, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Rule 23 class action complaint alleging that Defendant Moving Solutions failed to pay them for all regular and overtime wages. After a full day of mediation on November 30, 2018, before the Hon. Jaime Jacobs May (Ret), the Parties agreed to settle this case for $470,000 to be paid by the Defendants. The Settlement Sum includes attorney's fees, costs and expenses directly related to the case. Subject to Court approval, Class Representatives Barbara Middle Rider, Robert Garza, Albert Arellano, and Jose Don Coronado shall receive Service Awards of $5,000 each. Subject to Court approval, Class Counsel will be paid up to 25% of the gross settlement for attorneys' fees, and an additional amount for reasonable litigation costs not to exceed $8,500. The members of the class shall recover damages based upon the number of work weeks they worked during the class period. The net settlement is an estimated $290,183. The settlement shall be funded in two installments. The first for $235,000 shall be paid within thirty days after the final approval. The second payment of $235,000 shall be made 210 days later. 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: James Dal Bon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES DAL BON 606 North 1st Street San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 472-5645 Facsimile: (877) 711-0577 E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.com MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Littler Mendelson Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- William Simmons, Esq. -- wsimmons@littler.com -- and Rod M. Fliegel, Esq. -- rfliegel@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson, in an article for Mondaq, reports that a federal court's recent decision demonstrates the value in reviewing all documents related to the independent contractor background screening process to attempt to solidify potential defenses to expansive class-action claims. As previously discussed, background screening laws and claims -- individual and class action -- continue to rise. Class actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) often seek statutory damages of $100-$1,000 for every person screened with allegedly non-compliant forms or procedures. These claims are often hyper-technical, meaning that this is one area of law where the old maxim "substance over form" does not necessarily apply. As the use of contingent workers and independent contractors continues to rise, the latest decision presents an opportunity to review current forms and processes and to potentially make adjustments before a lawsuit arises. Overview of the Decision The recent decision by the Southern District of Iowa in Smith v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company is an example of potential opportunities to enhance defenses to the hyper-technical FCRA class action claims businesses can face. In Smith, the plaintiff originally filed a FCRA lawsuit challenging the defendant's "pre-adverse action" process under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681b(b)(3). Section 1681b(b)(3) generally requires businesses using consumer reports (background checks) "for employment purposes" to provide a copy of the report and summary of rights under the FCRA before taking any adverse action "based in whole or in part" on the report. The plaintiff claimed that he did not obtain a position as an insurance agent based on his background check, and that the company had failed to comply with these pre-adverse action requirements. The company defended the claim on summary judgment, however, in part on the threshold issue that the plaintiff was an independent contractor and therefore the prerequisite of "employment purposes" for Section 1681b(b)(3) to apply to the plaintiff was lacking. After reviewing the evidentiary record, the court ultimately held that the company was right -- the position that the plaintiff applied for was an independent contractor position so the "employment purposes" FCRA requirements, including Section 1681b(b)(3), did not apply. The court followed several other federal district court decisions that also held that the FCRA's employment purposes requirements do not apply to contractor screening. Although the court's ruling should have ended the case, there was a catch. While the company's summary judgment motion was pending on the threshold FCRA coverage issue, the plaintiff amended the complaint to add an alternative theory of relief. The plaintiff now claimed that if it turned out that he was an independent contractor, and if the court agreed that the FCRA's employment purposes provisions do not apply to independent contractors, then the company had violated a separate FCRA provision, Section 1681b(f). Section 1681b(f), a rarely-litigated FCRA provision, states: A person shall not use or obtain a consumer report for any purpose unless (1) the consumer report is obtained for a purpose for which the consumer report is authorized to be furnished under this section; and (2) the purpose is certified in accordance with section 1681e of this title by a prospective user of the report through a general or specific certification. The FCRA provides a list of "permissible purposes" for a consumer reporting agency (CRA) to prepare consumer reports for businesses. One of the "permissible purposes" is "employment purposes." Often, CRAs will have businesses "certify" to the purpose for which they will obtain consumer reports in the initial screening services agreement to comply with this and other similar FCRA requirements. The plaintiff alleged in the amended complaint that the company had certified to the CRA that it would obtain consumer reports only for "employment purposes." The plaintiff thus claimed that if the company now asserted that his consumer report was not obtained for "employment purposes" via its independent contractor defense, then the company had violated Section 1681b(f) by obtaining a report for some other purpose that it had not certified to. The company moved to dismiss this alternative theory of relief, but the court held that the plaintiff could proceed to litigate the theory. It is important to note that the court's decision on this point, unlike the independent contractor issue, was not on summary judgment and therefore not based on an evidentiary record. The court made no ruling on whether the plaintiff's assertions about the certification were, in fact, true. And the court noted that the company was correct, in theory, that there were other additional "permissible purposes" for which the company could have properly obtained plaintiff's report. For instance, the company could have been allowed to obtain the report "in accordance with the written instructions" of the plaintiff, which is another enumerated "permissible purpose" for obtaining reports. But the court noted that at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court had to take the allegations as true that the company had obtained the plaintiff's report for a not-certified-to permissible purpose. Thus, the plaintiff stated a potential claim under Section 1681b(f). Action Steps for Employers and CRAs The cautionary tale from Smith is that employers and CRAs are best served by taking a broad view of potentially relevant documents for independent contractor screening compliance. Tellingly, the Smith court looked to a variety of documents to determine that the position for which Smith had sought to be engaged was a contractor position. The court reviewed the application documents Smith completed, his independent contractor agreement, his background check disclosure and authorization, evidence about discussions regarding the opportunity, and other evidence regarding how the position would function if Smith had obtained it. The key documents repeatedly referred to Smith "contracting" with the company, and this consistency helped buttress the company's independent contractor FCRA defense. On the other hand, the court's decision on the plaintiff's added Section 1681b(f) claim shows that language used in other documents such as the contract between the CRA and company may also be relevant to the overall FCRA compliance analysis. Because the court's decision on this claim was non-evidentiary, it is unclear exactly what these communications will reveal. But the court's logic suggests the claim would fail if the screening contract specified that the business might seek independent contractor screening reports for permissible purposes other than "employment purposes." Of course, there may be other defenses available that were not yet before the court to consider. Because of the potential focus on contract documents signaled by the Smith court, it can be helpful for CRAs and employers to work cooperatively on language consistency for the full array of potentially-relevant screening documents to best ensure defenses. It may also make sense for human resources personnel or in-house counsel with background check compliance expertise to be involved in contract discussions rather than having the contracts reviewed only by a vendor procurement generalist. Importantly, the independent contractor defense may apply to class actions under several other FCRA provisions. There are an array of requirements that apply only to "employment purposed" reports, such as a special certification requirement (Section 1681b(b)(1)), "stand alone disclosure" (Section 1681b(b)(2)), and special notices or procedures for reporting public records to employers (Section 1681k). Many putative nationwide class action cases have specifically targeted these provisions. If the language of potentially-relevant documents clearly and consistently reflects a bona-fide independent contractor screening relationship, both the CRA and employer may have defenses that can be decided as a matter of law, i.e., without an expensive jury trial, for these claims. But contractor and contingent workforce screening is a complicated compliance area, particularly because of the overlay of additional state and local legal requirements and because plaintiffs (as Smith eventually did) often claim that they are misclassified as independent contractors. Moreover, the Supreme Court has not definitively ruled that independent contractor screening is not "employment purposes" screening. These and other factors mean that there is often not a "one size fits all" approach to independent contractor screening forms and processes. Experienced counsel, compliance and human resources personnel familiar with the "360-degree" background screening litigation risks can help to brainstorm an approach and work to identify potentially-relevant documents to review based on the business's specific operations. [GN] NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Notes of July 8 Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC (NBRV) Class Period: November 1, 2018 - April 30, 2019 Deadline: July 8, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/nbrv On April 30, 2019, Nabriva disclosed receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") seeking marketing approval of CONTEPO™ (fosfomycin) for injection for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI), including acute pyelonephritis. Nabriva advised investors that "[t]he CRL requests that Nabriva address issues related to facility inspections and manufacturing deficiencies at one of Nabriva's contract manufacturers prior to the FDA approving the NDA." On this news, Nabriva's stock price fell $0.82 per share, or 27.42%, to close at $2.17 per share on May 1, 2019. Equity Bancshares, Inc. (EQBK) Class Period: May 11, 2018 and April 22, 2019 Deadline: July 12, 2019 For more info: www.bgandg.com/eqbk The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to assess credit risk; (2) that, as a result, certain of the Company's loans posed an increased risk of loss; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses for certain substandard loans; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz Investor Relations Analyst Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Phone: 212-697-6484 Email: info@bgandg.com peretz@bgandg.com [GN] NATIONAL EDUCATION: Wilford Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Scott Wilford, et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Scott Wilford, et al. v. National Education Association, et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-01169-JLS-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. The lawsuit arises from job-related issues. The appellate case is captioned as Scott Wilford, et al. v. National Education Association, et al., Case No. 19-55712, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by July 22, 2019; -- Transcript is due on August 22, 2019; -- Appellants Harlan Elrich, Jelena Figueroa, Rebecca Friedrichs, Gene Gray, Bonnie Hayhurst, Michael Monge, Mike Rauseo and Scott Wilford's opening brief is due on September 30, 2019; -- Appellees American Federation of Teachers, Attorney General for the State of California, California Federation of Teachers, California Teachers Association, Certificated Hourly Instructors, Long Beach City College Chapter, Coast Federation of Educators, Local 1911, Community College Association, Exeter Teachers Association, Mt. San Antonio College Faculty Association, Inc., National Education Association of the United States, Orange Unified Education Association, Saddleback Valley Educators Association, Sanger Unified Teachers Association, Savanna District Teachers Association, South Orange County Community College District Faculty Association and United Teachers Los Angeles' answering brief is due on October 30, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SCOTT WILFORD, et al., are represented by: John J. Bursch, Esq. BURSCH LAW PLLC 9339 Cherry Valley SE, Suite 78 Caledonia, MI 49316 Telephone: (616) 450-4235 E-mail: jbursch@burschlaw.com - and - Bradford G. Hughes, Esq. SELMAN BREITMAN LLP 11766 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90025-6538 Telephone: (310) 689-7040 E-mail: bhughes@selmanlaw.com Defendants-Appellees NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., are represented by: Jeffrey B. Demain, Esq. Scott A. Kronland, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 E-mail: jdemain@altshulerberzon.com skronland@altshulerberzon.com Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA is represented by: Lara Haddad, Esq. AGCA-OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL 300 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 269-6250 E-mail: Lara.Haddad@doj.ca.gov NEW ORLEANS, LA: S&WB Employees Sign Onto Federal Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Roberts, writing for FOX 8 Live WVUE, reports that more than 200 people have signed onto a federal, class action lawsuit against the city of New Orleans for damages. This, after a notice went out to some residents that crews were removing radioactive material beneath the street feet from their homes. "These people are of that area and have been there, and the danger to them is something we need to get to the bottom of," said Madro Bandaries, Esq. But now Sewerage and Water Board employees who work in the Gert Town neighborhood are also signing onto the lawsuit. "They have complaints of a medical nature that would be consistent with exposure to radiation. How do we know radiation's there? We have to believe the City of New Orleans they said so," said Bandaries. Bandaries says their complaints are similar to others he represents. And while the knowledge of the radioactive matter is now public, he says both the residents and workers are still bound to live and work there. The City of New Orleans did find evidence of radioactive material in the soil near Lowerline and Coolidge Corner in 2013, after performing sweeps to prepare for the Super Bowl. The lawsuit notes that this is the same site where warehouses for the former Thompson Hayward Chemical Company once stood. But it seems another LDEQ inspector tested the site again in 2015. An LDEQ inspection report to de-list the plant was signed off on in 2016. Their findings: "no hazardous waste present". But again, residents didn't find out any of this until early June, only some receiving notice of the radiation roadwork. "It's kind of scary, spooky, still spooky you know. I don't know if it's under my house," said resident, Issac Cheatham. The bins containing radioactive material are Cheatham's temporary next-door neighbor. "They didn't tell us nothing, they continued working and that was it," said Cheatham. Cheatham says his concerns are growing even more. Because despite the fact these bins are supposed to be gone in a matter of days, he says nothing's keeping people from walking straight through the fenced off area where only weeks ago crews were removing radioactive material. "Since it's blocked off, they don't want to go all the way around, they see its open now," said Cheatham. A spokesperson for the sewerage and water board says they were not aware of the presence of radiation and could not confirm when they were notified of when they were alerted of the radiation roadwork. The EPA did not return our request for comment. A spokesperson with the city has said they will have no further comment on this story as the matter is under active litigation. [GN] O.C. COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement in Soto Suit Has Prelim Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Collective Action Settlement in the case captioned DESIDERO SOTO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. O.C. COMMUNICATIONS, NC., et al., Defendant. Case No. 17-cv-00251-VC. (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs bring a representative wage and hour action under federal and state laws on behalf of themselves and other Technicians employed by OCC who install cable television, phone, security and Unmet services. Plaintiffs allege eighteen causes of action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code (UCL), and Washington wage and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs assert the first cause of action under the FLSA on behalf of themselves and the Collective for Defendants' alleged failure to compensate Technicians for all hours worked, including legally mandated overtime premiums. Defendants dispute and deny all of Plaintiffs' claims. The Court grants preliminary approval of the terms and conditions contained in the Amended Settlement, as to the California and Washington Classes. The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the class and collective action settlement memorialized in the Amended Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court grants conditional certification of the provisional California and Washington Classes, in accordance with the Amended Settlement, for the purposes of this Amended Settlement only. The California Class is defined as "all Technicians who are or were employed by OCC in the State of California at any time from January 18, 2013 through December 21, 2018, and who do not validly exclude themselves from the Settlement." The Washington Class is defined as "all Technicians who are or were employed by OCC in the State of Washington from March 13, 2015 through December 21, 2018, and who do not validly exclude themselves from the Settlement." The Court grants Approval of the terms and conditions contained in the Amended Settlement as to the Collective. The Court preliminarily finds that the terms of the Amended Settlement are reasonable, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable law The Court confirms its August 31, 2017, Order conditionally certifying the Collective. The Collective is defined as "all Opt-In Plaintiffs who are or were employed by OCC at any time from and including January 18, 2014, through December 21, 2018." The Court authorizes the retention of CPT Group, Inc. as Settlement Administrator for the purpose of the Amended Settlement, with reasonable administration costs estimated not to exceed $40,000.00. The Court appoints Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP and Berger Montague PC as Counsel for the Classes and the Collective. (For purposes of representing the Classes, the appointment is conditional. The Court also conditionally appoints Plaintiffs Soto, Strickler, and Farias as Class Representatives for the California Class, and Plaintiff Ortega as Class Representative for the Washington Class. For purposes of the Collective, Plaintiffs Soto, Strickler, Fondrose, Ortega, and Farias are appointed as Collective representatives. The Court approves the Notice of Settlement, attached as Exhibit 2, and authorizes dissemination of the Notice of Settlement to Members of the California and Washington Classes and the Collective. Subject to the terms of the Amended Settlement, the Notice of Settlement shall be mailed via first-class mail to the most recent known address of each Member of the California and Washington Classes and the Collective within the timeframe specified in the Settlement, and sent via email to all such persons for whom OCC has an email address. The Court approves the proposed procedure for exclusion from the Amended Settlement, which is to submit a written statement requesting exclusion to the Amended Settlement Administrator no later than 60 days following the date on which the Settlement Administrator first mails the Notice of Settlement to Members of the California and Washington Classes and the Collective. Any Members of the California and Washington Classes who submit a written exclusion shall not be a Member of the Settlement Class, shall be barred from participating in the Settlement, and shall receive no benefit from the Amended Settlement. Class Counsel shall file a motion for approval of the fee and cost award and of the service awards to the Class Representatives, with the appropriate declarations and supporting evidence, at least 14 days prior to the Notice Deadline, to be heard at the same time as the motion for final approval of the Amended Settlement. Class Counsel shall file a motion for final approval of the Amended Settlement, with the appropriate declarations and supporting evidence, including a declaration setting forth the identity of any Members of the California and Washington Classes and the Collective who request exclusion from the Settlement, by September 16, 2019. Each Member of the California and Washington Classes and the Collective shall be given a full opportunity to object to the proposed Settlement and request for attorneys' fees, and to participate at a Final Approval Hearing, which the Court sets to commence on October 17, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. Any Member of the Classes and/or the Collective seeking to object to the proposed Settlement may file such objection in writing with the Court and shall serve such objection on Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel. The written objection requirement may be excused upon a showing of good cause. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2g7h69x from Leagle.com. Desidero Soto, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Steven Stricklen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Steeve Fondrose & Lorenzo Ortega, Plaintiffs, represented by Carolyn Hunt Cottrell -- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Shanon Jude Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, Camille Fundora -- crodriguez@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, David Christopher Leimbach -- dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com -Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Mira Pearl Karageorge, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, 2000 Powell StreetSuite 1400Emeryville, CA 94608, Neil Kailash Makhija -- nmakhija@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, Sarah Rebecca Schalman-Bergen -- sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, Scott Lewis Gordon -- sgordon@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Todd Michael Schneider -- tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP. O.C. Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey J. Mann -- jmann@littler.com -Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Barbara Allyn Blackburn -- bblackburn@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson. Comcast Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daryl Steven Landy -- daryl.landy@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Aleksandr Markelov -aleksandr.markelov@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP & Andrew Paul Frederick -- andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daryl Steven Landy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Aleksandr Markelov, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP,Andrew Paul Frederick, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Barbara Allyn Blackburn -- bblackburn@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson. PILOT CORPORATION: Shumard Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- DONALD SHUMARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PILOT CORPORATION and PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00426-SWW (E.D. Ark., June 18, 2019), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, as a result of Defendants' commonly applied policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated a lawful minimum wage and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in the maintenance/housekeeping and janitor/maintenance hourly-paid positions that are standard in Defendants' 650 retail travel centers and travel plazas. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants classified Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees as non-exempt and paid Plaintiff an hourly rate. It was Defendants' commonly applied practice to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees for fewer than all of the hours than the number of hours they actually performed labor for Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees were required to work and subject to Defendants' policy or practice of regularly making deductions for purported meal breaks despite Plaintiff and the others similarly situated employees not actually taking bona fide meal breaks; and also Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees had to perform off the clock work for Defendants while not clocked-in, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Chris W. Burks, Esq. Brandon M. Haubert, Esq. WH LAW,PLLC 1 Riverfront Pl. Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 E-mail: brandon@whlawoffices.com chris@whlawoffices.com PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Bragar Eagel Notes of Aug. 19 Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel and Squire reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of stockholders of Pivotal Software, Inc., Eros International Plc, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Pivotal Software, Inc. (NYSE: PVTL) Class Period: Securities pursuant or traceable to Pivotal's April 2018 initial public offering ("IPO") and/or securities purchased or acquired between April 24, 2019 and June 4, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 19, 2019 The complaint filed on June 21, 2019 alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Pivotal was facing major problems with its sales execution and a complex technology landscape; (ii) the foregoing headwinds resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales cycles, and diminished growth as its customers and the industry's sentiment shifted away from Pivotal's principal products because the Company's products were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with the industry-standard platform; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 4, 2019, post-market, Pivotal reported its financial and operating results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2020, advising investors that "sales execution and a complex technology landscape impacted the quarter." Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives called the quarter a "train wreck" and characterized the Company's operating results as "disastrous," asserting that Pivotal's "management team does not have a handle on the underlying issues negatively impacting its sales cycles and the activity in the field which gives us concern that this quarter will be the start of some 'dark days ahead' for Pivotal (and its investors)." On this news, Pivotal's stock price fell $7.60. To learn more about the Pivotal Software class action go to: https://bespc.com/PVTL-2 Eros International Plc (NYSE: EROS) Class Period: July 28, 2017- June 5, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2019 According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Eros and its executives engaged in a scheme to use related-party transactions to fabricate receivables that they reported in Eros's public financial disclosures; (2) because of this scheme, Eros's financial position was weaker than what the Company disclosed; (3) consequently, the Company's Indian subsidiary, Eros International Media Ltd, missed loan payments and had its credit downgraded; and (4) due to the foregoing, defendants' statements about Eros's receivables, business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To learn more about the Eros class action go to: https://bespc.com/eros-2 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA) Class Period: August 4, 2017- May 10, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 23, 2019 The complaint filed on June 21, 2019 alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements denying that Teva "engaged in any conduct that would give rise to liability" in various antitrust proceedings and investigations that enveloped the company. In truth, and as Defendants failed to disclose to investors, (i) contrary to its public denials, Teva had in fact engaged in a vast, industry-wide price-fixing scheme and other collusive misconduct since at least 2012; (ii) Teva was not only a participant, but the company at the heart of the anticompetitive scheme; and (iii) several Teva employees had such deep involvement in the scheme that they would ultimately be named personally as defendants in a sweeping civil enforcement action filed by the AGs of virtually every state in the nation. On December 9, 2018, it was publicly disclosed that the scope of the State AG's investigation had expanded greatly to include 300 drugs and at least 16 companies, exposing "the largest cartel in the history of the United States." On this news, the price of Teva ADS fell $0.97 per share or 5%, to close at $18.44 per share on December 10, 2018. On May 10, 2019, a coalition of 44 states filed a 524-page antitrust complaint revealing previously undisclosed facts regarding Teva's participation in the generic drug price-fixing conspiracy. Among other things, the action detailed Teva's role as a "consistent participant" in the conspiracy, implementing price increases on upwards of 110 generic drugs and colluding with competitors regarding over 85 different generic drugs. On this news, the price of Teva ADS fell $2.13 per share or approximately 15%, to close at $12.23 per share on May 13, 2019. For more information on the Teva class action go to: https://bespc.com/teva Contact: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Phone: (212) 355-4648 Website: www.bespc.com Email: investigations@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com walker@bespc.com [GN] PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court and further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. Pivotal Software, Inc. (PVTL) Class Period: investors who purchased common stock pursuant or traceable to the April 2018 initial public offering and/or Pivotal securities between April 24, 2018 and June 4, 2019. Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 19, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pivotal-software-inc-loss-form?prid=2135&wire=1 The lawsuit alleges: Pivotal Software, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements throughout the class period and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Pivotal was facing major problems with its sales execution and a complex technology landscape; (ii) the foregoing headwinds resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales cycles, and diminished growth as its customers and the industry's sentiment shifted away from Pivotal's principal products because the Company's products were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with the industry-standard platform; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To learn more about the Pivotal Software, Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. Cloudera, Inc. (CLDR) Class Period: April 28, 2017 - June 5, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 6, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cloudera-inc-loss-form?prid=2135&wire=1 The lawsuit alleges: Cloudera, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cloudera was finding it increasingly difficult to identify large enterprises interested in adopting the Company's Hadoop-based platform; (ii) Cloudera needed to expend an increasing amount of capital on sales and marketing activities to generate new revenues, even as new revenue opportunities were diminishing; and (iii) Cloudera had materially diminished sales opportunities and prospects and could not generate annual positive cash flows. To learn more about the Cloudera, Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. FedEx Corporation (FDX) Class Period: September 19, 2017 - December 18, 2018 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 26, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fedex-corporation-loss-form?prid=2135&wire=1 The lawsuit alleges that, during the class period, FedEx Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) TNT's overall package volume growth was slowing as TNT's large customers permanently took their business to competitors after the Cyberattack; (2) as a result of the customer attrition, TNT was experiencing an increased shift in product mix from higher-margin parcel services to lower-margin freight services; (3) the anticipated costs and timeframe to integrate and restore the TNT network were significantly larger and longer than disclosed; (4) FedEx was not on track to achieve TNT synergy targets; and (5) as a result of these undisclosed negative trends and cost issues, FedEx's positive statements about TNT's recovery from the Cyberattack, integration into FedEx's legacy operations, customer mix, customer service levels, profitability, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the FedEx Corporation class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court appoint as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Contact: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] POSTURE WORKS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned MORTON GROVE LIVING & REHAB CENTER, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. THE POSTURE WORKS, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04184 (N.D Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Anderson + Wanca as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Ross M. Good, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: 847/368-1500 Facsimile: 847/368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com rgood@andersonwanca.com PRICESMART, INC: Bragar Eagel Notes of July 22 Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of PriceSmart, Inc., Hecla Mining Company, A.O. Smith Corporation, and Community Health Systems, Inc. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. PriceSmart, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSMT) Class Period: October 26, 2017 - October 25, 2018 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 22, 2019 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the company's omni-channel business strategy had failed to reach key operating goals; (2) the company's South America distribution strategy had failed to realize key cost saving goals; (3) the company had invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into certificates of deposits with financial institutions; (4) these investments had been improperly classified as cash and cash equivalents; (5) the relevant corrections would materially impact financial statements; (6) there was a material weakness in the company's internal controls over financial reporting; (7) increasing competition negatively impacted the company's revenue and profitability; and (8) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the PriceSmart class action go to: http://bespc.com/pricesmart Hecla Mining Company (NYSE: HL) Class Period: March 19, 2018 - May 8, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 23, 2019 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants falsely and misleadingly represented that the Nevada operations would be "accretive" and cash flow positive, or at the very least "self-funding." Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants were aware from their extensive due diligence that the Nevada operations had material problems in terms of excessive water, equipment availability, achieving enough development to have consistent production, and lack of characterization of ore types, among other things. To learn more about the Hecla class action go to: http://bespc.com/hl/ A. O. Smith Corporation (NYSE: AOS) Class Period: July 26, 2016 - May 16, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that the company had used a distribution partner, Jiangsu UTP Supply Chain, to artificially inflate the company's sales and gross margins in the important Chinese market. To learn more about the A. O. Smith class action go to: http://bespc.com/aos/ Community Health Systems, Inc. (NYSE: CYH) Class Period: February 20, 2017 - February 27, 2018 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the company had understated its contractual allowances; (2) the company had understated its provision for bad debts; (3) as a result, the company had overstated its net operating revenue; (4) as a result, the company had understated its net loss; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the Community Health class action go to: http://bespc.com/cyh/ Contact: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Phone: (212) 355-4648 Website: www.bespc.com Email: investigations@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com walker@bespc.com [GN] PYXUS INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP reminds investors that approximately five weeks remain to make a motion for lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Pyxus International Inc. ("Pyxus" or the "Company") (PYX) from June 7, 2018 through November 18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks to recover Pyxus shareholders' investment losses. If you purchased Pyxus securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Pyxus PYX Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was experiencing longer shipping cycles; (2) that, as a result, the Company's financial results would be materially affected; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal control over financial reporting; (4) that the Company's accounting policies were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On November 8, 2018, the Company disclosed that sales declined approximately 12% year-over-year due to the timing of shipments and the larger crop last year in South America. On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.01, or nearly 28%, to close at $18.26 on November 8, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume. On November 9, 2018, the SEC announced that the Company had settled charges that it had materially misstated financial statements from at least 2011 through the second quarter of 2015 due to improper and insufficient accounting, processes, and control activities for inventory, deferred crop costs, and revenue transactions in Africa. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.88, or nearly 16%, to close at $15.38 on November 9, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 6, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Pyxus securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/pyxusinternationalinc-pyx-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-142/ Contact: Michael S. Bigin, Esq. Matthew Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 1001 Phone: (877) 779-1414 (212) 779-1414 Website: https://www.bernlieb.com Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Bigin@bernlieb.com [GN] RA MEDICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court and further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. Intersect ENT, Inc. (XENT) Class Period: August 1, 2018 - May 6, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : July 15, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/intersect-ent-inc-loss-form?prid=2141&wire=1 About the lawsuit: During the class period, Intersect ENT, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Intersect lacked adequate reimbursement representatives to ensure physicians had access to SINUVA, Intersect's sinus implant; (2) Intersect's sales force would focus on ensuring reimbursement; (3) Intersect's sales representatives were less focused on driving sales; (4) physicians were less likely to adopt Intersect's SINUVA due to transaction costs associated with seeking reimbursement; (5) Intersect would increase staffing to address these issues; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Intersect's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the Intersect ENT, Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. Ascena Retail Group, Inc. (ASNA) Class Period: September 16, 2015 - June 8, 2017 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 6, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ascena-retail-group-inc-loss-form?prid=2141&wire=1 About the lawsuit: Throughout the class period, Ascena Retail Group, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the ANN Acquisition was a complete disaster for the Company as Ann's operations were in far worse condition than had been represented to the public; (b) in order to mask the true condition of Ann, Defendants improperly delayed recognizing an impairment charge to the value of Ann's goodwill and, as a result, Ascena's reported income and assets were materially overstated and the Company's financial results were not prepared in conformity with GAAP; (c) many of the brands acquired in the ANN Acquisition were in steep decline and were also materially overvalued on Ascena's Class Period financial statements; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its operations and prospects. To learn more about the Ascena Retail Group, Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. Ra Medical Systems, Inc. (RMED) Class Period: stockholders that purchased Ra Medical securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's September 2018 initial public offering. Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 6, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ra-medical-systems-inc-loss-form?prid=2141&wire=1 About the lawsuit: Ra Medical Systems, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements during the class period and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's evaluation of sales personnel candidates was inadequate; (2) the Company's training program for sales personnel was inadequate; (3) as a result, the Company could not reasonably assure that its newly hired sales personnel were adequately experienced; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer a shortage of qualified sales personnel; (5) the Company's manufacturing process could not reasonably support increased catheter production; (6) as a result, the Company would suffer production delays; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more about the Ra Medical Systems, Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court appoint as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Contact: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] RAYTHEON: Cruz Sues over Non-Payment of Retiree Benefits -------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Raytheon Company concerning its failure to pay benefits under several of its defined benefit pension plans that are part of the Raytheon Master Pension Trust in amounts that are actuarially equivalent to a single life annuity, as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The case is captioned Johnny Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Raytheon Company, Kelly B. Lappin, in her capacity as Plan Administrator for the Raytheon Company Pension Plan for Hourly Employees, the Raytheon Company Pension Plan for Salaried Employees, the Raytheon Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan, the Raytheon Bargaining Retirement Plan, and the Raytheon Retirement Plan for Engineers & Contractors, Inc. and Aircraft Credit Employees, and John/Jane Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11425 (D. Mass., June 27, 2019). Plaintiff Johnny Cruz alleges that Raytheon is causing retirees to lose part of their vested retirement benefits in violation of ERISA by not offering benefits that are actuarially equivalent to the single life annuity. Raytheon is a defense contractor specializing in the development of electronics, mission systems integration and cybersecurity solutions with its headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas P. Needham, Esq. Robert A. Izard, Esq. Mark P. Kindall, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 Email: dneedham@ikrlaw.com rizard@ikrlaw.com mkindall@ikrlaw.com ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Mark G. Boyko, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com mboyko@baileyglasser.com RED ROBIN: Geraci Suit Transferred to District of Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------- The case John Geraci, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Red Robin International, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-15542 (Filed Nov. 1, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver) on June 24, 2019. The District of Colorado Court Clerk assinged Case No. 1:19-cv-01826-KLM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kristen L. Mix. Red Robin regularly sends out automated, template-based text messages to consumers advertising the Red Robin Royalty program itself and various promotions and sales offered via the Red Robin Royalty Program. However, Red Robin does not allow consumers to opt out of receiving future messages, resulting in consumers’ repeated receipt of unwanted, unauthorized automated text messages, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff brings this class action for damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief from the illegal actions of Defendant. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. is "a casual dining restaurant chain founded in 1969 that operates through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Red Robin International, Inc., and under the trade name, Red Robin Gourmet Burgers and Brews.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Sofia Balile, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C. 43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 REWALK ROBOTICS: Yan Appeals Mass. Dist. Ct. Ruling to 1st Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Wang Yan and Movant Joanne Geller filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Yan, et al. v. ReWalk Robotics Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-10169-FDS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 20, 2019, Melanie A. Conroy, Esq. -- mconroy@pierceatwood.com -- of Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reported that on May 16, 2019, the District of Massachusetts denied a lead plaintiff's motion to amend a complaint that sought to overcome standing deficiencies of the original class representative by adding a new named plaintiff. The District Court dismissed the putative class action without prejudice, holding that if a class action has only one representative, and that party does not have standing, the District Court lacks jurisdiction over the case and cannot permit the lead plaintiff substitution. In Yan v. ReWalk Robotics, Ltd., lead plaintiff Wang Yan brought a putative class action for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the company's 2014 initial public offering. In a class action complaint filed in 2017, Yan claimed that ReWalk concealed material information in its IPO documents concerning a failure to comply with FDA regulations and continued to make materially false statements after the IPO. In August 2018, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all Securities Act claims for failure to plead a false or misleading statement and dismissed all Exchange Act claims because Yan lacked standing based on his dates of share purchase, which were limited to the time of the IPO. Dismissal was granted without prejudice so that Yan could make a supplemental pleading on the standing issue or seek a substitute lead plaintiff. Yan moved in September 2018 to amend the complaint to add another representative as named plaintiff. The appellate case is captioned as Yan, et al. v. ReWalk Robotics Ltd., et al., Case No. 19-1614, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant WANG YAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated parties, and Movant-Appellant JOANNE GELLER are represented by: Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. Omar Jafri, Esq. Leigh Handelman Smollar, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 S LaSalle, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ojafri@pomlaw.com lsmollar@pomlaw.com - and - Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 3rd Ave. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Edward F. Haber, Esq. Adam M. Stewart, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP Seaport East 2 Seaport Ln Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com astewart@shulaw.com Plaintiffs QIAN DENG, DAVID HERSHLIKOVITZ, JACKIE888, INC., MICHAEL C. KEMMERLING, NARBEH NATHAN and PAUL SISLIN are represented by: Jeffrey Craig Block, Esq. Jason Mathew Leviton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin St., Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110-0000 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com jason@blockesq.com Defendants-Appellees REWALK ROBOTICS LTD., et al., are represented by: Douglas Baumstein, Esq. Susan L. Grace, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1095 Telephone: (212) 819-8200 E-mail: dbaumstein@whitecase.com susan.grace@whitecase.com - and - Samuel R. Feldman, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 75 State St. Boston, MA 02109-1814 Telephone: (617) 979-9328 E-mail: samuel.feldman@whitecase.com Defendants-Appellees BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., JEFFRIES LLC and CANACCORD GENUITY INC. are represented by: Anthony Antonelli, Esq. Douglas H. Flaum, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Ave. New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 318-6000 E-mail: anthonyantonelli@paulhastings.com - and - Douglas Baumstein, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1095 Telephone: (212) 819-8200 E-mail: dbaumstein@whitecase.com - and - David S. Godkin, Esq. James E. Kruzer, Esq. BIRNBAUM & GODKIN LLP 280 Summer St., Suite 500 Boston, MA 02210-0000 Telephone: (617) 307-6100 E-mail: godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com kruzer@birnbaumgodkin.com SENTRY WEST: Colleton Seeks Overtime Pay for Salespersons --------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY COLLETON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SENTRY WEST, INC., CHRISTOPHER LEMLEY, and BRIAN MCGRATH, the Defendants, Case No. 1982CV00812 (Mass, Super., June 26, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages and Sunday premium pay. The Plaintiff and putative class members are former and current employees of the defendants engaged in the sale of automobiles and related products. These employees work in excess of 40 hours per week, but do not receive overtime pay for their overtime hours and/or Sunday Premium Pay in violation of Massachusetts law. In addition, the Defendants uniformly deduct a one-hour meal break from sales employees'compensable working time, regardless of the amount of time each sales employee actually spends not working, further depriving them of earned wages, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: David T. Musen, Esq. Raven Moeslingerc Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: dtm@mass-legal.com rm@mass-legal.com nfo@mass-legal.com SOOK CORPORATION: Cruz Santiago Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Sook Corporation (d/b/a Noodies Thai Kitchen, Woraphong Worachinda and Joyze Nuttakarn for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned JAIME CRUZ SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- THONG SOOK CORPORATION (D/B/A NOODIES THAI KITCHEN), WORAPHONG WORACHINDA, and JOYZE NUTTAKARN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05747 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2019). Plaintiff Cruz worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. In addition, Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating Plaintiff Cruz's and other tipped employees' tips and made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff Cruz's and other tipped employees' wages. Sook Corporation is doing business as Noodies Thai Kitchen, a Thai Restaurant located in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan. Woraphong Worachinda and Joyze Nuttakarn possess ownership interests and operational control over Noodies Thai Kitchen. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com STATE FARM: MSP Recovery Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC; MSP RECOVERY, LLC; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC; and MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, the Plaintiffs, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01537-JBM-TSH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a class of: "Medicare Advantage Plans ("MA Plans") that, like Plaintiffs, seek recovery from State Farm under the MSP Act's private cause of action." The Plaintiffs use the term "MA Plan" to refer to all entities that provide Medicare Part C benefits and take on financial risk to do so. Within the population of MA Plans, the Plaintiffs use the term "MAO" (Medicare Advantage Organization) to designate those MA Plans that contract directly with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Other MA Plans include "first tier" or "downstream" entities that contract with MAOs, including Management Service Organizations ("MSOs") and Independent Physician Associations ("IPAs"). While courts and parties have sometimes utilized the term MAO to refer to the broader population of Medicare entities, Plaintiffs attempt to consistently use "MA Plan" (a term used in the MSP Act) to eliminate any potential confusion. State Farm is a primary payer that provided no-fault policies to insureds who are also Medicare beneficiaries. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class of MA Plans, allege a systemic non- or under-payment of reimbursement of conditional payments and medical items and services provided by MA Plans to beneficiaries who were covered by State Farm no-fault policies at the time of injury.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: David M. Hundley, Esq. Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. Courtney L. Stidham, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2505 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 355-0086 E-mail: dhundley@pbclawfirm.com - and - Andres Rivero, Esq. Jorge A. Mestre, Esq. Charlie E. Whorton, Esq. David L. Daponte, Esq. RIVERO MESTRE LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1000 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-2500 Facsimile: (305) 445-2505 E-mail: cwhorton@riveromestre.com - and - R. Brent Wisner, Esq. Adam M. Foster, Esq. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C. 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444 E-mail: rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com afoster@baumhedlund.com STELLAR IP: Fischler Sues over Web Accessibility for Blind Persons ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Stellar IP, LLC for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The case is captioned BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STELLAR IP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03610 (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2019). Plaintiff Brian Fischler brings this civil rights action against Stellar IP, LLC for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.stellarmanagement.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by blind or visually-impaired people. Accordingly, Plaintiff Fischler seeks a permanent injunction to cause Stellar to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Stellar IP, LLC is a foreign limited liability company that is organized under Delaware law, and authorized to do business in the state of New York. The company owns and manages buildings throughout the United States and New York, including locations at 120 Vermilyea Avenue, New York, New York, 301 East 47th Street, New York, New York and 1071 St. Nicholas Ave, New York, New York. It also rents within these buildings, studio apartments, and apartments with one or more bedrooms. Stellar's website is heavily integrated with its buildings and rental office at 156 William Street, New York, New York, serving as their gateway. Through the website, Stellar's customers are, inter alia, able to: learn information about the buildings, including their locations, apartment features and building amenities; view images of the apartments; learn about the neighborhood; learn about current offers; email an agent through a link contained on the website; and apply for an apartment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com doug@lipskylowe.com STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District Court Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Stemline Therapeutics, Inc. common stock. (NASDAQ:STML): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS, INC. ("STEMLINE") COMMON STOCK FROM JANUARY 20, 2017 THROUGH FEBRUARY 1, 2017, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE, AND/OR PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO STEMLINE'S SECONDARY PUBLIC OFFERING OF COMMON STOCK ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 20, 2017 (THE "SPO"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on September 23, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable Paul A. Crotty, United States District Judge of the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 14C, New York, New York 10007 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $680,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third plus interest of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $50,000 and an incentive payment of no more than $4,000, in aggregate, or $1,000, each, to Lead Plaintiffs and Representative Plaintiff, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated March 11, 2019 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired Stemline common stock during the period from January 20, 2017 through February 1, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and/or pursuant or traceable to the SPO, your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Stemline common stock. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or calling the Claims Administrator at: Stemline Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; (e-mail) info@strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked no later than October 23, 2019, to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action, including the releases therein, whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than September 2, 2019, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation, including the releases therein. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiffs and Representative Plaintiff must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than September 2, 2019, by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 CO-LEAD COUNSEL: THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, New York 10016 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS: ROPES & GRAY LLP Gregg L. Weiner 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Adam S. Hakki 599 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022-6069 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Plaintiffs' Counsel: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, New York 10016 Phone: (215) 600-2817 Email: info@rosenlegal.com [GN] v SUTTER HEALTH: Shares Medical Data to 3rd Parties, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE 1; and JANE DOE II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUTTER HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 34-2019-00258072 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 10, 2019) is an action against the Defendant for disclosing personally identifiable information about patients, including status as patients, and the content of their communication with the Defendant, to Facebook and other third-parties. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's conduct in disclosing personally identifiable information about the Defendant's patient to Facebook and other third-parties for marketing purposes, violates California privacy laws including, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. The information that the Defendant sends to Facebook or third-parties is used to place patients into medical interest categories for purposes of direct marketing. These interest and activities relating to an individual's medical history or medical treatment or diagnosis by a health care professional, is a medical information protected by the California Civil Code. Sutter Health, together with its subsidiaries, provides health care, education, and research and administration services primarily in Northern California. It also provides health education, health libraries, school-based clinics, home health care, hospice care, adult day care, prenatal clinics, community clinics, immunization services, and health professions education. In addition, the company operates California Pacific Medical Center, a hospital with 274 acute-care beds. Sutter Health is headquartered in Sacramento, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Nicole Ramirez, State Bar No. 279017 KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law koncius@kiesel.law ramirez@kiesel.law - and - Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. Jay Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: mbreit@immonsfirm.com jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com TARGET: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Health Care Coverage Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sara DiNatale, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that a Palm Harbor couple is pursuing a class-action lawsuit against Target, accusing the retailer of breaking federal laws that regulate employee benefits. Shawn Rigney, 31, worked for Target until September of 2018. Rigney and his partner, Kyle Adams, 29, were covered by Target's health insurance. The notices Target sent to the men about the option to continue their health care following Rigney's termination lacked critical information that left them unable to retain coverage, according to the lawsuit. "Not only did (Rigney and Adams) lose their insurance coverage," the lawsuit says, "during that time they incurred medical bills resulting in further economic injury." Rather than give clear instructions, Target sent part of the legally required information in a "piece-meal fashion" over more than one piece of mail, according to the case filed on May 15. By law, an employer that provided health benefits is required to send a COBRA -- Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act -- notice to inform former workers of their rights to continue their health care coverage. "Notice is of enormous importance," the lawsuit says. "The COBRA notification requirement exists because employees are not expected to know instinctively of their right to continue their healthcare coverage." The lawsuit accuses Target of breaking the law because its notice did not explain how to enroll or who contact, or have an address to mail payments. Nor did Target explain what would happen if payments were made late. Ultimately the lawsuit argues Target's notice left the couple unable to make an informed decision about health coverage. It also says Rigney was left to pay out of pocket to see doctors for an injury he sustained while at work for Target. He now works as a Tampa Bay real estate agent. It is unclear what job Rigney held and at which area store, though the case is filed in Hillsborough County Circuit Court. Rigney declined to comment. Target did not immediately respond to a request for comment. If Rigney and Adams' case is certified as a class-action lawsuit, other former employees who received the same type of notification would be able to join the complaint. [GN] TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bragar Notes of Aug. 23 Plaintiff Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel and Squire reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of stockholders of Pivotal Software, Inc., Eros International Plc, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Pivotal Software, Inc. (NYSE: PVTL) Class Period: Securities pursuant or traceable to Pivotal's April 2018 initial public offering ("IPO") and/or securities purchased or acquired between April 24, 2019 and June 4, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 19, 2019 The complaint filed on June 21, 2019 alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Pivotal was facing major problems with its sales execution and a complex technology landscape; (ii) the foregoing headwinds resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales cycles, and diminished growth as its customers and the industry's sentiment shifted away from Pivotal's principal products because the Company's products were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with the industry-standard platform; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 4, 2019, post-market, Pivotal reported its financial and operating results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2020, advising investors that "sales execution and a complex technology landscape impacted the quarter." Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives called the quarter a "train wreck" and characterized the Company's operating results as "disastrous," asserting that Pivotal's "management team does not have a handle on the underlying issues negatively impacting its sales cycles and the activity in the field which gives us concern that this quarter will be the start of some 'dark days ahead' for Pivotal (and its investors)." On this news, Pivotal's stock price fell $7.60. To learn more about the Pivotal Software class action go to: https://bespc.com/PVTL-2 Eros International Plc (NYSE: EROS) Class Period: July 28, 2017- June 5, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2019 According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Eros and its executives engaged in a scheme to use related-party transactions to fabricate receivables that they reported in Eros's public financial disclosures; (2) because of this scheme, Eros's financial position was weaker than what the Company disclosed; (3) consequently, the Company's Indian subsidiary, Eros International Media Ltd, missed loan payments and had its credit downgraded; and (4) due to the foregoing, defendants' statements about Eros's receivables, business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To learn more about the Eros class action go to: https://bespc.com/eros-2 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA) Class Period: August 4, 2017- May 10, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 23, 2019 The complaint filed on June 21, 2019 alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements denying that Teva "engaged in any conduct that would give rise to liability" in various antitrust proceedings and investigations that enveloped the company. In truth, and as Defendants failed to disclose to investors, (i) contrary to its public denials, Teva had in fact engaged in a vast, industry-wide price-fixing scheme and other collusive misconduct since at least 2012; (ii) Teva was not only a participant, but the company at the heart of the anticompetitive scheme; and (iii) several Teva employees had such deep involvement in the scheme that they would ultimately be named personally as defendants in a sweeping civil enforcement action filed by the AGs of virtually every state in the nation. On December 9, 2018, it was publicly disclosed that the scope of the State AG's investigation had expanded greatly to include 300 drugs and at least 16 companies, exposing "the largest cartel in the history of the United States." On this news, the price of Teva ADS fell $0.97 per share or 5%, to close at $18.44 per share on December 10, 2018. On May 10, 2019, a coalition of 44 states filed a 524-page antitrust complaint revealing previously undisclosed facts regarding Teva's participation in the generic drug price-fixing conspiracy. Among other things, the action detailed Teva's role as a "consistent participant" in the conspiracy, implementing price increases on upwards of 110 generic drugs and colluding with competitors regarding over 85 different generic drugs. On this news, the price of Teva ADS fell $2.13 per share or approximately 15%, to close at $12.23 per share on May 13, 2019. For more information on the Teva class action go to: https://bespc.com/teva Contact: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Phone: (212) 355-4648 Website: www.bespc.com Email: investigations@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com walker@bespc.com [GN] U.S. BANK: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit, Virginia Guiette, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. U.S. Bank National Association, the Defendant, Case No.: 1:18-cv-00174 (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff move the Court for an order: 1. granting final approval of the terms of a settlement agreement; and 2. granting approval of a cy pres beneficiary. Virginia Guiette and U.S. Bank National Association have reached a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement. Preliminary approval was granted February 13, 2019 and this motion for final approval follows the properly executed notice period. The Hon. Timothy S. Black of the Ohio Southern District Court, for good cause shown, has approved the parties' joint stipulated motion for extension of time for Defendant to file its brief in support of final approval of settlement. Defendant shall file its brief in support of final approval of the settlement by July 12.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-4808 Ext. 2 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Anthony P. Chester, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com tony@westcoastlitigation.com - and - W. Mark Jump, Esq. JUMP LEGAL GROUP 2130 Arlington Avenue Columbus, OH 43221 Telephone: (614) 481-7216 Facsimile: (866) 334-2208 E-mail: wmjump@jumplegal.com UNITED STATES: Homeland Security Sued in Texas Southern District ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against against Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Commissioner, U.S. Customs & Border Protection. The case is captioned as JAIRO ALEXANDER GONZALEZ-RECINOS, through his next friend, Walter Gonzalez Recinos; GERARDO HENRIQUE HERRERA RIVERA, through his next friend, Jose Ayala; KEVIN EDUARDO RIZZO RUANO, through his next friend, Antonio Torres Rizo; JONATHAN FERNANDO BELTRAN RIZO, through his next friend, Antonio Torres Rizo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Commissioner, U.S. Customs & Border Protection; JOHN P SANDERS, Acting Commissioner of Customs & Border Protection; RODOLFO KARISCH, Chief Patrol Agent- Rio Grande Valley Sector; MICHAEL J PITTS, Field Office Director, ICE/ERO, Port Isabel Service Processing Center; and CARLA PROVOST, Chief of the United States Border Patrol, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00095 (S.D. Tex., June 9, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga, Esq. 17891 Landrum Park Rd. San Benito, TX 78586-7197 Telephone: (956) 421-3226 Facsimile: (956) 421-3423 E-mail: lisabrodyaga@aol.com - and - Jaime M Diez, Esq. Jones Crane, Esq. PO Box 3070 Brownsville, TX 78523 Telephone: (956) 544-3565 - and - Manuel E Solis, Esq. PO Box 230529 Houston, TX 77223 Telephone: (713) 844-2700 E-mail: msolis@lawsolis.com - and - Thelma Odilia Garcia, Esq. 301 E Madison St. Harlingen, TX 78550 Telephone: (956) 425-3701 Facsimile: (956) 428-3731 E-mail: lawofctog@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Nancy Lynn Masso, Esq. Office of U S Attorney 600 E Harrison, Ste 201 Brownsville, TX 78520 Telephone: (956) 548-2554 Facsimile: (956) 548-2775 E-mail: nancy.masso@usdoj.gov UNIV. OF CHICAGO: Medical Center Hit With Class Suit Over Data -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Google and the University of Chicago Medical Center are facing a class action lawsuit accusing the hospital of violating federal privacy law by sharing patient health records with Google, which the internet giant allegedly used to create its own electronic health record management system. On June 26, 2019, attorneys from the firm of Edelson P.C. filed a complaint in Chicago federal court on behalf of named plaintiff Matt Dinerstein. The lawsuit alleges Google "pulled off what is likely the greatest heist of consumer medical records in history." Saying personal information such as credit card and Social Security numbers is "run-of-the-mill" data, the lawsuit said "the personal medical information obtained by Google is the most sensitive and intimate information in an individual's life, and its unauthorized disclosure is far more damaging to an individual's privacy." According to the complaint, Google in 2017 enacted a plan to obtain electronic health records from nearly every UC Medical Center patient from 2009 to 2016 and then "file a patent for its own proprietary and commercial EHR system that wouldn't be published until well after it had obtained hundreds of thousands of EHRs from the University." Dinerstein's complaint said the university's patient admission forms promise to not disclose records to third parties for commercial purposes, and further alleged Google and UC falsely claimed the records didn't contain individual patient information because they "included detailed datestamps and copious free-text notes," and using detailed geolocation information "Google — as one of the most prolific data mining companies — is uniquely able to determine the identity of almost every medical record the University released." The complaint said Google used a direct subsidiary called DeepMind to analyze medical records and create commercial products, using its artificial intelligence machine learning to make connections between hospital records and Google user data. It also said most "hospitals, researchers and health care providers alike" rebuffed Google's efforts, until it got UC to agree to provide records that should've been protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Dinerstein said he spent parts of eight days at the UC Medical Center in June 2015, generating "numerous pages of health records." He said he used his smartphone during the stay, including Google software and accounts, allowing the company to link his unnamed records to his other personal information. He said UC and Google jointly published a January 2018 article in Digital Medicine, at nature.com, describing the research and methodology while acknowledging the contents of the records. "Only months after the transfer was complete did it become public that the datestamps, along with free-text notes data, were only provided by the University, and not by any other hospital working with Google," Dinerstein said. "That's not simply a coincidence or a failure to persuade on the part of Google. Rather, the reason no other hospital, including the other health care providers partnering with Google, provided this type of information is because it would be a prima facie violation of HIPAA to share or even receive medical records in this form." Formal complaints include a violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and breach of express or implied contract against UC, tortious interference with contract and unjust enrichment against Google and intrusion upon seclusion against both. Dinerstein said the class would include "hundreds of thousands of individuals." In addition to damages, class certification and a jury trial, Dinerstein seeks an injunction forcing UC to comply with HIPAA regulations, a court order barring it from disclosing records without patient consent and another order prohibiting Google from using and forcing it to delete records it obtained from the school. [GN] US ENRICHMENT: Sued Over Piketon School Radioactive Contamination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tony e. Rutherford, writing for Huntington News, reports that a class action federal complaint has been filed in connection with radioactive contamination at Zahn's Corner Middle School which was suddenly closed May 13, 2019. Winds have carried the radioactive materials and other metals throughout the area in such concentrations that radioactive materials and metals can be found deposited in soils and buildings in and around Piketon, Ohio. Environmental evidence gathered thus far indicates that property and persons near the Portsmouth Site have been and continue to be exposed to toxic and radioactive substances and are negatively impacted by toxic and radioactive releases from the Portsmouth Site, the complaint alleges. The class includes residents on neighboring properties up to a seven mile radius from the former Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The proposed class exceeds 100 individuals and the amount of damages exceed $5,000,000. Although Stuart E. Scott and Kevin C. Hulick of the Cleveland firm Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP are lead attorneys, Huntington's Mark Underwood and the Jason Leasure of Vital & Vital are on the complaint as well as the Thompson Barney firm in Charleston, WV. Vina Colley, a co-founder of National Nuclear Workers for Justice and Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security and a former worker for the plant, said, "We are happy to see the community has sought justice, however, the damage to the kids can never be reversed." Colley supports the lawsuit and hints that more could follow. She told the Columbus Dispatch, the demolition and clean up of the plant has awakened new contamination. Colley and others have, for decades, testified concerning radiation leaving the perimeter, but officials have persistently denied the allegations. "I don't want that stuff in the air," she said. "We've suffered enough." The case is captioned McGlone, et.al. v. United States Enrichment Corp., et. al. [GN] VERIZON WIRELESS: Langere Appeals C.D. Cal. Decision to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Damian Langere filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Damian Langere v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00191-DDP-AJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises from an alleged massive fraud perpetrated by the Defendant in connection with its selling and marketing of its extended warranty program for mobile phones, specifically by, failure to disclose to consumers that the phone manufacturer's express warranty runs concurrently with the extended warranty for the first year of coverage, and provides no additional benefits during that time. The appellate case is captioned as Damian Langere v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, Case No. 19-55747, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by July 29, 2019; -- Transcript is due on August 26, 2019; -- Appellant Damian Langere's opening brief is due on October 7, 2019; -- Appellee Verizon Wireless Services, LLC's answering brief is due on November 7, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DAMIAN LANGERE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Jordan Sander Esensten, Esq. ESENSTEN LAW 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 273-3090 Facsimile: (310) 207-5969 E-mail: jesensten@esenstenlaw.com - and - Robert Lawrence Esensten, Esq. WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN, LLP 5567 Reseda Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91357-7033 Telephone: (818) 609-2384 E-mail: resensten@wccelaw.com Defendant-Appellee VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES, LLC, is represented by: Marcos D. Sasso, Esq. Julia B. Strickland, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 2029 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-5800 E-mail: msasso@stroock.com jstrickland@stroock.com VITALITE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Restigouche Negligence --------------------------------------------------------------- Colin McPhail, writing for CBC News, reports that a new class-action lawsuit on behalf of patients at the Restigouche Hospital Centre is seeking $500 million in damages for alleged "historic negligence" at the Campbellton psychiatric facility dating back to the 1950s. Koskie Minsky LLP, a Toronto-based firm, filed a statement of claim in Saint John Court of Queen's Bench on May 24. It named the New Brunswick government and Vitalite Health Network as defendants. The 28-page statement of claim alleges the defendants were "negligent" in the operation of the facility and supervision of its residents for decades. It also alleges the defendants violated section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects people with a mental disability, among other groups, from discrimination. The class action has yet to be certified by the court, and a certification motion date has not been set. The court document says the defendants have 20 days to file a statement of defence. Treatment of patients at the provincial psychiatric hospital was thrust into the spotlight in February when New Brunswick ombud Charles Murray released a scathing report that revealed patients had been victims of "mistreatment and inadequate care." Murray said in one case, he believed gaps in care -- stemming from chronic understaffing -- "may have resulted in the premature death of a patient" last year. The statement of claim names Darrell Tidd and Reid Smith as plaintiffs. The fathers will be the litigation guardians for their sons, Devan Tidd and Aaron Smith, who are both patients at the hospital. The two fathers voiced concern for their sons' care to CBC News in the wake of the report. They said in February they're troubled by what they believe is an understaffed centre that over-medicates patients. "It's on my mind every day, from the time I wake up to the time I go to sleep," Tidd said. The statement of claim describes the alleged of treatment of their sons. "Both Devan and Aaron were repeatedly and continuously physically abused and punished by being physically restrained without justification," the document states. "Both Devan and Aaron were repeatedly prescribed medications they did not need, which had the effect of restraining or sedating them." The claim also alleges the two witnessed staff assaulting residents, were put in seclusion without cause and threatened by other residents only to have their concerns dismissed by staff. 'There are systemic problems' James Sayce, a lawyer at Koskie Minsky, said the firm hopes to represent all past and present residents -- who were alive as of May 24, 2017 -- of the institution, dating back to Jan. 1, 1954. "There are systemic problems with the way this place is run," Sayce said on May 28 in an interview from Toronto. "It's not run at the standard a mental hospital, a psychiatric facility, should be run. It never has been from the looks of things." Koskie Minsky has a history of taking governments to court on behalf of vulnerable people, Sayce said, noting the firm's work in prosecuting governments over Indian residential schools. "Our specialty at our firm is suing governments for historical abuse," Sayce said. "These people are some of the most vulnerable people in Canada and most of them, if not all of them, would have a very difficult time bringing this case on their own." Past reports key to lawsuit The claim is based on the stories of the plaintiffs as well as a series of reports criticizing the administration of the hospital. In addition to Murray's report, the lawsuit highlights a 1968 public report commissioned by the province that detailed some "repeated" civil rights violations, appalling care of youth residents and a mixture of overcrowding, understaffing and lack of training. Another eight reports, published between 1956 and 2010, were cited to paint a picture of mismanagement, understaffing and abuse. Some of the reports were internal documents or annual reports and complaints to the ombud. Sayce declined to say how his firm became aware of the Restigouche Hospital Centre and how it reached the $500-million figure. The damages suffered by residents listed in the statement of claim include: emotional, physical, sexual and psychological abuse; exacerbation of mental disability; impaired ability to find and keep employment; lost income; and the loss of the general enjoyment of life. Politicians respond Premier Blaine Higgs said at the legislature on May 28 he had to first read the details of the action before commenting, but he did say, "It's disappointing to hear." George Weber, an independent mental health expert hired by the province to review the hospital after the report was released, recommended keeping the centre open but speeding up changes to improve safety and treatment. "Our goal was that we were putting measures in place to protect the residents here, and we put a lot of effort into doing that," said Higgs. "I know Vitalite had spent a lot of extra time and effort to make it happen." Vitalite Health Network disputed some of Muray's findings, describing them as outdated. CEO Gilles Lanteigne said at the time steps were already taken to improve the culture in the centre, and he maintained patients are safe. Green Party Leader David Coon said on May 28 he's still waiting to see the province act on the recommendations in Murray's report. He said he wasn't surprised to hear of the lawsuit. Coon maintained his stance that the troubled youth annex, slated to open next to Restigouche Hospital Centre, should be moved to southern New Brunswick where there's adequate staff. Youth annex uncertainty A pair of Liberal MLAs said the class-action suit will be dealt with through the justice system, but both Jean-Claude D'Amours and Gilles Lepage said the youth annex must open. Murray recommended cancelling the near-complete youth mental health project. The province halted construction inside in March, though work on the exterior was allowed to continue. Higgs said on May 28 the government is still considering the issue. Fearing job losses, northern New Brunswick officials have been fighting to keep the youth annex, and the main centre, in Campbellton "We need to make sure that the youth centre opens as soon as possible," D'Amours said at the legislature, saying the governing Tories need to confirm it will open. "We need to offer the service that youth need, and, at this point, we know Vitalite, the ombud, the independent [review] has been done. I think we are confident the future will be brighter for the centre." Known as the Provincial Hospital until 2015, the 140-bed Restigouche Hospital Centre housed thousands of youth and adults since it opened in 1954, the statement of claim said. It was established to be the province's lead centre for inpatient mental health services, including for patients with neurocognitive disorders, autism spectrum disorders and psychotic disorders. The goal is to reintegrate patients back into their communities when that's possible. With files from Shaun Waters and Karissa Donkin [GN] VOLKSWAGEN AG: Quebec Court Authorizes Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Faguy & Co. disclosed that on May 28, 2018, The Honourable Justice Chantal Chatelain of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec authorized the bringing of a securities class action against Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft ("VW AG") in Court File No. 500-06-000838-173. The allegations made in the class action have not been proven and are contested by VW AG. The Quebec class action is brought on behalf of all residents of Quebec who acquired VW AG's securities between March 12, 2009 and September 18, 2015 (the "Class Period") and held all or some of those acquired VW AG securities until after September 18, 2015. You are a member of the Quebec class action if you meet this description. The Quebec class action asserts that VW AG made materially false or misleading statements or omitted to disclose important information in its disclosure documents released during the Class Period (the "Impugned Documents") and in the conduct of its business affairs. The Impugned Documents include annual reports, interim unaudited and annual audited financial statements, and VW AG's code of conduct, all issued during the Class Period. Details of the authorization of the Quebec class action, including the process for Class Members to opt out of the Quebec class action, are available by consulting the link below. Please note that Class Members may also be members of a U.S. settlement class for VW AG's American Depositary Receipts, or may have instituted another legal action against VW AG on the same subject matter as the Quebec class action. Class counsel should be contacted to learn more about the impact of these scenarios on the opt-out and other legal rights in the Quebec class action. The judgements of the Quebec Court and other information in both English and French are available on class counsel's website at http://faguyco.com/portfolio/volkswagen-class-action/as well as on the Registre des actions collectives at https://www.registredesactionscollectives.quebec/ For any inquiries, please contact class counsel representing Class Members: Shawn Faguy Faguy & Co. 329 de la Commune West, Suite 200 Montreal, PQ H2Y 2E1 Tel: 514.285.8100 x224 Fax: 514.285.8050 Email: skf@faguyco.com [GN] WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Woodall, et al. Seek to Certify 4 Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit KATRINA WOODALL, et. al., on behalf of herself and all similarly situated female inmates of the Wayne County Jail, the Plaintiffs, vs. COUNTY OF WAYNE; et. al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-13707-AJT-EAS (E.D. Mich.), , the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an Order certifying these classes: CLASS NO. 1 "all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated by the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County Jail Divisions from the period of November 14, 2014 until the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who, without a legitimate penological interest, were forcibly exposed in the nude to members of the opposite sex while being strip searched pursuant to the Wayne County Sheriff's policies, practices, and/or customs, and who allege they have suffered a compensable injury as a result of the search"; CLASS NO. 2 "all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated by the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County Jail Divisions from the period of November 14, 2014, until the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who, without a legitimate penological interest, were stripped searched in a group with other inmates, and which searches did not afford privacy from others, pursuant to the Wayne County Sheriff's policies, practices, and/or customs, and who allege they have suffered a compensable injury as a result of the search"; CLASS NO. 3 "all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated by the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County Jail Divisions from the period of November 14, 2014, until the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who, without a legitimate penological interest, were stripped searched under unsanitary and/or unhygienic conditions, including being exposed to the bodily fluids of other inmates who were being strip searched, pursuant to the Wayne County Sheriff's policies, practices, and/or customs, and who allege they have suffered a compensable injury as a result of the search"; and CLASS NO. 4 "(4) all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated by the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County Jail Divisions from the period of November 14, 2014 until the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who, without a legitimate penological interest, were subject to derogatory gender-based comments by Defendant Graham during strip searches, and who allege they have suffered a compensable injury as a result of the search". The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting them to unreasonable strip searches while housed at the Wayne County Jail. During these unconstitutional strip searches, the Plaintiffs, and dozens (in fact hundreds) of similarly situated female inmates, were forcibly exposed in the nude to male officers and staff who would stand around watching the naked women while laughing, mocking them, and commenting on their naked bodies. The Plaintiffs seek monetary relief (Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were dismissed by this Court in its Opinion dated March 26, 2019 based on the fact that the instant Plaintiffs were not incarcerated at the time of filing their instant action) . In addition, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages against the individual Defendants including Officer Graham. Graham was the main culprit who would routinely strip search female inmates, en masse, in the registry room while she would make sexually exploitive, unprofessional, and degrading comments to the women about their bodies, comment on their breast sizes, and inquire of their sexual orientation all without any legitimate penological interest, the lawsuit says.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Dennis A. Dettmer, Esq. Michael R. Dezsi, Esq. DETTMER & DEZSI, PLLC 615 Griswold St, Suite 1410 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 281-8090 E-mail: ddettmeresq@yahoo.com mdezsi@dezsilaw.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: James W. Heath, Esq. Paul T. O'Neill, Esq. Davidde A. Stella, Esq. 500 Griswold Street, 30 th Floor Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 224-5030 E-mail: poneill@waynecounty.com dstella@waynecounty.com WEST SAINT JOHN: Class Action Over Water System Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------- Connell Smith, writing for CBC News, reports that a court in Saint John has given the go-ahead to a class-action lawsuit launched over changes to the city's west side water system. The suit springs from a 2017 move by the city to change the water system's source from the Spruce Lake Reservoir to a collection of drilled wells in the South Bay area. Shortly after the change, residents began to complain of leaking pipes, water damage and failed water heaters. "It sounds dramatic, but it will affect the rest of my life," west Saint John resident Frances Brownell said on May 28. She and fellow west sider Cheryl Steadman are the two plaintiffs whose names are on the lawsuit. Earlier on May 28, lawyers for the plaintiffs and the city said they had agreed to the terms for the certification, and Justice Deborah Hackett of the Court of Queen's Bench formally announced the class action can proceed. Brownell, a senior, said her problems began with the discovery of water on the floor of her laundry room. A plumber revealed the leaking water pipe had also extensively damaged a downstairs bedroom. The repairs were made, but new leaks developed and Brownell ended up having her drywall removed in many parts of her home to replace the water pipes entirely. "As the issues came up, I couldn't deal with them, I had no recourse but to say I can't cover this," she said. Brownell said she had to dip into her pension to pay for the plumber, carpenter and electrician. She estimated the repairs cost her $10,000 to $12,000. The statement of claim alleges, among other things, that the city was negligent when it changed the water supply and exposed property owners' pipes to "a distinct chemistry, which de-scaled those water distribution pipes and caused the water distribution pipes to be damaged and/or fail." The lawsuit seeks financial compensation for repairs to pipes, damage to homes and appliances, loss of property value, and mental and emotional damage. Saint John mayor faces angry crowd at west side water meeting Glenn Zakaib, one of the lawyers for the defence, said the municipality's agreement on the terms of certification should not be interpreted as meaning the city does not intend to defend against the suit. None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been proven in court. Both sides plan to apply for a summary judgment by Hackett, meaning the case would either be won or lost without a trial at a court hearing scheduled for May 12, 2020. Should those motions fail, it could be 2021 or even later before a trial gets underway. [GN] WESTAMERICA BANK: Cook Sues over Robocalls ------------------------------------------ A class action complaint has been filed against Westamerica Bank for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned SHERON COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WESTAMERICA BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-03594 (N.D. Cal., June 20, 2019). Cook alleges that Westamerica Bank has been engaged in practice of placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent, in violation of the TCPA. Accordingly, Plaintiff Cook brings this complaint to stop the Defendant's practice; enjoin Defendant from continuing to place calls using an ATDS to consumers who did not provide their prior express written consent to receive them; and obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. Westamerica Bank is a corporation organized under the laws of California with a principal place of business at 1108 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, California. It is a regional community bank with over 80 branches and two trust offices in 21 Northern and Central California counties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Dr. Ste. 220 Miami, FL 33133-5402 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com WRIGHT OF PENNSYLVANIA: Shook Seeks OT Pay for Traffic Technicians ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRYAN ALLEN SHOOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, 167 Presock Road Greensboro, PA 15338, the Plaintiff, v. WRIGHT OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, 1200 Sharon Road, Suite 1 Beaver, PA 15009; and W.D. WRIGHT CONTRACTING, INC. 1200 Sharon Road, Suite 1 Beaver, PA 15009, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00726-DSC (W.D. Pa., June 18, 2019), contends that Defendants have unlawfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals employed in the positions of Traffic Control Technician/Flagger and/or Traffic Control Field Supervisor, overtime compensation pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff is a current employee of Defendants who is employed in the position of Traffic Control Technician/Flagger. During the course of their employment, Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but were not properly compensated for their work in that Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime premium at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. In this regard, the Plaintiff contends that Defendants unlawfully failed to pay him and Class Plaintiffs overtime compensation for certain compensable pre- and post-shift work as well as certain compensable travel time in violation of the FLSA and PMWA, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Rachel Rebecca Stevens, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-273-1054 Facsimile: 215-525-021 E-mail: rstevens@phillyemploymentlawyer.com ZUMIEZ INC: Chu Says Website Not Accessible for Disabled People --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint has been filed against Zumiez, Inc. for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA). The case is captioned KYO HAK CHU, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ZUMIEZ, INC., a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03511-JSW (N.D. Cal., June 19, 2019). Plaintiff Kyo Hak Chu seeks redress against Zumiez, Inc. for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Zumiez's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiffs' rights under the ADA and California's UCRA. Headquartered in Washington, Zumiez, Inc operates stores that provide to the public important goods and services. Its website provides consumers with access to women, men and boys apparel including tees, hoodies, sweatshirts, shorts, jeans, pants, jackets, button ups, jerseys, tank tops, joggers, board shorts, footwear including snowboard boots, slip-ons, high tops, sandals, slides; outerwear including windbreakers, anoraks, tech fleece and snowboard jackets; accessories including face masks, long underwear, mitts, helmets, skate pads, gloves, fanny packs, sunglasses, goggles, belts, backpacks, bags, beanies, visors, hats, watches, necklaces, bracelets, rings, earrings, socks, snowboard bindings; sporting equipment including roller skates, snowboards, skateboards and other products 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 [*] India Notifies Thresholds for Filing Class Action Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Ashima Obhan, Esq., and Vrinda Patodia, Esq., of Obhan & Associates, in an article for Mondaq, report that in January 2009, India witnessed one of its biggest corporate scandals -- the 'Satyam scandal' also referred to as 'India's Enron'. Satyam Computers Services Limited ("SCSL") was under the microscope for fraudulent activity and misrepresentation of its accounts to its board, stock exchanges, regulators, investors and all other stakeholders. Thereafter, shareholders of SCSL, approximately 300,000 were unsuccessful in claiming damages worth millions due to the absence of the provision for filing a class action suit under the Companies Act, 1956. American investors on the other hand were able to claim their part of damages in the US courts through a class action suit against SCSL. The concept of class action was first introduced in the US in the year 1938. 'Class Action', which is also known as 'Representative Action', is actually a form of lawsuit where a large group of people collectively brings a claim to the court through a representative. A class action suit is filed generally when a number of people have suffered the same or similar injuries. Often many of the individuals' injuries are relatively minor, such that they might not pursue legal redress on their own. Together, however, the value of the claims of the class add up, and claiming as a class helps consolidate the attorneys, evidence, witnesses, and most other aspects of the litigation. Post the Satyam scandal, the Indian Parliament drafted the Companies Bill, 2009 and introduced provisions enabling affected shareholders to file a 'Class Action Suit'. Section 245 and 246 of the Companies Act, 2013 Act ("Act") specifically deals with the class action suits. These provisions permit members and depositors (both terms are as defined under the Act) to approach the National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT") if they believe that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the company and its shareholders. Section 245 of the Act provides that a certain number of members or depositors are entitled to bring an action before the NCLT if they are of the opinion that the management or conduct of the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company or its members or depositors. Section 245 contains ten different sub clauses and provides the procedure as well as the reliefs which can be sought. Sub-Section 3 of Section 245 of the Act as illustrated below sets forth the number of members/depositors required to file a class action suit. * Required Number of Members For companies having a share capital–minimum 100 members or a prescribed percentage of total members whichever is less, or a member(s) holding a prescribed percentage of the shareholding in the company. For a company without share capital -- not less than 1/5th of the total number of its members. * Required Number of Depositors Minimum 100 depositors or a prescribed percentage of the total depositors, whichever is less or a depositor(s) to which the company owes such percentage of the total deposits as prescribed. Until recently, this prescribed numbers of members or depositors required to file a class action suit had not been notified by the government. The government has on May 8, 2019 amended the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 and notified the threshold limits for filing such class action suits under Section 245 of the Act. The notified threshold limits are: Members (In case of a company having a share capital) No. of Required Members/ Depositors Whichever is less. - 100 Depositors - 100 Percentage of total Members/ Depositors - 5% Percentage of shareholding/deposits owed In the event of a listed company - 2% In the event of an unlisted company - 5% Notification of the thresholds permits shareholders to file class action lawsuits against companies allowing minority shareholders and investors to seek remedies such as restraining the company from committing acts which either violate or which are ultra vires of its charter documents; restraining companies from committing acts contrary to the Act; claiming damages or other appropriate action from directors, auditors, external advisors or any other person who made incorrect statements or who engaged in suppression of material facts or fraudulent conduct etc. This redressal mechanism protects small and minority shareholders and provides them with a powerful tool to keep companies in check. It may even result in companies and their external auditors, advisors and consultants being more diligent and careful in their activities. [GN] [*] Ontario Law Aims to Help Province in Opioid Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Ontario's mental health and addictions system is disconnected with uneven access to quality services, making it challenging for patients and families to navigate a confusing system and get the services they need. That's why Ontario's Government for the People is protecting what matters most by taking action to improve quality mental health and addictions services and recover health care costs due to the opioid crisis. On May 27, Ontario was set to introduce the Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act. If passed, this act would establish a Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence within Ontario Health and support the province's participation in the national class action lawsuit British Columbia launched last year against more than 40 opioid manufacturers and wholesalers. "In response to longstanding calls for stronger provincial leadership, our government is taking a system-wide approach to building a connected mental health and addictions system," said Christine Elliott, Deputy Premier and Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. "The proposed Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence would ensure Ontario patients and families are able to access integrated, standardized, evidence-based care and services no matter where they live. The new centre would lay the foundation as we develop and implement a comprehensive mental health care strategy." Creating the centre follows recommendations made in 2010 by the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, co-chaired by Elliott and established through a motion she presented. Within Ontario Health, the proposed Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence would: Establish a central point of accountability and oversight for mental health and addictions care. Be responsible for standardizing and monitoring the quality and delivery of services and clinical care across the province, to provide a better and more consistent patient experience. Provide support and resources to Ontario Health Teams, which is a new model to integrate care and funding, connect patients to the different types of care they need and help them navigate the system. To respect taxpayers, the Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act would, if passed, support Ontario's participation in the national class action lawsuit British Columbia launched last year against more than 40 opioid manufacturers and wholesalers. The lawsuit was launched on behalf of all provincial, territorial and federal governments and aims to recover government health care costs incurred due to opioid-related disease, injury or illness. Our government intends to invest any award from this litigation directly into frontline mental health and addiction services. "The opioid crisis has cost the people of Ontario enormously, both in terms of lives lost and its impact on health care's front lines," said Attorney General Caroline Mulroney. "If passed, this proposed legislation would support us taking further action to battle the ongoing opioid crisis and hold manufacturers and wholesalers accountable for their roles in it." Together, the government's actions will protect what matters most, respect taxpayers and lay the strong foundation as the province develops and implements a comprehensive and connected mental health and addictions strategy. Quick Facts The government has held 19 consultations across the province with mental health and addictions community organizations, frontline service providers, hospitals, advocates, experts and people with lived experience. Establishing a Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence is part of the government's plan to modernize our public health care system, which relentlessly focuses on patient experience and better connected care, to reduce wait times and end hallway health care. It is a major step toward integrating mental health and addictions care into all parts of the health care system. This year, the government is investing an additional $174 million to support desperately needed mental health and addictions services on the ground, in schools, communities and health centres across the province. This is part of Ontario's commitment to invest $3.8 billion over 10 years to develop and implement a comprehensive and connected mental health and addictions strategy. [GN] [*] Plaintiffs Attorneys Diverge on Sexual Abuse Procedure Option ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that lawsuits brought on behalf of victims of widespread sexual abuse on college campuses have flooded the courts seeking to hold various universities across the country accountable, with some reaching settlements in the hundreds of millions of dollars. But plaintiffs attorneys don't agree on exactly how to get there. Should victims of sexual abuse file their own suits? Or bring a class action? It's not just a procedural option. When it comes to pursing justice for sexual abuse victims, plaintiffs attorneys have strong opinions on both sides. "I've never filed class actions in sexual abuse cases," said John Manly, of Manly Stewart & Finaldi in Irvine, California. He engineered a $500 million settlement with Michigan State University and has several lawsuits against the University of Southern California, both involving sexual abuse scandals. "If you represent survivors, and you understand the law, and care about survivors, you don't file class cases like this. The only ones who benefit are the class lawyers and the institutions." Not so, say class action lawyers. "Through a class action, the many men we represent directly can stand up for the hundreds of others in a representative capacity," Rex A. Sharp, an attorney who has filed a class action against Ohio State University on behalf of hundreds of victims of former sports doctor Richard Strauss, wrote in an email. "In addition, a class action allows the survivors to speak as a group, even for those who wish to remain in the background." The debate in the plaintiffs' bar swirls as several universities, amid the growing #MeToo movement, have come under fire for rampant sexual abuse involving hundreds, sometimes thousands, of students and athletes. Many involve a former staff doctor whose abuse stretched over decades. In 2014, Johns Hopkins University agreed to pay $190 million to settle claims tied to former gynecologist Nikita Levy, accused of secretly taking photographs of his patients' genitals. Then, last year, Michigan State University agreed to pay $500 million to resolve sexual abuse claims involving former sports doctor Larry Nassar, a physician for USA Gymnastics. Last year, the University of Southern California agreed to a $240 million settlement involving its former gynecologist, George Tyndall. In May, two more universities, Ohio State University and The Rockefeller University, released reports following internal investigations about former staff doctors accused of sexual abuse over decades. OSU's report, compiled by outside counsel Perkins Coie, found that Strauss, who students sometimes called "Dr. Jelly Paws," had sexually abused at least 177 male athletes over two decades, often conducting lengthy and detailed examinations of their genitalia purportedly to test for hernia. And, on May 23, Rockefeller's report, compiled by Debevoise & Plimpton, found that Reginald Archibald, who treated children with growth problems at the university's hospital, masturbated in front of patients and fondled hundreds of kids from the 1940s to the early 1980s. Strauss and Archibald have since died, and victims have filed lawsuits against both institutions. The question for lawyers representing those victims isn't whether to sue -- but how to sue. Class Actions: 'More People Coming Forward' Historically, lawsuits alleging sexual abuse have been brought on behalf of single plaintiffs. But, in the past few years, lawyers specializing in class actions have found opportunities to bring cases on behalf of large sets of victims entitled to compensation. Johns Hopkins, for instance, agreed to settle a class action that compensated 9,000 victims. USC's settlement also comes in a class action, and OSU and Rockefeller face class actions tied to their sexual abuse scandals. Supporters say class actions provide compensation to everyone, not just those willing to tell their story in court and hire a lawyer. "You can try certain issues as a class so that women don't have to keep coming into court and re-proving the modus operandi and how long this took place, and who knew what and when from the USC side," said Steve Berman, of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, co-lead counsel in the class action settlement with USC. "Plus, if a class is certified and you send notice out to all the people who this doctor saw, it's more likely to generate inclusion and more people coming forward than if they just rely on individual cases . . . because there are some women who just won't come forward." In the Johns Hopkins and USC settlements, lawyers have carved out various compensation amounts based on the level of injury to the victim. USC, for instance, has agreed to pay between $2,500 and $250,000 per victim, depending on what happened to her. They have recommended appointing retired Judge Irma Raker, of the Maryland Court of Appeals, the special master in the Johns Hopkins case who, in an unusual move, provided a video to class members explaining how she would administer individual claims ranging from $1,877 to $27,935. Class actions require judicial review, as well. In the USC case, for instance, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson of the Central District of California refused to grant preliminary approval of the settlement, citing several Dec. 1 amendments to the Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure, which governs class actions. Lawyers revised the settlement in May, estimating 15,000 potential claimants. David Higgins, of Los Angeles-based Higgins Settlement Law, the trustee in the Johns Hopkins settlement, said class actions tend to have fewer costs because distributions come out of one case, rather than several. But class actions also reach people who might not have a claim strong enough to pursue in court. "That group of people gets a minimum payment, maybe $5,000 each," he said. "And those claimants would never make it through the front door to a lawyer doing individual cases." Class actions also provide more anonymity, supporters say. Higgins said he sent funded checkbooks to class members in the Johns Hopkins settlement, rather than a check, which would have identified why they were getting the money. In the USC settlement, the special master would decide how much each class member would get by evaluating claim forms or, in the most extreme cases, bringing in a "team of experts," including a forensic psychologist, to hear a victim's story, should she want to tell it. Sharp, of Sharp Law in Prairie Village, Kansas, said a class action was better for victims in the OSU case who are men unlikely to come forward on their own. "Sexual abuse is one of the least reported crimes and civil wrongs, and even worse among men than women," he wrote in his email. "We knew that many men would not come forward. The many men that we represent have told us that they know many others who have not." Individual Cases: 'Strongest Legal Weapon' But lawyers who have specialized in sexual abuse cases for years insist that class actions aren't appropriate. There is little commonality that would provide class certification because the alleged injuries, and thus damages, differ as to each individual, as does the liability against the institution and individual defendants who knew about the abuse. "It really does a disservice to the abuse victims who are not numbers, but individuals, who have suffered some of the most horrific things a child could suffer," said Michael Pfau, a partner at Seattle's Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala, who represents 200 sexual abuse victims planning to sue Rockefeller. "It's important to take back the control they lost and be treated like individuals, not like numbers. And, in a class action, you are treated like a number." Lawyers also oppose class actions because they provide far fewer dollars to sexual abuse victims than do individual cases. In the MSU case, for instance, individual payouts averaged $1.3 million—a fact noted by Manly, who plans to recommend that his clients who have sexual abuse claims against USC opt out of its class action settlement. The maximum payout to an individual class member in the USC settlement would be $250,000, but most would get far less. "$250,000 doesn't pay for the therapy you'll need over your lifetime," he said. Sexual abuse victims also are not like class members looking for reimbursement over a mislabeled product. There are sensitivities involved. "Sometimes, the institutional betrayal piece is even more damaging than the abuse itself because of a loss of trust of people who are supposed to look out for you," said Adele Kimmel, senior attorney at Public Justice, who filed a case against OSU on behalf of 39 plaintiffs. "They find it harder to trust people in the future. Lawyers who represent sexual assault survivors really have to be extremely sensitive to do the best they can in the process of representing, so they're not re-traumatizing them." And many states are passing new laws that would eviscerate a major defense for universities by extending or changing the statute of limitations on sexual abuse claims. OSU, for instance, has brought motions to dismiss both Public Justice's case and a separate class action as time-barred, but the May report prompted Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine to call for a legislative overhaul of the state's statutes of limitation. Pfau said he plans to file individual sexual abuse lawsuits against Rockefeller in August, when a new statute of limitations law in New York becomes effective. What's most important, Pfau said, is that sexual abuses victims want to be heard. And class actions, he said, take away that opportunity. "The abuse victim has the right to a jury trial," he said. "When they become unwittingly part of a class, they literally lose their strongest legal weapon and right." Not all lawyers squabble over the procedural differences. Sharp, in the OSU class action, said there is room for both kinds of cases. U.S. District Judge Michael Watson of the Southern District of Ohio has consolidated his class action with Public Justice's case, along with another lawsuit brought in May on behalf of five plaintiffs, for the sole purpose of focusing on mediation talks on June 15. "All roads lead to Rome," said Ilann Maazel, of New York's Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, another lawyer in the Public Justice case. "The goal is to hold the university accountable and have multiple cases seeking this very important goal." [GN] [*] SCOTUS Limits on Class Actions Favorable for Businesses ----------------------------------------------------------- Steven Pearlman, writing for Forbes, reports that businesses around the country have been expending exceptional sums defending against and settling sprawling employment-based class and collective actions. These cases run the gamut from claims of gender and race discrimination in pay and promotion decisions to myriad types of wage-and-hour claims -- some of which involve hypertechnical issues -- to claims of compliance failures with respect to statutes such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act. And funds paid to settlement class members, class representatives and plaintiffs' lawyers can impact the bottom line. Will the U.S. Supreme Court's recent rulings on arbitration agreements, coupled with a landmark ruling from 2011, stem the tide? In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that a class action is "an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only." Califano v. Yamasaki. The Court reiterated that pronouncement in 2011 in Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, where it torpedoed a nationwide gender discrimination class action brought on behalf of approximately 1.5 million female employees. In 2018, the Court issued another game-changer against class action plaintiffs in Epic Systems v. Lewis, where it upheld the effectiveness of arbitration agreements containing class action waivers. And in April of this year, the Court went even further in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, ruling that courts cannot compel class-wide arbitration in the absence of such a requirement in an applicable contractual agreement. Peeling back a layer of the onion, these decisions may very well expose the Court's recognition that the proliferation of class and collective actions should be controlled and limited, as such devices are not always appropriate due to differences between putative class members, and because they may have lopsided and even annihilating effects on businesses. With that context in mind, the following summarizes these three rulings. Walmart Dukes was a 5-4 ruling preventing the certification of a proposed class of a breathtaking ~1.5 million women alleging gender discrimination. (Justice Scalia delivered the opinion.) Approximately 3,400 stores were at issue, with 41 regions and between 40 and 53 separate departments per store and 80 to 500 staff positions. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish "commonality" (under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2)), and that their claims for backpay could not be certified for class treatment either (under Rule 23(b)(2)). This decision reversed a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed class treatment for females who are employed at Walmart stores around the nation. The Court focused on whether the plaintiffs demonstrated a common policy of gender discrimination. The plaintiffs alleged there was a common corporate culture that included sexual stereotypes, and a company policy that gave local managers discretion in making employment decisions. With respect to the latter, local store managers could increase the wages of hourly employees (within limits) with only limited corporate oversight. And as for salaried employees, such as store managers and their deputies, higher corporate authorities have discretion to set their pay within pre-established ranges. The Court concluded it would be impossible to say that a review of all of the class members claims' for relief would produce a common answer or resolution. The Court further concluded that the policy of allowing discretion by local supervisors was not sufficient evidence to raise an inference of discrimination. Notably, the Court said that without some "glue" holding together the alleged reasons for those decisions, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims will produce a common answer to the crucial discrimination question. The Court also rejected plaintiffs' experts' opinions, and was not persuaded by plaintiffs' anecdotal evidence. The Court also concluded that claims for monetary relief could not be certified under the rule at issue unless the monetary relief is not incidental to the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. And in ruling against the plaintiffs, the Court explained that certification under the rule at issue is unavailable when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages. It appears that rulings to the contrary could have opened up the floodgates to massive class actions where there was a lack of genuine "glue" holding the purported class members together, thus presenting the specter of enormous financial risks to businesses. Epic Systems In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held an employer can require employees to arbitrate disputes individually and waive their right to pursue or participate in class or collective actions. (The opinion was penned by Justice Gorsuch.) The decision resolved multiple cases where employees signed arbitration agreements containing class-action waivers yet sought to pursue wage-and-hour claims as class or collective actions. The Court heavily relied on the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), noting that Congress instructed federal courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including terms providing for individualized proceedings. The Court also rejected an argument that class action waivers violate employees' rights to act collectively, noting that the National Labor Relations Act does not mention class or collective action procedures, nor does it express approval or disapproval of arbitration. The Court did, however, acknowledge an exception to the FAA permitting arbitration agreements to be invalidated upon grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. Plaintiffs' attorneys can be expected to rely on arguments that such agreements are, for example, unconscionable. Lamps Plus In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the FAA precludes courts from compelling class arbitration when agreement is ambiguous as to the availability of such arbitration. (Chief Justice Roberts wrote the decision.) According to the Court, the FAA requires an affirmative contractual basis to compel class arbitration, and a state law contract principle could not be applied if it is inconsistent with FAA principles. In this case, the plaintiff's employment agreement contained an arbitration provision that made no mention of class proceedings, and the employer moved to compel arbitration on an individual basis. The Ninth Circuit ruled that an ambiguity in the parties' arbitration agreement as to class arbitration should be construed against the drafter (here, the employer). But the Supreme Court ruled that the FAA bars courts from inferring consent to participate in class arbitration in the absence of an affirmative contractual basis for concluding the party agreed to do so. The Court reitreated reasoning from a 5-3 decision in 2010, Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., that the FAA bars courts from inferring consent to participate in class arbitration absent an affirmative contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so. (Justice Alito delivered the decision.) The Court also explained that the parties to an arbitration agreement can authorize arbitrators to resolve issues such as whether the parties have a valid arbitration agreement and whether a specific dispute is covered by it. Implications Companies can be expected to continue to capitalize on Epic Systems by expanding their use of arbitration agreements, and, pursuant to Lamps Plus, may avoid the use of terms in arbitration agreements allowing for class arbitration in order to avoid class actions in the arbitration context. By and large, those rulings may very well limit the number of class actions that get filed. That would be a favorable result for employers because, among other reasons, arbitration can avoid the risk of runaway juries. There is a possibility, though, that some plaintiffs' counsel may respond by filing scores of individual arbitrations. That would be a costly reaction, but it has happened in some instances. It should be noted, though, that there's currently a question and debate over whether those rulings have in fact resulted in fewer filings of class and collective actions and more filings of arbitration demands. But Epic Systems wasn't issued all that long ago, so we'll probably need more data to develop definitive answers. And the lack of an increase in arbitration demands in the wake of Epic Systems may not be all that telling given that it's known that single-plaintiff demands in various cases may not generate very enticing recoveries and, again, class arbitration might not be available as a result of Lamps Plus. In short, the hurdles the SCOTUS recently erected to class and collective actions -- both in the context of civil actions and arbitration -- and the shadow it cast over massive proposed class actions in the Wal-Mart case may provide employers with much-needed limits on the potentially enormous risks attendant to class and collective actions. [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 ***