/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190730.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, July 30, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 151
Headlines
180 MARKETPLACE: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
390 BROOME: Faces Connor Suit in Eastern District of New York
3M COMPANY: Bracero-Salvador Sues over Defective CAEv2 Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Brenham Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Correa Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Fletcher Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Lubetski Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Stone Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
ABC CORP: Roman Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Restaurant Staff
AMERICAN ADJUSTMENT: Seeks Prelim. Approval of Smolinski Settlement
AMERICAN SOLAR: $1.25MM O'Shea TCPA Suit Deal Denied w/o Prejudice
AMPLIFY ENERGY: Merger Documents Misleading, Sabatini Says
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York
BBVA COMPASS: Ferguson Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
BP EXPLORATION: Churchman Suit Dismissal w/o Prejudice Recommended
BRENTWOOD VILLAGE: Bid to Substitute Class Rep in Borum Partly OK'd
BUSCEMI, LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind Person, Reid Says
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Appeal Pending in Maine Class Actions
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Trial in Train Derailment Suit to Begin 2020
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Bryan Alleges Violation under FDCPA
CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Galper Asserts Breach of FDCPA
CHART INDUSTRIES: Stainless Steel Cryobiological Tank Suit Ongoing
CHART INDUSTRIES: Suit over Aluminum Cryobiological Tank Ongoing
CHASE ISSUANCE: Petersen et al. Sue over Credit Card Accounts
CONAGRA BRANDS: Negrete Class Action Still Ongoing
CONAGRA BRANDS: Settlement in Briseno Granted Preliminary Approval
CONAGRA BRANDS: West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit Ongoing
CONTROL4 CORP: Manasfi Merger Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
COPPOLA'S OF NEW YORK: Faces Gomes Suit Over Unpaid Wages
COUNTRY CLUB: $1.5MM Gardner FLSA Suit Settlement Has Final OK
CSX CORP: Still Defends Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Dismiss 5th Amended Brown Denied
ELECTROCORE INC: Faces Kuehl Class Action in New Jersey
ELK ENERGY: Lupardus Seeks Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
EXPEDIA GROUP: Faces Teamsters Union Local No. 142 Class Suit
FCA US: Alger Reply in Support of Bid to Certify Class Due Aug. 30
FCA US: Denial of Bid for Attys' Fees/Costs in Perez Suit Endorsed
FEDEX CORP: Faces 2 Securities Class Suits in New York
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Pierre FDCPA Suit Moved to S.D. New York
FLAGSTAR BANK: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Smith Suit
FOODLINER INC: Court Enters Final Judgment in Austin Labor Suit
FORD MOTOR: Travis Stayed for 120 Days Pending Transfer Bid Ruling
GLOBAL CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in Wojcieski Suit
GRACE LIVING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Jordan Suit Says
GROUP HEALTH PLAN: Greenwell Sues Over Denied Coverage for Therapy
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Aker Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
HONEYWELL INT'L: Bendix-Related Asbestos Class Suits Pending
IBEW PACIFIC: Summary Judgment in Lehman ERISA Suit Affirmed
IC SYSTEM: Greenfeld Files FDCPA Suit in New York
IDEANOMICS INC: Miranda Hits Share Price Drop
IKEA INDUSTRY: Court Refuses to Dismiss Count II in Powell Suit
INTERNATIONAL FOODSERVICE: Sullivan Asserts Breach of ADA
JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Certify Class in Beach ERISA Suit Granted
KAZ ENTERPRISES: Atondo Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
KMR AMSTERDAM: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in Montera Suit
LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Dismissal of Amended Ezell w/ Prejudice Upheld
LF SPORTSWEAR: Removes Summa Case to Central Dist. of California
LONGS JEWELERS: Sullivan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
MANDARICH LAW GROUP: Felberbaum Files FDCPA Suit in New York
MAOZ DEVELOPMENT: Samra Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
MATINEE USA: Johnson Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
MCS CLAIM SERVICES: Oved Files FDCPA Suit in New York
MDL 2741: Johnson Estate Suit over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Moodys Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Robbins Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MENARD, INC: Faces Bucholz Suit in Western District of Wisconsin
MONAVIE INC: Pontrelli Discovery Deadlines Extension Denied
MONSANTO COMPANY: Daigle Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hoge Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Laughlins Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Reed Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Walker Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MORDECHAI LIECHTUNG: Yerushalayim Suit Moved to E.D. New York
MOSANTO COMPANY: Gilmore Files Suit Over Dangerous Roundup Product
MRS BPO: Mayer Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Smaia Files FDCPA Suit in New York
ND AUTO SALES: Unsolicited Marketing Violates TCPA, Garcia Says
NIBCO INC: Garrett Sues Over Defective PEX Products
PACENATION: Hanks Sues for Invasion of Privacy
PHI INC: Plaintiffs in Overbilling Case Balk at Exit Plan
PLANET BEACH FRANCHISING: Sullivan Files Class Suit under ADA
POLLACK & ROSEN: Faces Danh Suit over Debt Collection Practices
PPG INDUSTRIES: Awaits Preliminary Approval in Mild Settlement
RMA RECOVERY: Hammock Alleges Violation under FDCPA
RUSSELL CELLULAR: Poole Seeks Overtime Pay for Store Managers
SAFETY DRUGS: Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SANCHEZ OIL & GAS: Flynn Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
ST LOUIS, MO: Court Grants Prelim Injunction Bid in Dixon
ST RENATUS: Walsh Suit Moved to District of Minnesota
TACOS AL SUADERO: Netzahualt Seeks Proper Minimum, OT Wages
TEAM ENTERPRISES: Court Partly Grants Bid to Stay Wood Labor Suit
TOWN SPORTS: Turner Sues over Unauthorized Membership Renewal
TRIPLAY INC: Bunting Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
TURIN HOUSING: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Scher Suit
UNITED FEDERAL: Effective Date of Gunter Suit Settlement Amended
USA TECH: Has Until Aug. 19 to Plead or Respond
WABCO HOLDINGS: Faces ZF Friedrichshafen Merger-Related Suits
WALT DISNEY: Court Dismisses Neversink Suit Without Prejudice
WALT DISNEY: Faces Farr Suit in Central District of California
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Pope Sues over $35 Insufficient Fund Fees
*********
180 MARKETPLACE: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
ROMAN MORENO FLORES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 180 MARKETPLACE, INC. (D/B/A JUBILEE MARKET
PLACE), LEO Y. YOO, JOHNNY DOE, and DENNIS DOE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06767 (S.D. N.Y., July 19, 2019) is an action on behalf
of himself, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours"
and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate overtime and spread of hours compensation for
the hours that he worked, notes the complaint. Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to
pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff
and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without
providing the overtime compensation required by federal and state
law and regulations, says the complaint.
Plaintiff was employed as a produce worker, salad preparer and
delivery worker at the market place.
Defendants own, operate, or control a grocery store/market place,
located at 180 Riverside Blvd New York, New York 10023 under the
name "Jubilee Market Place".[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
390 BROOME: Faces Connor Suit in Eastern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 390 Broome Restaurant
LLC. The case is captioned as Mary Connor on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 390 Broome
Restaurant LLC, and S Up Top LLC, doing business as: Seamore's, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03919-NG-ST (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2019).
The suit alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nina Gershon.
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
nyjg@aol.com
- and -
Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN G. SOLOTOFF PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 317-2453
Facsimile: (516) 706-4692
E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net
3M COMPANY: Bracero-Salvador Sues over Defective CAEv2 Earplugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MISAEL BRACERO-SALVADOR, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02095 (N.D. Fla., July 16, 2019),
seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff
allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military,
including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that
Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold
by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate
hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations.
CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.
Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]
Attorney for the Plaintiff is:
Rhon E. Jones, Esq.
William R. Sutton, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
PORTIS, & MILES, P.C.
Post Office Box 4160
Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
E-mail: Rhon.Jones@BeasleyAllen.com
William.Sutton@BeasleyAllen.com
3M COMPANY: Brenham Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRIAN BRENHAM, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02088-MCR-GRJ
(N.D. Fla., July 16, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing
loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously
in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.
CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.
Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]
Attorney for the Plaintiff is:
Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
Telephone: (615) 859-1996
Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
bowden_law@bellsouth.net
bowden1megan@gmail.com
3M COMPANY: Correa Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, DANIEL JOSE BURGOS CORREA, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02096-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 16,
2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff
allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military,
including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that
Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold
by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate
hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations.
CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.
Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]
Attorney for the Plaintiff is:
Rhon E. Jones, Esq.
William R. Sutton, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
PORTIS, & MILES, P.C.
Post Office Box 4160
Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
E-mail: Rhon.Jones@BeasleyAllen.com
William.Sutton@BeasleyAllen.com
3M COMPANY: Fletcher Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, WILLIAM FLETCHER, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02076-RV-EMT
(N.D. Fla., July 15, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing
loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously
in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.
CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.
Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]
Attorney for the Plaintiff is:
Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
Telephone: (615) 859-1996
Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
bowden_law@bellsouth.net
bowden1megan@gmail.coms
3M COMPANY: Lubetski Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NADIA LUBETSKI, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02075-MCR-HTC
(N.D. Fla., July 15, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing
loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously
in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.
CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.
Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]
Attorney for the Plaintiff is:
Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
Telephone: (615) 859-1996
Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
bowden_law@bellsouth.net
bowden1megan@gmail.coms
3M COMPANY: Stone Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, RYAN STONE, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02077-RV-HTC
(N.D. Fla., July 15, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing
loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously
in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.
CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.
Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]
Attorney for the Plaintiff is:
Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
Telephone: (615) 859-1996
Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
bowden_law@bellsouth.net
bowden1megan@gmail.coms
ABC CORP: Roman Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Restaurant Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS LUIS ROMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ABC CORP. (D/B/A EDDY'S LAUNDRY & DRY
CLEANERS), EDDIE C CHIN (A.K.A. EDDY CHIN), and SIU CHEE CHIN
(A.K.A. HEIDI CHIN), the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06628
(S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants. The Plaintiff
performed duties of pressing and dry-cleaning clothes at the
laundry service. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that he worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping
of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a dry cleaner/laundromat,
located at 1067 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10022 under the name
"Eddy's Laundry & Dry Cleaners".[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
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.Gom
AMERICAN ADJUSTMENT: Seeks Prelim. Approval of Smolinski Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned LINDA SMOLINSKI, LISA HILL,
KIMBERLY BOURNIVAL, KAREN RINALDI, TROY MALAVE AND MICHELLE
FRANCIS, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. AMERICAN ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., Case No.
3:18-cv-01211-JGM (D. Conn.), jointly move for an order:
1) granting preliminary approval of the Parties' proposed
Settlement Agreement and Release;
2) certifying this matter as a class action for purposes of
settlement only under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure with respect to claims under the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act and as a collective action for purposes of
settlement only under the Fair Labor Standards Act;
3) approving the form and content of the Parties' proposed
Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Opportunity to
Opt-Out, Proposed Settlement and Hearing Date for Court
Approval;
4) directing the mailing of the Notice of Settlement by
certified mail to the Potential Settlement Class members;
and
5) scheduling a fairness hearing to determine whether the
proposed Joint Settlement Agreement should be finally
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William G. Madsen, Esq.
Magdalena Wiktor, Esq.
MADSEN, PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU, LLC
402 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 246-2466
Facsimile: (860) 246-1794
E-mail: wmadsen@mppjustice.com
mwiktor@mppjustice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Beverly Knapp Anderson, Esq.
Kristi M. Gardner, Esq.
FONTAINE ALISSI P.C.
750 Main Street, Suite 1600
Hartford CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 548-1122
Facsimile: (860) 548-1223
E-mail: bknapp@fontaine-alissi.com
kgardner@fontaine-alissi.com
AMERICAN SOLAR: $1.25MM O'Shea TCPA Suit Deal Denied w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KERRY O'SHEA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN SOLAR SOLUTION, INC. a
California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-00894-L-RBB
(S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California denied without prejudice the
parties' joint motion for preliminarily approval of class action
settlement.
Pending before the Court in the class action alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") is the joint motion.
The representation in the motion and the proposed class notice
that the class members will receive $20 in damages is problematic.
Twenty dollars is the maximum class member payment provided under
the settlement agreement. The actual amount depends on the number
of claims. However, based on the representations in the
Plaintiff's motion, the class members will not receive $20 unless
the class participation rate is extremely low or the factual
representations in support of the proposed settlement are
inaccurate by a wide margin.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Defendant is to set aside
a Settlement Fund for a total amount of $1.25 million to pay
Approved Claims. From that amount, a potential $170,000 is
deducted attorney's fees an estimated $125,000 for notice and
settlement administration costs, and $15,000 for requested class
representative service compensation. After deductions,
approximately $940,000 is available to pay the class members. The
Defendant estimates that 220,007 members belong to the class called
by the Defendant during the class period. If the estimate is
accurate, and that every class member submits one Approved Claim
for a cellphone call, each will receive $4.27.
While Judge Lorenz recognizes that it is very uncommon in consumer
class actions for every class member to submit a claim, the class
members could receive more of a benefit from proposed Settlement
Fund even if the claim rate was low. He questions why class
members would only be afforded a maximum benefit of $20 per
Approved Claim per individual if the claims rate is less than 3%.
The joint motion does little to answer his question. The estimate
of class member recovery provided in the motion and proposed notice
appears inaccurate on its face and lacks a plausible explanation.
The Judge also finds that the joint motion wholly fails to identify
a cy pres recipient in lieu of direct distribution of damages to
the silent class members. Without designation of a cy pres award
recipient and explanation of the nexus to the Plaintiff class, the
Judge cannot complete his analysis of the settlement. Therefore,
the settlement agreement and joint motion must be amended
consistent with his Order.
The proposed class long-form notice must be amended to indicate, on
Page One, the number of the question that explains the class
members rights and options in the settlement. Accordingly, the
proposed notices must be amended consistent with the Order.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(5) provides that any class
member may object to the proposed settlement. Although the parties
may encourage class members to provide written objections by a date
certain, the Judge is not inclined to prohibit a class member from
objecting, if he or she did not file written objections or did not
do so in a timely manner. Accordingly, the proposed notice must be
amended consistent with the Order.
For the foregoing reasons, Jugde Lorenz denied the parties' motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement without
prejudice to re-filing after curing the foregoing defects.
The Plaintiff seeks leave for attorney Tania Babaie's withdrawal
from the litigation because she is no longer employed by the firm
representing the Plaintiff. The Defendants have not opposed the
Plaintiff's request. The counsel has filed a proof of service
declaring the Defendant has been served in compliance with Civil
Local Rule 83.3. For good cause shown, the Judge granted the
Plaintiff's motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/HAjLJe from Leagle.com.
Kerry O'Shea, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Marron --
ron@consumeradvocates.com -- Law Office of Ronald Marron, Alexis M.
Wood -- alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron & Kas L. Gallucci -- kas@consumersadvocates.com -- Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron.
American Solar Solution, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Ken Ichi Ito &Margaret Juhyee Lee --
legal@greensoltech.com -- Green Solar Technologies, Inc.
AMPLIFY ENERGY: Merger Documents Misleading, Sabatini Says
----------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMPLIFY ENERGY CORP., DAVID M. DUNN,
CHRISTOPHER W. HAMM, SCOTT L. HOFFMAN, EVAN S. LEDERMAN, KENNETH
MARIANI, DAVID H. PROMAN, and EDWARD A. SCOGGINS, JR., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01321-UNA (D. Del., July 16, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a Proxy
Statement.
The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 6,
2019, pursuant to which Amplify Energy Corp. will be acquired by
Midstates Petroleum Company, Inc. and Midstates Holdings, Inc.
On May 5, 2019, Amplify's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Midstates. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Amplify stockholders will
receive 0.933 shares of Parent common stock for each share of
Amplify common stock they own.
On June 26, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement/prospectus
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading.
Amplify Energy engages in the acquisition, development,
exploitation, and production of oil and natural gas properties in
the United States.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
E-mail: rm@maniskas.com
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
AvalonBay Communities is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AvalonBay Communities, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06871 (S.D. N.Y., July 23, 2019).
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust that invests in apartments. As of January 31,
2019, the company owned 78,365 apartment units, all of which were
in New England, the New York City metropolitan area, the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, Seattle, and California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Tel: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
BBVA COMPASS: Ferguson Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA FERGUSON, CASSANDRA MCCLINTON, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BBVA COMPASS BANCSHARES,
INC., COMPASS BANCSHARES, INC., and BBVA USA BANCSHARES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01135-SGC (N.D. Ala., July 18, 2019)
is a complaint against Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").
The Plan is a defined contribution, individual account, employee
pension benefit plan under the ERISA. The Plan provides for the
retirement savings and income of employees of BBVA and its
subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2017, the Plan had more than
$931,282,702 in assets and 13,145 participants with account
balances.
ERISA's purpose is to provide special protections for the interests
of participants and beneficiaries in defined contribution and
defined benefit plans. These duties are often described as the
"highest known to the law." BBVA acknowledged its duties in its
Summary Plan Description stating: "The people who administer the
plan, called 'fiduciaries' of the plan, have a duty to do so
prudently and in the interests of all plan participants and
beneficiaries." Despite acknowledging its fiduciary duties, BBVA
breached its duties by, among other things, mismanaging a $100
million money market fund, thus failing to properly monitor
investments and remove imprudent ones, including high-cost mutual
funds whose performance did not justify their increased costs, says
the complaint.
Plaintiffs reside in the Northern District of Alabama and were
participants in the Plan during the Class Period.
BBVA is the Plan Administrator under ERISA and is the named
fiduciary under the Plan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
D. G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
301 19th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 314-0500
Email: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com
cmalmat@wigginschilds.com
- and -
James H. White, IV, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LANGE CLARK, P.C.
301 19th Street North, Suite 550
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 939-3933
Email: langeclark@langeclark.com
BP EXPLORATION: Churchman Suit Dismissal w/o Prejudice Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT GERRALD CHURCHMAN, v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL., SECTION "J" (2), Civil Action No. 19-9567
(E.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recommended
that (i) BP's motion to dismiss be granted, and (ii) the
Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
On April 21, 2019, Robert Gerrald Churchman ("Decedent"), through
counsel, filed a complaint in his own name pursuant to the Back-End
Litigation Option ("BELO") provisions of the BP/Deepwater Horizon
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement.
One month later, on May 21, 2019, BP filed both an answer, and a
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. In the motion, BP
argues that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory
prerequisites of the Medical Settlement Agreement by not providing
documentation in the Notice of Intent to Sue that verifies legal
authority of the Plaintiff's widow, who had signed the required
prelawsuit Notice of Intent to Sue, to file a lawsuit on the
Decedent's behalf.
One week later, on May 28, 2019, an amended BELO complaint was
filed on the Decedent's behalf without leave of court, as permitted
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), by his widow, Betty A. Churchman
("Plaintiff") purporting to act "as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Robert G. Churchman." The amended complaint alleged that
the Decedent had been a resident of Alabama employed as a clean-up
worker along the Alabama Gulf Coast after the BP/Deepwater Horizon
explosion and oil spill on April 20, 2010.
Exhibits to BP's then-pending motion to dismiss establish that the
Plaintiff's Notice of Intent to Sue and an attached death
certificate indicate that the Decedent had died almost three years
earlier on June 18, 2016. The amended complaint attached no
documents establishing the Plaintiff's legal authority to act for
the Decedent. Like all BELO lawsuits, it seeks compensatory
damages and related costs for later-manifested physical conditions
that the Decedent allegedly suffered as a result of exposure to
substances released after the oil spill.
Local Rule 7.5 requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion
must be filed no later than eight days before the noticed
submission date. The Plaintiff did not file an opposition to this
motion. The motion is therefore deemed to be unopposed. Although
it alleges the Plaintiff's authority to act for the Decedent, the
amended complaint did not address the lack of legal authority
documentation argument asserted in BP's motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's filing of the amended complaint,
apparently in response to the filing of the motion to dismiss, did
not render the motion moot.
The court-approved Medical Settlement Agreement is not a case
management order. Instead, it is an unambiguous, binding contract
that cannot be modified or altered without the express written
consent of the Medical Benefits Class Counsel and BP's counsel.
The BELO lawsuit process is the exclusive remedy for class members
who did not opt out of the settlement and who seek compensation for
Later-Manifested Physical Conditions, as defined in the agreement.
The Medical Settlement Agreement establishes detailed conditions
precedent that must be accomplished before filing a BELO lawsuit.
When a Medical Benefits Settlement Class Member is deceased, his or
her Authorized Representative "may act on his or her behalf" and
"shall be bound by the same terms and conditions" of the Medical
Settlement Agreement as the decedent would have been "if he or she
were acting on his or her own behalf." It enumerates the steps
that an Authorized Representative must satisfy as conditions
precedent to filing a BELO lawsuit on behalf of a deceased Medical
Benefits Settlement Class Member.
Magistrate Judge Wilkinson finds that the Plaintiff and purported
Authorized Representative Betty Churchman did not comply with the
Medical Settlement Agreement's clearly defined prerequisites for
filing a BELO lawsuit on behalf of a deceased Medical Benefits
Settlement Class Member. The Plaintiff did not comply with the
Medical Settlement Agreement's clear mandate that the Authorized
Representative provide copies of documentation confirming her legal
authority to file a lawsuit on behalf of Decedent. The only
documentation provided by her is the death certificate, which
merely identifies the marital relationship between the Plaintiff
and the Decedent at the time of his death. Her signature as
"Authorized Representative," identification of herself as the
Decedent's spouse and the death certificate assure neither BP nor
the court that she has the legal authority to file the BELO lawsuit
on behalf of the Decedent.
The requirement to satisfy this condition precedent is not a mere
case management tool, but is required by the court-approved Medical
Settlement Agreement and is not subject to alteration. By
neglecting to submit documentation of her legal authority to act on
Decedent's behalf, plaintiff failed to satisfy the conditions
precedent to filing a BELO complaint as required in the Medical
Settlement Agreement.
For all the forgoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Wilkinson
recommended that the Defendants' motion be granted, and that the
Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
satisfy the conditions precedent to filing a BELO lawsuit on behalf
of a deceased Medical Benefits Settlement Class Member as required
in the Medical Settlement Agreement.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's
report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a
copy will bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and
legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the
party has been served with notice that such consequences will
result from a failure to object. It is suggested, in these
circumstances, that any objection to the report and recommendation
filed by the Plaintiff should attach the required documentation
establishing that she is in fact the Decedent's legally authorized
representative to pursue the claim.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/DBMBeb from
Leagle.com.
Robert Gerrald Churchman, Plaintiff, represented by Howard L.
Nations -- info@howardnations.com -- Nations Law Firm.
BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by David W. Leefe -- dwleefe@liskow.com --
Liskow & Lewis, Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com --
Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore -- cbwilmore@liskow.com --
Liskow & Lewis, Devin C. Reid -- dcreid@liskow.com -- Liskow &
Lewis, Lance Christian Bullock -- lbullock@liskow.com -- Liskow &
Lewis & Russell Keith Jarrett -- rkjarrett@liskow.com -- Liskow &
Lewis.
BRENTWOOD VILLAGE: Bid to Substitute Class Rep in Borum Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADRIANN BORUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRENTWOOD
VILLAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-1723 (RC) (D.
D.C.), Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia (a) granted in part and denied in part (i) the
Plaintiffs' motion to substitute class representative, and (ii) the
Defendants' cross-motion to decertify the class; and (b) granted
the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file documents under seal.
Original Plaintiffs Borum, Loretta Holloman, and One D.C. filed the
case on Aug. 25, 2016, bringing claims against Defendants Brentwood
Village, LLC, Mid-City Financial Corp., and Edgewood Management
Corp., for disparate impact discrimination and discriminatory
statements in violation of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA") and D.C.
Human Rights Act ("DCHRA"). They alleged that the Defendants'
proposed redevelopment plan for the Brookland Manor apartment
complex, which would reduce the number of three-bedroom apartments
and fully eliminate four- and five-bedroom apartments from the
redesigned property, would have a disparate impact on families
based on their familial status, in violation of the FHA and DCHRA.
And they alleged that the Defendants had further violated the FHA
and DCHRA by making statements that discriminated against families
in connection with the proposed redevelopment.
After the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the claims against
Brentwood Village, and Holloman voluntarily dismissed her claims on
Nov. 27, 2017, the Court certified a class of Brookland Manor
Plaintiffs on Feb. 12, 2018.
The Court certified the class of all individuals who reside at
Brookland Manor in a three-, four-, or five-bedroom unit that
houses one or more minor child and his or her guardian, and are at
risk of being displaced from a three-, four-, or five-bedroom unit
at Brookland Manor as a direct result of the proposed
redevelopment.
On Aug. 10, 2018, the Defendants moved to decertify the class.
They argued that Borum no longer adequately represented the
interests of the class because she had been issued a notice to
vacate and would soon be facing eviction. And the Defendants
contended that decertification was the appropriate step because it
was unlikely that a substitute would be found, re-iterating their
argument that there was substantial evidence that many residents
disagreed with the objectives of the litigation. On Jan. 7, 2019,
the Court denied the motion.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion to substitute Ms. Marita Moore as
the class representative on Feb. 6, 2019, which the Court earlier
found inadequate, while the Defendants challenge the proposed
substitute representative and cross-move for decertification. The
Defendants argue -- quite forcefully -- that the class should be
decertified because Moore is not a member of the class, does not
bring claims that are typical of the class, and is an inadequate
class representative.
Before addressing these arguments, Judge Contreras notes that, as
the Plaintiffs point out in their opposition, the Defendants'
arguments appear aimed more at the merits of the case than at class
certification issues. And the Defendants' aggressive
characterization of the case as a class action run amok, led by the
class counsel unmoored from the interests of a class that actively
desires the redevelopment, has little basis in the record before
the Court and distracts from the Defendants' meritorious
arguments.
With that being said, the Judge addresses in turn the Defendants'
three arguments for rejecting Moore's substitution as the class
representative: first, that Moore is not a member of the class;
second, that she does not bring claims that are typical of the
class; and third, that she is not an adequate representative. He
briefly reviews the Defendants' first argument and concludes that
Moore is a member of the class. Next, he finds that while Moore
brings typical disparate impact discrimination claims, she does not
bring typical discriminatory statements claims. Third, he finds
that Moore is an adequate representative for the class on the
disparate impact discrimination claims. And finally, the Judge
evaluates whether Moore's atypicality on the discriminatory
statements claims warrants the decertification of the class on all
claims. He concludes that it does not, and it accordingly grants
both motions in part, decertifying the class as to the
discriminatory statements claims but granting the motion for
Moore's substitution as class representative on the disparate
impact discrimination claims.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Contreras granted in part and
denied in part (i) the Plaintiffs' motion to substitute class
representative; and (ii) the Defendants' cross-motion to decertify
the class. He granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file
documents under seal. An order consistent with the Memorandum
Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/0sKMxh from Leagle.com.
ADRIANN BORUM & ORGANIZING NEIGHBORHOOD EQUITY IN SHAW AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiffs, represented by Hannah E.M.
Lieberman, WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, Kaetochi
Okemgbo, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Maureen Frances Browne --
mbrowne@cov.com, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Amber M. Charles --
acharles@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Catherine Cone --
catherine_cone@washlaw.org -- WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS, Nooree Lee -- nlee@cov.com --
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Samuel F. Adriance -- sadriance@cov.com --
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew K. Handley,
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS.
BRENTWOOD ASSOCIATES, L.P., EDGEWOOD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION &
MID-CITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendants, represented by Lisa
Schapira -- lisa.schapira@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE
FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice, Michael James Edney --
michael.edney@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
LLP, Anne M. Rogers, NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, Gerry Lowry,
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP & John Joseph Byron --
john.byron@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP,
pro hac vice.
BUSCEMI, LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind Person, Reid Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
VALENTIN REID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BUSCEMI, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06541 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2019), alleges that Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
www.buscemi.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that the website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
David Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Appeal Pending in Maine Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that appellate
proceedings related the wrongful death class actions in Maine are
still pending.
On July 6, 2013, a train carrying petroleum crude oil operated by
Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMAR") or a subsidiary,
Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC" and collectively the
"MMA Group"), derailed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The derailment
occurred on a section of railway owned and operated by the MMA
Group. The previous day, the company (CP) had interchanged the
train to the MMA Group, and after the interchange, the MMA Group
exclusively controlled the train.
A class action and mass tort action on behalf of Lac-Megantic
residents and wrongful death representatives commenced in Texas in
June 2015 and wrongful death and personal injury actions commenced
in Illinois and Maine in June 2015 against CP were all removed and
subsequently transferred and consolidated in Federal District Court
in Maine (the "Maine Actions").
The Maine Actions allege that CP negligently misclassified and
mis-packaged the petroleum crude oil being shipped. On the
company's motion, the Maine Actions were dismissed by the Court on
several grounds. The plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal
decision.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada and
the United States. The company transports bulk commodities,
including grain, coal, potash, fertilizers, and sulphur; and
merchandise freight, such as energy, chemicals and plastics,
metals, minerals and consumer, automotive, and forest products.
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited was founded in 1881 and is
headquartered in Calgary, Canada.
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Trial in Train Derailment Suit to Begin 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a trial to determine
liability issues in the class action suit related to the train
derailment in Lac-Megantic is scheduled to commence mid-September
2020, and subsequently, if necessary, a trial to determine damages
issues.
On July 6, 2013, a train carrying petroleum crude oil operated by
Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMAR") or a subsidiary,
Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC" and collectively the
"MMA Group"), derailed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The derailment
occurred on a section of railway owned and operated by the MMA
Group. The previous day, the company (CP) had interchanged the
train to the MMA Group, and after the interchange, the MMA Group
exclusively controlled the train.
In the wake of the derailment, MMAC sought court protection in
Canada under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C.,
1985, c. C-36 and MMAR filed for bankruptcy in the United States.
Plans of arrangement have been approved in both Canada and the U.S.
(the "Plans"). These Plans provide for the distribution of a fund
of approximately $440 million amongst those claiming derailment
damages.
A number of legal proceedings were commenced after the derailment
in Canada and the U.S. against CP and others.
Quebec's Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife
and Parks (the "Minister") ordered various parties, including CP,
to clean up the derailment site (the "Cleanup Order"). CP appealed
the Cleanup Order to the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec (the
"TAQ"). The Minister subsequently served a Notice of Claim seeking
$95 million for compensation spent on cleanup. CP filed a
contestation of the Notice of Claim with the TAQ (the "TAQ
Proceeding"). CP and the Minister agreed to stay the TAQ
Proceedings pending the outcome of the Province of Quebec's
action.
Quebec's Attorney General sued CP in the Quebec Superior Court
initially claiming $409 million in damages, which claim was amended
and reduced to $315 million (the "Province's Action"). The
Province's Action alleges that CP exercised custody or control over
the petroleum crude oil until its delivery to Irving Oil and was
negligent in that custody and control. The province alleges that CP
is jointly and severally liable with third parties responsible for
the derailment and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of
MMAC.
A class action in the Quebec Superior Court on behalf of persons
and entities residing in, owning or leasing property in, operating
a business in or physically present in Lac-Megantic at the time of
the derailment (the "Class Action") was certified against CP, MMAC
and the train conductor, Mr. Thomas Harding ("Harding"). The Class
Action seeks unquantified damages, including for wrongful death,
personal injury, and property damage arising from the derailment.
All known wrongful death claimants in the Class Action have opted
out and, by court order, cannot re-join the Class Action.
Eight subrogated insurers sued CP in the Quebec Superior Court
initially claiming approximately $16 million in damages, which
claim was amended and reduced to $14 million (the "Promutuel
Action") and two additional subrogated insurers sued CP in the
Québec Superior Court claiming approximately $3 million in damages
(the "Royal Action"). Both Actions contain essentially the same
allegations as the Province's Action.
The lawsuits do not identify the parties to which the insurers are
subrogated, and therefore the extent to which these claims overlap
with the proof of claims process under the Plans is difficult to
determine at this stage. The Royal Action has been stayed pending
the determination of the consolidated proceedings described below.
The Province's Action, the Class Action and the Promutuel Action
have been consolidated and will proceed together through the
litigation process in the Quebec Superior Court. While each Action
will remain a separate legal proceeding, there will be a trial to
determine liability issues commencing mid-September 2020, and
subsequently, if necessary, a trial to determine damages issues.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada and
the United States. The company transports bulk commodities,
including grain, coal, potash, fertilizers, and sulphur; and
merchandise freight, such as energy, chemicals and plastics,
metals, minerals and consumer, automotive, and forest products.
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited was founded in 1881 and is
headquartered in Calgary, Canada.
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Bryan Alleges Violation under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Amy R. Bryan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry
Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-81048-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., July 23, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC is a debt collector in Hawthorne,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Galper Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cawley & Bergmann,
LLC. The case is styled as Eduard Galper, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cawley & Bergmann, LLC
and JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04244 (E.D. N.Y., July 23, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Cawley & Bergmann, LLC is a debt collection company specializing in
the recovery of delinquent consumer debt.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
Huntington, NY 11743
Tel: (631) 335-1107
Email: mpash@verizon.net
CHART INDUSTRIES: Stainless Steel Cryobiological Tank Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend itself from a class action suit involving its Stainless
Steel Cryobiological Tank product.
During the second quarter of 2018, Chart was named in lawsuits
(including a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California) filed against Chart and
other defendants with respect to the alleged failure of a stainless
steel cryobiological storage tank (model MVE 808AF-GB) at the
Pacific Fertility Center in San Francisco, California.
The company continues to evaluate the merits of such claims in
light of the limited information available to date regarding use,
maintenance and operation of the tank which has been out of the
company's custody for the past six years when it was sold to the
Pacific Fertility Center through an independent distributor.
Accordingly, an accrual related to any damages that may result from
the lawsuits has not been recorded because a potential loss is not
currently probable or estimable.
Chart said, "We have asserted various defenses against the claims
in the lawsuits, including a defense that since manufacture, we
were not in any way involved with the installation, ongoing
maintenance or monitoring of the tank or related fertility center
cryogenic systems at any time since the initial delivery of the
tank."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment
and packaged solutions; and provides value-add services for the
energy and industrial gas industries worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Energy & Chemicals, Distribution & Storage Western
Hemisphere, and Distribution & Storage Eastern Hemisphere segments.
Chart Industries, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Ball Ground, Georgia.
CHART INDUSTRIES: Suit over Aluminum Cryobiological Tank Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action lawsuit related to the alleged
failure of its aluminum cryobiological storage tank product.
Chart has been named in purported class action lawsuits filed in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and other
defendants with respect to the alleged failure of an aluminum
cryobiological storage tank (model FNL XC 47/11-6 W/11) at The
Toronto Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Etobicoke, Ontario.
The company confirmed that the tank in question was part of the
aluminum cryobiological tank recall commenced on April 23, 2018.It
asserted various defenses against the claims in the lawsuits and
are in the early stages of litigation.
Chart said, "Accordingly, an accrual related to any damages that
may result from the lawsuit has not been recorded because a
potential loss is not currently probable or estimable."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment
and packaged solutions; and provides value-add services for the
energy and industrial gas industries worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Energy & Chemicals, Distribution & Storage Western
Hemisphere, and Distribution & Storage Eastern Hemisphere segments.
Chart Industries, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Ball Ground, Georgia.
CHASE ISSUANCE: Petersen et al. Sue over Credit Card Accounts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Issuance Trust disclosed the filing of a class action
complaint entitled, Petersen et al. v. Chase Card Funding, LLC et
al., in its Form 10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 16, 2019, for the monthly distribution period
from June 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019.
In June 2019, the lawsuit (Petersen et al. v. Chase Card Funding,
LLC et al., No. 1:19-cv-00741 (W.D.N.Y. June 6, 2019)) was filed
against Chase Card Funding LLC and Chase Issuance Trust, special
purpose entities in the JPMorgan Chase Bank sponsored credit card
securitization program, and Wilmington Trust Company, as trustee of
Chase Issuance Trust.
The putative class action was brought by several New York residents
with credit card accounts originated by JPMorgan Chase Bank (which
is not named as a defendant), who allege that JPMorgan Chase Bank
securitized their credit card receivables in Chase Issuance Trust.
The complaint contends that the defendants are required to comply
with New York state's usury law under the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit decision in Madden v. Midland
Funding, LLC, 786 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct.
2505 (June 27, 2016) because they are non-bank entities that are
not entitled to the benefits of federal preemption.
Chase Issuance said, "The Petersen litigation is in its early
stages. Chase Card Funding LLC believes that the claims are without
merit. However, there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the
litigation and if decided adversely, investors may suffer a delay
in payment or loss on their Chase Issuance Trust notes."
Chase Issuance Trust operates as a special purpose entity. The
Company was formed for the purpose of issuing debt securities to
repay existing credit facilities, refinance indebtedness, and for
acquisition purposes.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Negrete Class Action Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended May 26, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Negrete v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al.
The company is a party to matters challenging the Company's wage
and hour practices.
These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under
the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al, pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in
which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California
and/or federal law at several current and former Company
manufacturing facilities across the State of California.
Conagra said, "While we cannot predict with certainty the results
of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter
to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations, or business."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Settlement in Briseno Granted Preliminary Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended May 26, 2019, that the trial court in Briseno v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., granted preliminary approval of the parties
settlement.
The company is a party to a number of putative class action
lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's
product labeling.
These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., in which it
is alleged that the labeling for Wesson(R) oils as 100% natural is
false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified
plants and organisms.
In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to
pursue state law claims.
The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class certification in January 2017.
The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the
decision and the case has been remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings.
On April 4, 2019, the trial court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement in this matter.
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
CONAGRA BRANDS: West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended May 26, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, est Palm Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al.
The Company, its directors, and several of its executive officers
are defendants in several class actions alleging violations of
federal securities laws.
The lawsuits assert that the Company's officers made material
misstatements and omissions that caused the market to have an
unrealistically positive assessment of the Company's financial
prospects in light of the acquisition of Pinnacle, thus causing the
Company's securities to be overvalued prior to the release of the
Company's consolidated financial results on December 20, 2018 for
the second quarter of fiscal 2019.
The first of these lawsuits, captioned West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al., with
which subsequent lawsuits alleging similar facts have been
consolidated, was filed February 22, 2019 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
In addition, on May 9, 2019, a shareholder filed a derivative
action on behalf of the Company against the Company's directors
captioned Klein v. Arora, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.
The shareholder derivative lawsuit asserts harm to the Company due
to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement in
connection with the Pinnacle acquisition.
On July 9, 2019, the Company received a stockholder demand under
Delaware law to inspect the Company's books and records related to
the Board of Directors' review of the Pinnacle business,
acquisition, and the Company's public statements related to them.
Conagra said, "While we cannot predict with certainty the results
of these or any other legal proceedings, we do not expect these
matters to have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations, or business."
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
CONTROL4 CORP: Manasfi Merger Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Control4 Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 19, 2019, that the
class action suit entitled, Manasfi v. Control4 Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:19- cv-05790, has been voluntarily dismissed.
On June 20, 2019, purported stockholders of Control4 filed putative
class action complaints in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Manasfi v. Control4 Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:19- cv-05790 (referred to in this proxy statement
as the "Manasfi Action"), and Langford v. Control4 Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv- 05793 (referred to in this proxy statement
as the "Langford Action"), naming as defendants the Company and
each member of the Company’s board of directors.
Between June 20, 2019 and July 16, 2019, six additional purported
stockholders of Control4 filed putative class action complaints in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Rodriguez v. Control4 Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-
cv-05940 (referred to in this proxy statement as the "Rodriguez
Action"), Bushansky v. Control4 Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-
cv-06192 (referred to in this proxy statement as the "Bushansky
Action"), and Pasternack v. Control4 Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-06618 (referred to in this proxy statement as the
"Pasternack Action"), and the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, Sabatini v. Control4 Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 1:19- cv-01149-UNA (referred to in this proxy statement as
the "Sabatini Action"), Stein v. Control4 Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-01183-UNA (referred to in this proxy statement as the
"Stein Action"), and Sterner v. Control4 Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-01215-UNA (referred to in this proxy statement as the
"Sterner Action" and, together with the Manasfi, Langford,
Rodriguez, Bushansky, Pasternack, Sabatini, and Stein Actions, the
"Merger Lawsuits"), naming as defendants the Company and each
member of the Company's board of directors.
Among other things, the Merger Lawsuits allege that the Preliminary
Proxy Statement filed by the Company with the SEC on June 7, 2019
in connection with the Merger (referred to in this proxy statement
as the "Preliminary Proxy Materials") and/or the Definitive Proxy
Statement filed by the Company with the SEC on June 21, 2019 in
connection with the Merger (referred to in this proxy statement as
the "Definitive Proxy Materials") fail to disclose allegedly
material information concerning (i) certain financial projections
relied upon by the Company's board of directors and Raymond James,
(ii) financial analyses conducted by Raymond James, (iii) potential
conflicts of interests on the part of Raymond James, and/or (iv)
whether the confidentiality agreements executed by the Company and
the four potential bidders during the go-shop period contain
standstill provisions, all in violation of Section 14(a) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.
The relief sought in the Merger Lawsuits includes equitable relief,
including among other things, to enjoin the holding of the special
meeting and/or consummation of the Merger until certain additional
information is disclosed to the Company's stockholders, to rescind
the Merger or to recover rescissory damages in the event the Merger
is consummated, to direct the individual defendants to disseminate
a proxy statement that does not contain any untrue statements of
material fact and that states all material facts required in it or
necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading,
a declaration that the defendants violated Section 14(a) and/or
20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, together with costs of the actions, reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses, and any other relief the
courts may deem just and proper.
On June 28, 2019, the plaintiff in the Manasfi Action voluntarily
dismissed the Manasfi Action without prejudice.
Control4 said, "The Company cannot predict the outcome of the
Merger Lawsuits, nor can the Company predict the amount of time and
expense that will be required to resolve the Merger Lawsuits. The
Company believes the Merger Lawsuits are without merit and the
Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend
against them. If additional similar complaints are filed, absent
new or different allegations that are material, the Company will
not necessarily announce such additional filings."
Control4 Corporation provides smart home and business solutions in
the United States, Australia, Canada, China, Germany, the United
Kingdom, and internationally. Control4 Corporation was founded in
2003 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.
COPPOLA'S OF NEW YORK: Faces Gomes Suit Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GOMES, in his individual capacity and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COPPOLA'S OF NEW YORK, INC.,
d/b/a Coppola's West, SALVATORE'S CORP, d/b/a Coppola's East,
SALVATORE COPPOLA, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-06738 (S.D. N.Y., July 19, 2019) is an action, on behalf of
Plaintiff and his similarly situated coworkers to recover unpaid or
underpaid wages and other damages under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.
During the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants did not pay him
any wages at all. He only received tips. Additionally, although
Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week every week he worked there,
he never received any overtime pay, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Michael Gomes was a delivery person for one of
Defendants' restaurants for approximately five months.
Coppola's Of New York, Inc. operated the restaurant located at 206
W. 79th St. New York, NY 10024, doing business as "Coppola's" or
"Coppola's West".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
11 Broadway, Suite 615
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 961-7639
Fax: (646) 998-8051
Email: penn@andersondodson.com
COUNTRY CLUB: $1.5MM Gardner FLSA Suit Settlement Has Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACINDA GARDNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COUNTRY CLUB, INC., d/b/a
MASTERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 2:13-cv-03399-BHH (D.
S.C.), Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks of the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina, Florence Division, granted (ii) the
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, and
(ii) the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees,
Expenses, and Service Payments.
On Feb. 8, 2019, the Court entered its order preliminarily
approving the Settlement of the class action as set forth in the
Agreement. The previously certified the action as a Class and
Collective Action. No objections to the Settlement were filed.
The Court conducted a Final Fairness Hearing on June 11, 2019.
Having considered the arguments presented, all papers filed, and
all proceedings had therein, Judge Hendricks finds that the
Agreement in the action warrants final approval pursuant to Rule
23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it resulted
from vigorously contested litigation, extensive discovery and
motion practice, and good-faith arm's length negotiations between
the parties, and it is fair, adequate, and reasonable to those it
affects.
The Judge approved the Class Action Settlement Agreement. The
Settlement applies to, and will be binding upon, the
previously-certified Rule 23 class, which is: All persons who, at
any time during the period of Dec. 4, 2010 to Feb. 7, 2019,
performed as a dancer/entertainer at the Defendant's adult
entertainment club in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
The Settlement also applies to, and will be binding upon, the 29
individuals, including the Named Plaintiff, who previously filed
with the Court their written consent to join in a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It does not apply to, and is
not binding upon, the nine individuals who previously requested
exclusion from the class action or the one individual who
previously negotiated an individual settlement with the Defendant.
The Judge also approved the Parties' proposed plan of allocation,
which is as follows: (i) Gross Settlement Amount: $1.5 million;
(ii) Attorney Fees: $500,000; (iii) Attorney Expenses: $82,763.04;
(iv) Administration Expenses: Up to $20,000; (v) Service/Incentive
Awards: $20,000 ($10,000 to Jacinda Gardner, $2,500 to each of the
following: Jessica Talbot, Leila Kurri, Stephanie DeBaggis, and
Charlotte Smith); (vi) FLSA Enhancement Fund: $217,500; (vii) Equal
Distribution Fund: $500 per class member, up to a maximum fund of
$500,000; and (viii) Proportional Distribution Fund: All remaining
sums.
All known class members will receive equal shares from the Equal
Distribution Fund. The individuals who submit claims approved by
the Administrator will share in the Proportional Distribution Fund,
and each claimant's share will be in the amounts determined by the
Administrator based on the claimants' relative tenures as
performers at Masters Gentlemen's Club within the class period.
The 29 Opt-In Plaintiffs (including Plaintiff Gardner) who filed
their consents to join the action during the litigation will
receive equal shares of $7,500 each from the FLSA Enhancement
Fund.
The Judge approved the Class Counsel's request to be awarded
attorney fees of $500,000, and to be reimbursed $82,763.04 in
expenses from the Gross Settlement Fund. He approved the award of
a $10,000 incentive/service payment to named Plaintiff Jacinda
Gardner. He also approved awards of $2,500 each to Jessica Talbot,
Leila Kurri, Stephanie DeBaggis, and Charlotte Smith for their time
and effort expended to testify for the benefit of the class. The
administrator is authorized to release the payments to the
aforementioned Plaintiffs in accordance with the schedule described
in the settlement agreement.
The settlement administrator is authorized to release payments to
Named Plaintiff, the Class Members, the Opt-in Plaintiffs, and the
Class Counsel in accordance with the plan and schedule described in
the Settlement Agreement.
The case is dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any
Party, other than those specified in the Agreement and the Order.
The Judge finds that there is no just reason for delay and
expressly directed judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the
Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/C6BoDi from Leagle.com.
Jacinda Gardner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Christopher Tuck --
ctuck@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman, Gary
F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch, pro hac vice
& Jamisen A. Etzel, Carlson Lynch, pro hac vice.
Country Club Inc, doing business as Masters Gentlemen's Club,
Defendant, represented by Trenton H. Chambers, Dean R. Fuchs --
d.fuchs@swtwlaw.com -- Schulten Ward and Turner LLP, pro hac vice &
Susan Kastan Murphey, Schulten Ward and Turner LLP, pro hac vice.
CSX CORP: Still Defends Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that CSX Transportation, Inc.
(CSXT) continues to defend itself against Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Suit.
In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws.
In November 2007, the class action lawsuits were consolidated in
federal court in the District of Columbia, where they are now
pending. The suit seeks treble damages allegedly sustained by
purported class members as well as attorneys' fees and other
relief. Plaintiffs are expected to allege damages at least equal to
the fuel surcharges at issue.
In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class.
The defendant railroads petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit for permission to appeal the District Court's
class certification decision.
In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the
class certification decision and remanded the case to the District
Court to reconsider its class certification decision.
On October 10, 2017, the District Court issued an order denying
class certification. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
is reviewing the District Court's denial of class certification and
held oral argument on September 28, 2018, with a decision yet to be
issued.
The District Court has delayed proceedings on the merits of the
case pending the outcome of the class certification proceedings.
CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at and
applied lawfully and that the case is without merit. Accordingly,
the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
CSX said, "However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be
severe, and resolution of this matter or an unexpected adverse
decision on the merits could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity
in that particular period."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
CSX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
rail-based freight transportation services. The company offers rail
services, as well as transports intermodal containers and trailers.
CSX Corporation was founded in 1978 and is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Dismiss 5th Amended Brown Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELBERT L. BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNMENT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, Civil No. 15-cv-1380 (KBJ) (D.
D.C.), Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia denied the District's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).
In the case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the Supreme Court of the
United States applied strict scrutiny to evaluate whether an
ordinance that restricted town members' displays of outdoor signs
based on the communicative content of those signs violated the
First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The
Supreme Court held that content-based laws governing speech in
public forums "are presumptively unconstitutional and may be
justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly
tailored to serve compelling state interests."
According to the Plaintiffs in the instant case, Reed compels the
conclusion that the District of Columbia's Panhandling Control Act
is constitutionally invalid. They were arrested for asking
passersby for money in certain public places in the District of
Columbia in contravention of three provisions of the Act (which
criminalizes panhandling and no other types of solicitation), and
much like the town residents in Reed, the Plaintiffs maintain that
the Act imposes content-based restrictions on speech that do not
survive strict scrutiny.
Plaintiffs Brown, Michael Lemeul Holland, Reginald Bryant, Marc
Gatling, and Jomo Kenyatta Hall were each arrested for violating at
least one of these provisions of the Panhandling Control Act.
Specifically, Brown, Bryant, and Hall were arrested for violating
section 22-2302(a). Gatling was arrested by Metro Transit Police
for panhandling in the McFarlin zone in violation of section
22-2302(b). And Holland and Brown were arrested in violation of
section 22-2302(d).9.)
Following these arrests, each Plaintiff was allegedly detained, and
with respect to some of them, the government also purportedly and
permanently confiscated the money on their person. It suffices to
note that all of the named Plaintiffs were allegedly arrested by
District or Metro law enforcement officers and were detained for
some period of time, and that Brown, Holland, Bryant, and Gatling
were further prosecuted in Superior Court for their panhandling
offenses. Hall represents that he desires to continue panhandling
in the future but fears arrest.
The Plaintiffs have filed six iterations of their complaint over
the past three and a half years. Plaintiff Brown filed an initial,
12-page "Class Action" complaint on Aug. 25, 2015. That complaint
consisted of one claim styled as a "facial" First Amendment
challenge to the Panhandling Control Act under Section 1983 of
Title 42 of the United States Code, brought on behalf of Brown and
all other individuals who had either been arrested, or been
arrested and prosecuted, under the Panhandling Control Act. On
Oct. 22, 2015, the Court granted the parties' consent motion to
stay the Plaintiffs' obligation to file a separate motion for
class-action treatment pursuant to Local Rule 23.1(b) -- a stay
which remains in effect at present.
On Dec. 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a 26-page first amended
complaint as a matter of right, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). The first amended complaint added Holland,
Louis Sylvester White, Bryant, and Gatling as named Plaintiffs, and
included a new Section 1983 claim based on the Plaintiffs' "Right
to Return of Money and Other Property." The District filed a
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, arguing, inter alia,
that the Panhandling Control Act is constitutional, and that the
Plaintiffs' new "Right to Return" claim failed to plead municipal
liability or an underlying constitutional violation sufficiently.
On July 12, 2016, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss without prejudice as moot.
On Aug. 15, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a 44-page second amended
class action complaint, which added two claims, purportedly pleaded
"in the alternative," relating to the named Plaintiffs' arrest and
prosecution. The Defendant again moved to dismiss the complaint,
this time adding arguments about the Plaintiffs' lack of standing
in addition to its prior positions regarding the legality of the
Panhandling Control Act and the multiple deficiencies of the "Right
to Return" claim. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' subsequent
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, and as a
result, denied the Defendant's motion as moot.
On Oct. 12, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a 45-page third amended
complaint. The class action complaint included six claims against
the District pursuant to Section 1983: a First Amendment challenge
to the Panhandling Control Act; two claims pleaded "in the
alternative" challenging Plaintiffs' arrests as violative of the
First Amendment; and three claims challenging the Plaintiffs'
arrests and detention under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The
Defendant filed its third motion to dismiss the complaint, renewing
its arguments in opposition to the First Amendment challenge and
further arguing that the Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted based on the alleged Fourth and
Fifth Amendment violations.
On July 20, 2017, the Court held another lengthy hearing, after
which it took the Defendant's motion under advisement. On Aug. 29,
2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss voluntarily one of
the claims in the third amended complaint, and the Court construed
the Plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal of a claim as a
motion for leave to amend, and so construed, granted the motion,
over the District's objection. Having thereby provided the
Plaintiffs with another opportunity to amend their pleading, the
Court then denied the District's motion to dismiss as moot.
On Sept. 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a 35-page fourth amended
class action complaint. This complaint included one claim
challenging the Panhandling Control Act under the First Amendment,
and three claims pleaded "in the alternative" challenging the
Plaintiffs' arrests and detention in violation of the First,
Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. The Defendant filed yet another
motion to dismiss, maintaining that the Panhandling Control Act is
constitutional and arguing, inter alia, that the Plaintiffs had not
sufficiently pleaded municipal liability for the three alternative
claims.
Several months later, the Plaintiffs filed an opposed motion for
leave to amend their complaint once more, this time based on the
addition of a new named plaintiff as well as proposed clarification
of their claims based on legal issues raised through the first
three years of the case. On April 30, 2018, the Court granted
their motion for leave to amend, and denied the Defendant's motion
to dismiss, as moot, for the fourth and final time. In so ruling,
the Court also specifically emphasized that it will be the final
amendment to the complaint that the Plaintiffs are permitted to
make.
On April 30, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the 31-page fifth amended
class action complaint that is the operative pleading to date, and
also the subject of the instant ruling. The Plaintiffs' fifth
amended complaint contains three claims challenging sections
22-2302(a), 22-2302(b), and 22-2302(d) of the Panhandling Control
Act as violative of the First Amendment, each of which is brought
pursuant to Section 1983. One is titled "Arrest/Detention Claim"
and purportedly relates to the experiences of those named
Plaintiffs who were arrested and detained in alleged violation of
one of the three challenged provisions of the Act. The other is
titled "First Amendment Prosecution Claim" and purportedly pertains
to those named Plaintiffs who were not only arrested and detained
but also prosecuted for an alleged violation of one of the three
challenged provisions of the Act.
The District filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' fifth
amended complaint on May 31, 2018. In this motion, the District
reasserts its position that the Act comports with the First
Amendment, either (1) because strict scrutiny does not apply,
arguing that section 2302(b) does not regulate a public forum, and
thus strict scrutiny is inapplicable with respect to that
provision; that the Act is content neutral, and thus strict
scrutiny is inapplicable or (2) because the challenged provisions
survive strict scrutiny; and that the challenged provisions are
narrowly tailored to serve compelling governmental interests.
The District's motion also suggests that the Plaintiffs' "arrest"
claims (Claim 1) and their "prosecution" claims (Claim 3) are
impermissibly duplicative. The Plaintiffs have opposed the
District's motion to dismiss, renewing their longstanding argument
that the Act violates the First Amendment because it cannot
withstand the strict scrutiny that must be applied because the
statute is content-based and regulates protected speech in public
forums.
The District's motion to dismiss became ripe for the Court's review
on June 19, 2018.
Judge jackson finds that the operative complaint in the instant
action alleges that certain provisions of the D.C. Panhandling
Control Act violate the First Amendment. She concludes that the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged plausible First Amendment
claims upon which relief can be granted, and this is especially so
in light of the overwhelming run of authority from across the
country striking down similar panhandling regulations since the
Supreme Court's decision in Reed.
The District's Rule 12(b)(6) motion fails because the Plaintiffs'
complaint contains adequate allegations to support their First
Amendment claims, and the District's Rule 12(b)(6) arguments relate
solely to its disagreement with the Plaintiffs' factual and legal
assertions. The Judge will not reach the merits of the parties'
dispute now, nor will it conclude that Claim 1 or Claim 3 must be
dismissed as duplicative, given that, as alleged, the Plaintiffs
appear to seek different relief with respect to each of these
claims.
The District would have the Court decide now, at the
motion-to-dismiss stage, whether or not the Plaintiffs are correct
that the challenged provisions of the D.C. Panhandling Control Act
are content-based restrictions that are subject to strict scrutiny
and cannot be sustained as narrowly tailored to further compelling
government interests.
The District asks too much too early in the process of the
litigation. The Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the
panhandling provisions at issue are content-based laws that
restrict protected speech in public forums, and they maintain that
the District had less restrictive, alternative means of achieving
its stated objectives. This is enough to state a First Amendment
claim for which various forms of relief could be granted.
Accordingly, as set forth in the March 29, 2019 Order, the Judge
denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/YS9SXf from Leagle.com.
ELBERT LEE BROWN, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, MICHAEL LEMEUL HOLLAND, MARC GATLING, REGINALD BRYANT &
JOMO KENYATTA HALL, Plaintiffs, represented by William Charles Cole
Claiborne, III, CLAIBORNELAW.
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, represented by
Robert Joseph Rich, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.
ELECTROCORE INC: Faces Kuehl Class Action in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
electroCore, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 15, 2019, that the
company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action
suit entitled, Paul Kuehl vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No.
SOM L-000876-19.
On July 8, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company served a
putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey
for Somerset County captioned Paul Kuehl vs. electroCore, Inc., et
al., Docket No. SOM L-000876-19.
In addition to the Company, the defendants include present and past
directors and officers, the underwriters for the Company's initial
public offering, and two stockholders of the Company. The plaintiff
seeks to represent a class of stockholders who purchased common
stock of the Company in its initial public offering or whose
purchases are traceable to that offering.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to the
registration statement and related prospectus for the initial
public offering.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.
electroCore said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend itself;
however, in light of, among other things, the preliminary stage of
the litigation, the Company is unable to provide any assurances as
to the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit and is unable to make a
meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that
could result from an unfavorable outcome."
electroCore, Inc., a bioelectronic medicine company, engages in
developing a range of patient-administered non-invasive vagus nerve
(VNS) stimulation therapies for the treatment of various conditions
in neurology, rheumatology, and other fields. The company was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.
ELK ENERGY: Lupardus Seeks Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Lupardus, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Elk Energy Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00529 (S.D. Va., July 18, 2019) is an
action brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendant required Plaintiff to work
more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime compensation. The
Defendant also misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated
workers throughout the United States as exempt from overtime under
the FLSA. The Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which requires
non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of
40 in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rates of
pay, says the complaint.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a pipeline inspector from
approximately 2010 until approximately August of 2018.
Elk Energy Services LLC operates in the construction and inspection
industry. It provides pipeline inspection services, environmental
Compliance management, and project staffing, among other
offerings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Toor, Esq.
10 Hale Street, 2nd Floor
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304-380-2111
Email: mark@marktoor.com
- and -
Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Phone: (281) 885-8844
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
EXPEDIA GROUP: Faces Teamsters Union Local No. 142 Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 15, 2019, that the
company has been named as a defendant in a class action suit
entitled, Teamsters Union Local No. 142 Pension Fund v. Barry
Diller, et al., Case No. 2019-0494-JTL.
On April 15, 2019, Expedia Group, Inc. ("Expedia Group" or the
"Company") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended
by Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
June 5, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company,
LEMS I LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Expedia Group ("Merger LLC"), LEMS II Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Merger LLC
("Merger Sub"), and Liberty Expedia Holdings, Inc. ("LEXPE").
The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things and subject
to the satisfaction or waiver of certain specified conditions set
forth therein, (i) the merger of Merger Sub with and into LEXPE
(the "Merger"), with LEXPE surviving the Merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Merger LLC, and (ii) immediately following the
Merger, the merger of LEXPE (as the surviving corporation in the
Merger) with and into Merger LLC (the "Upstream Merger", and
together with the Merger, the "Combination"), with Merger LLC
surviving the Upstream Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Expedia Group.
On June 26, 2019, a purported shareholder brought an action in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and all current and
one former member of the Company's board of directors that seeks
class action status on behalf of all of the Company's stockholders.
The action, captioned Teamsters Union Local No. 142 Pension Fund
v. Barry Diller, et al., Case No. 2019-0494-JTL (the "Action"),
alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants
wrongfully caused the Company or LEXPE to enter into certain
agreements with Mr. Diller, the Company's Executive Chairman, in
connection with the proposed Combination.
Expedia Group said, "While plaintiff has not sought to block the
closing of the Combination, the Action seeks to undo certain
aspects of those agreements, including by seeking an order
converting high vote Class B common stock of Expedia Group
transferred to or acquired by Mr. Diller under the terms of those
agreements into low vote common stock of Expedia Group."
Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.
FCA US: Alger Reply in Support of Bid to Certify Class Due Aug. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAWN ALGER as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER
GROUP LLC, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00360-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California has entered a stipulated order
extending class certification briefing schedule.
The case is a putative class action lawsuit wherein the Plaintiff
alleges that certain models of vehicles manufactured by the
Defendant are defective.
The Parties previously negotiated a schedule for briefing class
certification and completing merits discovery, where the
Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class certification was
April 30, 2019, the Defendant's deadline to file its opposition was
June 30, 2019, and the deadline for the Plaintiff's reply in
support of his motion for class certification was July 30, 2019.
The proposed deadline to complete merits-based discovery was Nov.
30, 2019. These deadlines were set forth in the Parties'
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Class Certification
Briefing Schedule and Close of Merits Discovery, filed on Feb. 27,
2019.
On March 4, 2019, the Court entered an Order granting the Parties'
proposed schedule on class certification and merits discovery.
Pursuant to the Court's Order, the Plaintiff filed his motion for
class certification and accompanying documents on April 30, 2019.
On April 29, 2019, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff to request
a two-week extension for filing its opposition to his class
certification motion due to a vacation that the defense counsel had
scheduled for June. After meeting and conferring, the Parties
agreed that the Defendant's deadline to oppose the Plaintiff's
class certification motion would be extended by two weeks and that
the Plaintiff's deadline to file his reply in support of class
certification would also be extended by two weeks.
No previous extensions of time have been sought by the Parties as
to the briefing schedule for class certification.
The counsel for the Parties have stipulated and agreed as follows:
1. The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification will be due by July 15, 2019, along with any
declarations or reports from experts in support of same.
2. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his Motion for Class
Certification will be due by Aug. 30, 2019.
Judge England approved and so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/knukhQ from Leagle.com.
Shawn Alger, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth S. Byrd --
kbyrd@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Mark
P. Chalos -- mchalos@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein, LLP, Stuart C. Talley -- stuart@kctlegal.com -- Kershaw,
Cook & Talley PC & William A. Kershaw -- bill@kctlegal.com --
Kershaw, Cook & Talley PC.
FCA US LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Abirami Gnanadesigan -- agnanadesigan@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett
LLP, Dommond E. Lonnie -- dlonnie@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett,
LLP, Fred J. Fresard -- ffresard@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett
PLLC,
pro hac vice, James P. Feeney -- jfeeney@dykema.com -- Dykema
Gossett PLLC & Brittany J. Mouzourakis -- BMouzourakis@dykema.com
-- Dykema Gossett, PLLC, pro hac vice.
FCA US: Denial of Bid for Attys' Fees/Costs in Perez Suit Endorsed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILMA PEREZ and DAVID HALDEMAN, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US,
LLC., Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-1172-Orl-37TBS (M.D. Fla.),
Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, recommended that the
Defendant's Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs.
Plaintiffs Perez and Haldeman filed the putative class action
alleging that the Defendant sold and leased Dodge Avenger and Jeep
Cherokee motor vehicles with a defective active head restraint
system. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant failed to warn
customers about the safety defect, which resulted in injuries to
some drivers.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other
persons in Florida who have owned or leased a Dodge Avenger or Jeep
Cherokee and paid to have the head restraint system fixed after the
Defendant refused to cover the cost under the vehicle warranty.
The Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint included claims for breach
of express warranty, violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), and breach of implied warranties.
The Court examined the case and concluded that the warranty and
FDUTPA claims were time barred; the Plaintiffs had failed to allege
sufficient facts to state a warranty claim based on the Defendant's
advertising and marketing; the Plaintiffs had failed to allege
sufficient facts to show unconscionability; and the Plaintiffs had
failed to satisfy FED. R. CIV. P. 9(b)'s heightened pleading
standard for fraud as a basis for tolling the applicable statutes
of limitation. Based on these findings the Court dismissed the
Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. The Plaintiffs did not appeal
the Court's decision.
After the time to take an appeal had expired, the Defendant
motioned the Court for an award of its attorney's fees and costs
under FDUTPA. The motion did not include the attorney's
certificate of compliance with Local Rule 3.01(g) and the counsel
concedes that they failed to meet-and-confer with the Plaintiffs'
lawyer before the motion was filed. Accordingly, and because the
motion was superseded by the amended motion currently pending
before the Court, Magistrate Judge Smith denied the Defendant's
original motion without prejudice.
The Defendant's amended motion seeks to recover the $34,625 in
attorney's fees and $2,139 in costs it paid to defend the case.
The amended motion includes a Local Rule 3.01(g) certificate
stating that when the defense counsel attempted to meet-and-confer,
the Plaintiff's lawyer declined. The Plaintiff's lawyer explained
that he believed conferral was unnecessary because the Court was
going to deny the amended motion due to the Defendant's failure to
comply with Rule 3.01(g) before the original motion was filed. The
Defense counsel made a second attempt to confer with the
Plaintiffs' lawyer who reiterated his position.
The Plaintiffs have responded to the amended motion. Their
response includes a motion to strike which the Magistrate has
denied.
The Defendant seeks an award of its attorney's fees expended to
defend the entire case. It argues that it is appropriate because
all of the Plaintiffs' claims were alternative theories based on
the same set of facts and therefore, none of the work performed by
the Defendant's lawyers was totally unrelated' to the FDUPTA claim
or clearly beyond the scope of the proceeding. The Plaintiffs
maintain that each of their claims were separate and distinct.
The first factor for the Court to consider is the "scope and
history of the litigation. Magistrate Judge Smith finds that the
scope and history of the case is a neutral factor in the Court's
analysis. No evidence that any party litigated in an overly
aggressive manner or that any party unnecessarily delayed or
churned the case. In its motion papers, the Defendant references
onerous discovery but that is not borne out by the docket or the
counsels' billing records.
Second, is the ability of the opposing party to satisfy an award of
fees. The party seeking fees must present some evidence of the
opposing party's ability to pay. Because there is no reason to
doubt the Plaintiffs' representation, this factor weighs in favor
of denying the motion.
Third, is whether an award of fees against the opposing party would
deter others from acting in similar circumstances. As the
Magistrtae has already noted, the Defendant's clams of onerous
discovery and stalling are not borne out by the docket or defense
counsels' time records. While the Defendant is correct that a fee
award may serve as deterrence to similarly situated parties, the
Plaintiff's conduct has already been sanctioned in the form of
dismissal with prejudice. He therefore concludes that any
additional deterrence in the form of a fee award is not necessary
to deter similar conduct in the future. This conclusion is
bolstered even more so by the fact that FDUPTA is designed to
protect the consuming public, not to penalize them for attempting
to enforce its provisions. The Magistrate finds that the
deterrence factor weighs marginally in favor of granting the
Defendant's motion.
Fourth, is the merits of the respective positions-including the
degree of the opposing party's culpability or bad faith. Because
the Defendant prevailed on the statutes of limitation, the
Magistrate finds that this factor weighs moderately in the
Defendant's favor.
Fifth, is whether the claim brought was not in subjective bad faith
but frivolous, unreasonable, groundless. This factor depends upon
the Court's view of the Plaintiffs' decision to bring this lawsuit
despite the statutes of limitation issues they faced. On review,
the Magistrate finds that the Plaintiffs were misguided but not
frivolous which is why he finds this to be a neutral factor.
Sixth, is whether the defense raised a defense mainly to frustrate
or stall. This factor has no bearing on the case, because the
Defendant was the prevailing party, not the losing party.
Seventh is whether the claim brought was to resolve a significant
legal question under FDUTPA law. This factor weighs neutrally
because the parties did not assert novel or significant questions
of law.
After considering the applicable factors, Magistrate Judge Smith
finds that the Plaintiffs' inability to pay a fee award is the most
significant and that it alone outweighs the factors favoring the
Defendant. Therefore, he respectfully recommended the Court denies
the Defendant's motion for attorney's fees and costs.
A party has 14 days from the date to file written objections to the
Report and Recommendation's factual findings and legal conclusions.
A party's failure to file written objections waives that party's
right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or
legal conclusion the district judge adopts from the Report and
Recommendation.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Report and
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/PrJNsO from
Leagle.com.
Wilma Perez, an individual & David Haldeman, an individual,
Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Allen Norden --
anorden@realtoughlawyers.com -- Osborne & Associates Law Firm P.A.,
Joseph A. Osborne -- josborne@realtoughlawyers.com -- Osborne &
Associates Law Firm P.A. & Stuart Talley -- stuart@kctlegal.com --
Kershaw Cook & Talley, PC, pro hac vice.
FCA US, LLC., formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC, Defendant,
represented by Daniel Jay Gerber -- dgerber@rumberger.com --
Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA & Douglas B. Brown --
dbrown@rumberger.com -- Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA.
FCA US, LLC., formerly known a Chrysler Group LLC, Defendant,
represented by Samantha Crawford Duke -- sduke@rumberger.com --
Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA.
FEDEX CORP: Faces 2 Securities Class Suits in New York
------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended May 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a
defendant in two securities class action suits in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
On June 26, 2019 and July 2, 2019, FedEx and certain present and
former officers were named as defendants in two putative class
action securities lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder relating to alleged misstatements or
omissions in FedEx's public filings with the SEC and other public
statements during the period from September 19, 2017 to December
18, 2018.
FedEx said, "We are not currently able to estimate the probability
of loss or the amount or range of potential loss, if any, at this
stage of the litigation."
FedEx Corporation provides transportation, e-commerce, and business
services worldwide. FedEx Corporation was founded in 1971 and is
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Pierre FDCPA Suit Moved to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Carolyn Pierre on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
21648-2019E, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Bronx, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on July 8, 2019. The Southern District of New
York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-06276-JPO to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Financial Recovery provides debt collection services. The Company
offers comprehensive coverage, auditing, monitoring, electronic
file transfer, legal collections, skiptracing, bilingual
capability, and comprehensive data security services.[BN]
Attorneys for the Defendant are:
Michael Thomas Etmund, Esq.
MOSS & BARNETT
150 S Fifth Street, Ste 1200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 877-5309
Facsimile: (612) 877-5050
E-mail: mike.etmund@lawmoss.com
FLAGSTAR BANK: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Smith Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOWELL and GINA SMITH, husband and wife, and WILLIAM
KIVETT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Defendants, Case No. C 18-05131
WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the Defendant's
converted motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs Lowell and Smith and William Kivett brought the putative
class action alleging breach of contract and violation of Section
17200 of the California Business & Professions Code. All claims
arise out of Defendant Flagstar Bank's failure to pay interest on
escrow accounts when Flagstar serviced the Plaintiffs' respective
loans under deeds of trust between 2011 and 2015. California Civil
Code Section 2954.8(a) required payment of interest on such
accounts.
Flagstar moved to dismiss asserting that Section 2954.8(a) was
preempted by the Home Owners' Loan Act ("HOLA"). The Smiths
conceded that HOLA field preemption applied pre-Dodd Frank Act.
Still, after Dodd-Frank, it was not clear whether the Smiths'
contract continued to enjoy HOLA preemption. The issue stemmed
from whether Dodd-Frank's contract preservation provision applied
to the Smiths' contract.
Section 5553 preserved the application of the original HOLA field
preemption scheme that existed prior to the enactment of Dodd-Frank
for any contract entered into on or before July 21, 2010 by
national banks, Federal savings associations, or subsidiaries. The
Smiths had obtained their mortgage in October 2004, but a factual
dispute arose over whether the Smiths had "entered into" a contract
with a "national bank." Specifically, the matter turned on how
broadly to define the phrase "any contract entered into."
Flagstar sought judicial notice of the Smiths' promissory note to
establish that Flagstar participated in the origination of the
Smiths' loan and became its original servicer immediately after
origination. The Smiths, however, countered that the promissory
note clearly identified Wholesale America Mortgage as the lender,
not Flagstar.
Owing to the importance of this factual question and because
matters outside the pleading were presented to and not excluded by
the court, the motion to dismiss was converted to one for summary
judgment under Rule 12(d). Immediate discovery was allowed to
answer two questions. First, to what extent Flagstar had been
involved in the origination of the Smiths' mortgage. Second,
whether a contract existed between the Smiths and Flagstar that
would have preserved HOLA preemption pursuant to Section 5553.
Judge Alsup concludes that Flagstar has been imminently involved
with this contract from the beginning. Its forms had been used and
its name had been in the signature line. Indeed, the parties do
not dispute that Wholesale America Mortgage intended to sell this
mortgage to Flagstar from the beginning. Notwithstanding
Flagstar's involvement from the beginning, once Flagstar acquired
the Smiths' mortgage in 2004, Flagstar "entered into" the contract
sufficient to trigger Section 5553. Accordingly, HOLA preemption
remained with the Smiths' contract after Dodd-Frank, thereby
preempting the Smiths' claims.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alsup granted Flagstar's converted
motion for summary judgment as to the Smiths. The claims brought
by the Smiths are dismissed. As to Plaintiff Kivett, class
certification, summary judgment, and trial will proceed as
scheduled.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/lcdltf from Leagle.com.
Lowell Smith & Gina Smith, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter B.
Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Fredman
& Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.
William Kivett, Plaintiff, represented by Fredman B. Peter, Law
Office of Peter Fredman PC & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.
Flagstar Bank, FSB, Defendant, represented by Carolee Anne Hoover,
McGuireWoods LLP, David Carlyle Powell -- dpowell@mcguirewoods.com
-- McGuireWoods LLP, Aaron Robert Marienthal, McGuireWoods, LLP,
Alexander Jacob Gershen -- agershen@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP & Alicia Anne Baiardo, McGuireWoods LLP.
FOODLINER INC: Court Enters Final Judgment in Austin Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONDA AUSTIN, CHRISTOPHER CORDUCK, ERNEST DIAL, BILLY
WAYNE GIBSON, and BOBBY G. SMITH, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. FOODLINER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-07185-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, Oakland Division, has entered Final Judgment
pursuant to Rule 23(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The matter came on for hearing before the Court on May 2, 2019 at
2:00 p.m., pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Court's Aug. 17, 2018 Order Granting Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On May 10, 2019,
the Court entered the Final Approval Order granting the Plaintiffs'
motions for (1) final approval of class action settlement and (2)
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive payments (in part).
The Settlement Class is comprised of the following class members:
a. Class Members: All individuals employed by Foodliner as
truck drivers in California at any time from Nov. 3, 2012 to Aug.
17, 2018.
b. PAGA Subclass Members: Class members employed by Foodliner
between Oct. 31, 2015 to Aug. 17, 2018.
The Named Plaintiffs will be paid incentive payments of $10,000 to
Plaintiff Austin and $5,000 each to Plaintiffs Corduck, Dial,
Gibson, and Smith, out of the Gross Settlement Amount, in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Final
Approval Order.
The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency will be paid
$61,053.75 out of the Gross Settlement Amount as its share of the
PAGA penalties, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and the Final Approval Order. Individual settlement
payments will be paid to the participating Settlement Class members
out of the Net Settlement Sum, in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.
The Class Counsel will be paid $300,000 in attorneys' fees from the
Gross Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Order.
The Class Counsel's litigation costs of $22,221.37 will be paid out
of the Gross Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Order.
The Claims Administrator, Simpluris, Inc., will be paid for its
fees and expenses in connection with the administration of the
Settlement Agreement out of the Gross Settlement Amount, in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Final
Approval Order, in the amount of $4,500.
The document will constitute a final judgment for purposes of Rule
58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Judgment is available
at https://is.gd/d1QsWQ from Leagle.com.
Ronda Austin, Christopher Corduck, Ernest Dial, Billy Wayne Gibson
& Bobby G. Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Hunter Pyle --
hpyle@ssrplaw.com -- Hunter Pyle Law & Chad A. Saunders --
csaunders@ssrplaw.com -- Sundeen Salinas & Pyle.
Foodliner, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mollie Michelle Burks --
mburks@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, John Paul
Briscoe -- jbriscoe@mayallaw.com -- Burton Employment law &
Nicholas A. Deming -- ndeming@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees.
FORD MOTOR: Travis Stayed for 120 Days Pending Transfer Bid Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRACEY TRAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-11639 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Sean F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan stayed the matter for 120 days or
until the Parties notify the Court that the Panel has issued a
decision on the Transfer Motion.
The putative class action arises out of the Plaintiff's allegation
that Ford made false and deceptive representations to consumers
concerning the fuel economy ratings of select Ford-brand vehicles.
There are four other putative class actions asserting fuel
economy-based claims relating to Ford's marketing and sale of the
subject vehicles. Those cases are (i) Cook v. Ford Motor Company,
No. 2:19-CV-00335 (M.D. Ala.); (ii) Drake v. Ford Motor Company,
No. 2:19-CV-14165 (S.D. Fla.); (iii) Hubert v. Ford Motor Company,
No. 2:19-CV-02125 (C.D. Ill.); and (iv) Lloyd v. Ford Motor
Company, No. 3:19-CV-11319 (E.D. Mich.).
On May 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Cook and Hubert actions
jointly filed with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, a motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1407. The Transfer Motion contends that transfer and coordination
are appropriate because the identified cases "involve common
questions of law and fact," which handled together will "benefit
the parties, the witnesses, and the courts."
The cases that were not filed at the time of the Transfer Motion
will be identified as related matters in connection with the
Transfer Motion. Ford is not contesting that transfer and
consolidation is appropriate.
The parties expect that the Transfer Motion will be fully briefed
and ripe for review by June 7, 2019; the Panel will likely hear
argument on the Transfer Motion on July 25, 2019, and will likely
make a decision on transfer within the next several months.
The parties agree that a brief stay of the action until the Panel
decides the Transfer Motion will promote judicial efficiency and
consistency, and that neither the parties nor the progress of the
action will be prejudiced by such a stay. They agree that the stay
will not prevent any Plaintiff from amending his or her complaint
as a matter of right. The parties will promptly notify the Court
when the Panel issues a decision on the Transfer Motion.
Judge Cox granted the parties' stipulation and so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3hus2H from Leagle.com.
Tracey Travis, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Stephanie A. Douglas
-- douglas@bsplaw.com -- Bush Seyferth & Paige & Susan M. McKeever
-- mckeever@bsplaw.com -- Bush Seyferth Paige.
GLOBAL CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in Wojcieski Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Wojcieski, Donna Kijek, and Barbara Mollberg move the
Court to certify the class described in the complaint of their
lawsuit titled JENNIFER WOJCIESKI, DONNA KIJEK, and BARBARA
MOLLBERG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. GLOBAL CREDIT & COLLECTION CORP., Case No.
2:19-cv-01023-WED (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both
stay the motion for class certification and to grant them (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.
Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).
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,
the Plaintiffs tell the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017). The Plaintiffs assert that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).
The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs
contend.
As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue.
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
GRACE LIVING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Jordan Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Demetria Jordan, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Grace Living Centers, Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00654-G (E.D. N.Y., July 19, 2019) is an opt-in collective
action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard
carried out their illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay
overtime compensation with respect to Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members, says the complaint. Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members routinely worked more than 40 hours in a work week during
the Relevant Period, and at more than one Location each week.
However, their hours for each Location were kept separate and
overtime was only paid on a per Location basis (the "Hours
Segregation Policy").
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly paid licensed
practical nurse ("LPN").
Defendant provides nursing and rehabilitative care in twenty-plus
facilities around the State of Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Victor R. Wandres, Esq.
Paramount Law
4835 S. Peoria Ave., Suite 1
Tulsa, OK 74105
Voice: (918) 200-9272
Fax: (918) 895-9774
Email: victor@paramount-law.net
- and -
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
The Law Office of Chris R. Miltenberger, PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092-4322
Office: 817-416-5060
Fax: 817-416-5062
Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com
GROUP HEALTH PLAN: Greenwell Sues Over Denied Coverage for Therapy
------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERY GREENWELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. GROUP HEALTH PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF SENSUS
USA, INC., BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01732-N (N.D. Tex., July 19, 2019) is a class
action on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act plans administered by Blue Cross
Blue Shield of North Carolina ("BCBSNC") who were denied Proton
Beam Radiation Therapy ("PBRT") because of BCBSNC's uniform
application of an arbitrary medical policy to deny as experimental
or investigational such treatment for prostate cancer, despite PBRT
being recognized for decades by the medical community as an
established, medically appropriate treatment for cancer, including
prostate cancer.
Instead of acting solely in the interests of the participants and
beneficiaries of its health insurance plans, upon information and
belief, BCBSNC denied coverage for PBRT to treat prostate cancer
because, on average, PBRT may be significantly more expensive than
traditional Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ("IMRT") or other
treatments. Plaintiff was a participant in a health insurance plan,
Defendant Group Health Plan for EMPLOYEES of Sensus USA Inc. (the
"Employer Plan" or "Plan"), issued on behalf of his former
employer, Sensus USA Inc., which is a group health benefit plan.
The Employer Plan is governed by the ERISA. The physicians at MD
Anderson recommended that Plaintiff undergo PBRT as an alternative
to IMRT because, among other things, the likelihood of achieving a
better clinical and post treatment quality-of-life outcome was
greater for PBRT.
On March 30, 2016, BCBSNC denied Plaintiff's request for prior
approval of PBRT on the grounds that (1) it did not meet the Plan's
definition of "medical necessity" and (2) fell under the exclusion
for "Investigational (Experimental) Services" and (3) BCBSNC's
"Corporate Medical Policy: Charged Particle Radiotherapy (Proton or
Helium Ion) Investigational (Experimental) Services" ("Medical
Policy"), and therefore is not covered for prostate cancer ("PBRT
Medical Policy"). Notwithstanding BCBSNC's denial of coverage,
Plaintiff proceeded to have PBRT, with very positive results.
Plaintiff paid for the treatment out-of-pocket and sought payment
of benefits from BCBSNC. BCBSNC denied coverage. Plaintiff
exhausted all internal appeals provided by the Employer Plan.
BCBSNC responded by upholding the denial of coverage based solely
on the PBRT Medical Policy, and without considering the substantial
materials submitted by Plaintiff and his treating providers
supporting coverage for PBRT, says the complaint.
Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer in June 2015 and was a
participant in a health insurance plan.
Group Health Plan for EMPLOYEES of Sensus USA Inc. is a self-funded
group employee welfare benefit plan regulated by ERISA and pursuant
to which Plaintiff is entitled to health care benefits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Plummer, Esq.
Amar Raval, Esq.
Berg Plummer Johnson & Raval, LLP
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1150
Houston, TX 77098
Phone: (713) 526-0200
Fax: (832) 615-2665
Email: Jplummer@bergplummer.com
Araval@bergplummer.com
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Aker Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halsted Financial
Services LLC. The case is styled as Josef Aker, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Halsted
Financial Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-06841 (S.D.
N.Y., July 23, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Halsted Financial Services is a global financial services firm,
providing consumer and commercial solutions for today's world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
HONEYWELL INT'L: Bendix-Related Asbestos Class Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company is
facing two class action suits initiated by David Kanefsky and Wayne
County Employees' Retirement System.
On September 13, 2018, following completion of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance's review
of the company's prior accounting for liabilities for unasserted
Bendix-related asbestos claims, the SEC Division of Enforcement
advised that it has opened an investigation related to this matter.
Honeywell intends to provide requested information and otherwise
fully cooperate with the SEC staff.
On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed
a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior
accounting for Bendix asbestos claims.
On May 15, 2019, Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, another
Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action asserting the
same claims relating to substantially the same alleged conduct in
the same jurisdiction.
Honeywell said, "We believe neither complaint has any merit."
Honeywell International Inc. is a worldwide diversified technology
and manufacturing company. The Company provides aerospace products
and services, control, sensing and security technologies,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic
and advanced materials, process technology for refining and
petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions. The
company is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey.
IBEW PACIFIC: Summary Judgment in Lehman ERISA Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD LEHMAN, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated; MICHAEL PUTERBAUGH, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
WARNER NELSON; et al., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 18-35321
(9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in
favor of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") class action Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Following the Court's remand in Lehman v. Nelson, 862 F.3d 1203
(9th Cir. 2017) ("Lehman I"), the district court held that
Amendment 24 to the Pacific Coast Fund Pension Plan violates the
plain language of section 5.04 in Article 5 of the Plan. The
section requires the transfer of all employer contributions
received on behalf of travelers in the electrical construction
industry who work in the jurisdictions of other local union pension
funds. The Court held that the Trustees of the IBEW Pacific Coast
Pension Fund cannot distinguish between "benefit" and "non-benefit"
contributions where it concerns travelers.
The Court reviews the district court's application of the standard
and the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. On
appeal, the Class contends that the Court should review the
Trustees' interpretation of Amendment 24 de novo because the issue
in the case is purely a legal question and does not concern any
interpretation of the Plan. As in Lehman I, the Court need not
decide this issue as the Trustees' arguments in support of their
interpretation of Amendment 24 fail even under the deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of
the Class. Like Amendment 14 in Lehman I, the Trustees'
interpretation of Amendment 24 with regard to travelers'
contributions is inconsistent and conflicts with the Pacific Coast
Plan's own definition of "contribution" found in section 1.04, and
conflicts with and renders nugatory section 5.04. Section 5.04 of
the Pension Plan incorporates the Reciprocal Agreement signed by
the Pacific Coast Fund.
Pursuant to section 5.04, travelers' contributions are simply
pass-through contributions made to the travelers' home funds and
are not assets of the Pacific Coast Fund. The Trustees' attempts
to distinguish "benefit" and "non-benefit" contributions pursuant
to collective bargaining agreements are unavailing -- any
contributions on behalf of a traveler must be passed through under
the Plan. Because travelers' contributions do not belong to the
Pacific Coast Fund, the district court's order did not violate the
Pension Protection Act of 2006, nor did the order require the
Trustees to violate their fiduciary duties under ERISA.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/3UePOm from Leagle.com.
IC SYSTEM: Greenfeld Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IC System, Inc. The
case is styled as Mendel Greenfeld, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IC System, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-06851 (S.D. N.Y., July 23, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
IC System, Inc. is a debt collection agency in Vadnais Heights,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
IDEANOMICS INC: Miranda Hits Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------
MARIA JOSE PINTO CLARO DA FONSECA MIRANDA, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. IDEANOMICS,
INC. f/k/a SEVEN STARS CLOUD GROUP, INC. f/k/a WECAST NETWORK,
INC., BRUNO WU, SIMON WANG, BING YANG, JASON WU, and FEDERICO
TOVAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06741 (S.D. N.Y., July 19,
2019) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Ideanomics securities
between May 15, 2017 and November 13, 2018, both dates inclusive.
Plaintiff asserts claims against Ideanomics and certain of
Ideanomics' officers and directors under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Ideanomics is headquartered in New York and incorporated in Nevada.
Ideanomics' common stock currently trades on the NASDAQ stock
market under the ticker symbol "IDEX." From June 2017 until August
2018, the Company was known as Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc. and
announced the adoption of Ideanomics as its new business name on
August 27, 2018. From October 2016 until June 2017, the Company was
known as Wecast Network Inc. On November 14, 2018, the Company
issued a press release, filed as an exhibit to a Current Report on
Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing the Company's financial and
operating results for the third quarter of 2018. On this news,
Ideanomics' stock price fell $1.59 per share, or 48.77%, to close
at $1.67 per share on November 14, 2018, damaging investors.
The complaint asserts that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding
Ideanomics' business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) costs associated with building
out Ideanomics' U.S. infrastructure and hiring its new executive
team were negatively impacting the Company's bottom line
performance; (ii) as a result, Ideanomics was highly unlikely to
meet its 2018 EBITDA guidance; (iii) Ideanomics' margins in its oil
trading and consumer electronics businesses were too low for those
businesses to remain viable; and (iv) as a result, Ideanomics'
public statements were materially false and misleading.
Plaintiff acquired Ideanomics securities at artificially inflated
prices and was damaged thereby.
Ideanomics purports to operate as a fintech and asset digitization
services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
IKEA INDUSTRY: Court Refuses to Dismiss Count II in Powell Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERRI POWELL, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IKEA INDUSTRY DANVILLE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00058 (W.D. Va.), Judge Jason L. Kiser
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia,
Danville Division, denied IKEA's Rule 12(b)(1) Partial Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
Defendant IKEA is the world's largest producer of wood-based
furniture and it manufacture(s) for IKEA customers all over the
work. The Plaintiff was employed by IKEA at its Swedwood Danville
facility as a Pack Team Captain starting in 2014 until her she left
IKEA in April 2018. She alleges that she routinely worked the 7:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m., but was required to come in at least 30 minutes
early.
As it relates to her claims, the Plaintiff contends that IKEA has a
policy of "rounding" an employee's clock-in and clock-out time to
its benefit. For example, the Plaintiff alleges that, when she
clocked in at 6:20 a.m. and clocked out at 3:07 p.m. (8.8 hours),
IKEA only paid her from 6:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. (8.5 hours).
When she clocked in at 6:16 a.m. and clocked out at 3:08 p.m. (8.9
hours), IKEA again only paid her from 6:30-3:00 (8.5 hours). And
when she clocked in at 6:19 a.m. and clocked out at 3:12 p.m. (8.9
hours), IKEA again rounded her hours to 6:30-3:00 (8.5 hours). In
one two-week pay period, the Plaintiff alleges that IKEA "shaved"
118 minutes off her reported work time and failed to include that
time in her payroll calculations and earned wages. She contends,
on her own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated
employees, that IKEA's policy results in an unjust enrichment for
IKEA in violation of Virginia common law.
The Plaintiff filed the suit on Oct. 16, 2018. On Jan. 25, 2019,
IKEA filed a motion to dismiss Count II of the Complaint, alleging
that the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is preempted by
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The Court heard
oral argument on IKEA's motion on March 21, 2019.
Judge Kiser finds that while the terms regarding rate of pay may
need to be applied to determine the amount of wages owed if the
Plaintiff establishes her claim, nothing in the collective
bargaining agreement bears on defining what is compensable work for
which the Plaintiff is owed wages, IKEA's clock-time "rounding"
policy, or how wages are calculated based on the time-keeping
system. In every material regard, the collective bargaining
agreement is silent on the issues raised in the Plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claim. Because the interpretation of the collective
bargaining agreement is not necessary to decide her claim, Section
301 does not require the preemption of her unjust enrichment claim,
and the Court may properly exercise its jurisdiction over that
claim.
Because interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is
not necessary to resolve the action, Count II is not preempted by
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. For that
reason, Judge Kiser denied IKEA's motion to dismiss at this time.
This ruling is without prejudice to IKEA's right to raise this
issue again should discovery reveal the necessity of revisiting
this ruling.
The clerk is directed to forward a copy of the Memorandum Opinion
and accompanying Order to all the counsel of record.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/gwV0EO from Leagle.com.
Terri Powell, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Robert Strianese --
chris@strilaw.com -- Strianese Huckert, LLP, pro hac vice, Gregg
Cohen Greenberg -- ggreenberg@zagfirm.com -- Zipin, Amster &
Greenberg, LLC & Tracey Flexter George, Davis George Mook LLC, pro
hac vice.
IKEA Industry Danville, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alexander
Tevis Marshall -- tevis.marshall@ogletree.com -- Ogeltree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Bret Gregory Daniel --
bret.daniel@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart,
PC..
INTERNATIONAL FOODSERVICE: Sullivan Asserts Breach of ADA
---------------------------------------------------------
International Foodservice Manufacturers Association is facing a
class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
International Foodservice Manufacturers Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04929 (N.D. Ill., July 23, 2019).
International Foodservice Manufacturers Association is a
foodservice trade association located in Chicago, IL.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Lee Litigation Group PLLC
148 west 24th Street
8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Tel: (212) 465-1180
Fax: (212) 465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Certify Class in Beach ERISA Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERRE BEACH, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-563 (JMF) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted (i) the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and appointment of class counsel; and (ii)
the parties' motion to seal certain filings associated with the
class certification motion.
The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), on
behalf of the JPMorgan Chase 401(k) Savings Plan. They allege that
JPMorgan and several related Defendants breached their duties of
loyalty and prudence by including funds with excessive fees in the
Plan's investment options.
The Plan has approximately 266,000 to 300,000 participants and over
$14 billion in assets. As is common with 401(k) plans,
participants receive tax benefits by investing in the Plan. As is
also common with 401(k) plans, participants must invest the money
in their individual accounts in an investment option offered by the
Plan; they cannot invest the money outside of the Plan's funds.
JPMorgan and other Defendants control which investment options --
that is, which "funds" -- are in the Plan. The funds that the
Defendants chose to include in the Plan have different
characteristics and fees. Some of the funds are passively managed
investments designed to mimic a market index (such as the S&P 500),
while others are actively managed investments designed to beat the
market. Each of the funds charges fees to the Plan, often to cover
management expenses. The fees vary by fund, but generally are
higher for actively managed funds.
The five remaining named Plaintiffs in the case -- Antoinette
Fondren, Ferdinand Orellana, William Stirsman, Sean Daly, and James
Monaghan -- were all participants in the Plan. They invested in
different funds, each with different fees. Fondren invested in the
Target Date 2030 Fund, which, like other Target Date Funds, is made
up of other investment options. Orellana invested in the Core Bond
Fund, the Mid Cap Growth Fund, the Small Cap Core Fund, the Target
Date 2045 Fund, and others. Stirsman invested in the Core Bond
Fund, the Target Date 2015 Fund, and others. Daly invested in the
Target Date 2050 Fund and others. Monaghan invested in the Large
Cap Growth Index Fund and others.
Three of the Plaintiffs -- Fondren, Daly, and Monaghan -- signed
arbitration agreements when accepting their employment with
JPMorgan or its subsidiaries. In those arbitration agreements, the
three Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate all of their claims against
the Defendants except for claims for benefits under a plan that is
governed by ERISA, among others. The agreement also stated that
"no claims may be arbitrated on a class or collective basis.
The Plaintiffs' primary contention in the lawsuit is that the
Defendants violated their fiduciary duties to the Plan by
"retaining unduly expensive Plan investment options." They bring
the suit on behalf of the Plan. They contend that the Defendants
violated ERISA Section 404(a), which requires that fiduciaries
manage plans "solely in the interest of the participants and
beneficiaries including by defraying reasonable expenses of
administering the plan.
In particular, the Plaintiffs challenge the Plan's inclusion of
high-fee investment options (that is, funds), some of which were
managed by JPMorgan and its affiliates. The funds they challenge
are: the JPMIM Growth and Income Fund, which charged approximately
65 basis points per year; the Mid Cap Value Fund, which charged 42
basis points per year; the JPMIM Mid Cap Growth Fund, which charged
approximately 93 basis points per year; the JPMIM Small Cap Core
Fund, which charged approximately 81 basis points per year; the
JPMIM Core Bond Fund, which charged between 35 and 40 basis points
per year; and the Target Date Funds, which had annual expenses of
seven to eighteen basis points. The Plaintiffs seek to recover any
losses caused by the breaches and to restore any profits made
through the breach pursuant to ERISA Section 1109. The majority of
their claims previously survived a motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs now seek to certify a class of Plan participants and
to be appointed as class representatives. The class they propose
is defined as all persons, except the Defendants and any other
persons with responsibility for the Plan's investment menu, who
were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time
between Jan. 25, 2011 and the present, and whose individual
accounts were invested in one or more of the subject funds.
The "subject funds" are the funds named in the Second Amended
Complaint, to wit: the Growth and Income Fund, the Mid Cap Value
Fund, the Mid Cap Growth Fund, the Small Cap Core Fund, the Core
Bond Fund, and the Target Date Funds (which appear to include
several Target Date Funds4).
The Defendants oppose class certification. In particular, they
challenge the named Plaintiffs' standing to be class
representatives; the Plaintiffs' ability to serve as class
representatives despite arbitration agreements and limited
knowledge of the class; the inclusion of subject funds in which no
Plaintiff invested; and the inclusion of funds which changed fee
structures during the Class Period.
The parties also seek to seal various internal JPMorgan documents
related to the class certification motion. Judge Furman granted
the parties permission to temporarily seal the documents pending a
decision on the underlying certification motion.
As to the arbitration of the ERISA claims, the Judge concludes that
the Defendants waived any right to compel arbitration. The
Defendants waited for more than a year to raise arbitration as an
issue and now do so in briefing, not by motion. They did not
mention arbitration while litigating a motion to dismiss or when
filing an answer with other affirmative defenses. Moreover, the
parties have conducted extensive discovery, including multiple
depositions. These actions demonstrate an intent to litigate, and
they establish that the Plaintiffs would be prejudiced if the
Defendants now sought to compel arbitration. Because the
Defendants waived any right to compel arbitration in this
litigation, the Plaintiffs are, in effect, not bound by the
arbitration agreements. In this context, the unenforceable
agreements cannot preclude the Plaintiffs from representing the
proposed class.
Turns, then, to the analysis of class certification, the Judge
finds that the proposed class meets the explicit and implicit
requirements of Rule 23(a); and the class is properly certified
under Rule 23(b)(1)(B). As a firm of approximately 100 lawyers
with offices across the country, KTMC has sufficient resources to
devote to the class action, as it has already done. Accordingly,
the Judge appoints KTMC as the class counsel.
Finally, the parties seek to keep under seal exhibits containing
internal JPMorgan documents about the Plan and the parts of a brief
that rely on them. Because the findings requirement for sealing
documents arises only after a First Amendment right of access to
judicial documents is found, the exhibits here are not subject to a
presumption of access or a findings requirement and may be filed
under seal. And, because sealing the exhibits is proper, redaction
of information taken from the exhibits is proper as well.
For the reasons stated, Judge Furman granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and appointment of lead counsel as
modified. Specifically, he certified the class of all persons,
except Defendants and any other persons with responsibility for the
Plan's investment menu, who were participants in or beneficiaries
of the Plan, at any time between Jan. 25, 2011 and the present, and
whose individual accounts were invested in one or more of the
following funds: the Growth and Income Fund; the Mid Cap Value
Fund; the Mid Cap Growth Fund; the Small Cap Core Fund, but only if
the investment occurred before Dec. 19, 2015; the Core Bond Fund,
but only if the investment occurred before March 12, 2016; and any
of the Target Date Funds, but only if the investment occurred
before April 1, 2016.
Additionally, the Judge appointed Daly, Fondren, Orellana, and
Stirsman -- but not Monaghan -- as the class representatives, and
appointed KTMC as the class counsel.
Finally, he granted the motion to seal. By June 20, 2019 (unless
they have already done so), the Defendants will file unredacted
copies of the three sealed exhibits -- that is, Docket Nos. 97-7,
97-21, and 97-22 -- with the Court's Sealed Records Department.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 95.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Ug2h6f from Leagle.com.
Ferdinand Orellana, individually and on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Evan Jay
Kaufman -- ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
William Scott Holleman, Johnson Fistel, LLP, Donna Siegel Moffa,
Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP, Mark E. Thomson,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.
William Stirsman, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Steven
Preminger, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Derek W. Loeser, Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice, Gretchen S. Obrist, Keller Rohrback L.L.P.,
pro hac vice, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac
vice, Tanya Korkhov, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Donna Siegel Moffa,
Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP, Erin M. Riley, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P, Mark E. Thomson, Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Mark K.
Gyandoh, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.
Sean Daly, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & James C. Monaghan, individually and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Consolidated
Plaintiffs, represented by Donna Siegel Moffa , Barroway Topaz
Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP, Mark E. Thomson , Nichols Kaster,
PLLP, Joseph H. Meltzer , Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Mark
K. Gyandoh , Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.
Antoinette Fondren, individually and on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented
by Donna Siegel Moffa , Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check,
LLP, James A. Maro, Jr. , Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Mark
E. Thomson , Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Joseph H. Meltzer , Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Mark K. Gyandoh , Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP.
Ferdinand Orellana & William Stirsman, Consolidated Plaintiffs,
represented by Joseph H. Meltzer , Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP & Mark K. Gyandoh , Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, JPMorgan Chase &
Company, Compensation & Management Development Committee, Selection
Committee, Employee Plans Investment Committee, J.P. Morgan
Investment Management Inc., Head of Human Resources for JPMorgan
Chase & Co., Chief Financial Officer for JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
Benefits Director of JPMorgan Chase & Co., Stephen B. Burke,
William C. Weldon, John C. Donnelly, Marianne Lake, Bernadette
Branosky, Thelma Ferguson & John Does 1-20, Defendants, represented
by Susan Leslie Saltzstein -- susan.saltzstein@skadden.com --
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, James R. Carroll --
james.carroll@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
L.L.P. & Michael S. Hines -- michael.hines@skadden.com -- Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.
Board of Directors for JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association,
Defendant, represented by Susan Leslie Saltzstein , Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & James R. Carroll , Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, L.L.P.
Board of Directors for JPMorgan Chase & Company, Linda B. Bammann,
James A. Bell, Crandall C. Bowles, James S. Crown, Jamie Dimon,
Timothy P Flynn, Laban P. Jackson, Jr., Michael A. Neal, Frank
Bisignano, Matthew E. Zames, J.P. Morgan Chase 401(k) Savings Plan
Selection Committee, David M. Cote, Douglas L. Braunstein,
BlackRock Inc. & Ellen V. Futter, Defendants, represented by Susan
Leslie Saltzstein , Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.
Lee R. Raymond, JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, Terry Belton, Corrine
Burger, Sally Durdan, Tom Horne, Bei Ling, Pablo Sanchez, Erik
Umlauf, David Watson, Michael Weinbach & Compensation & Management
Development Committee of the Board of Directors for JPMorgan Chase
& Company, Defendants, represented by Susan Leslie Saltzstein ,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Michael S. Hines ,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.
KAZ ENTERPRISES: Atondo Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------
LUIS MIGUEL GARCIA ATONDO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KAZ ENTERPRISES INC. (D/B/A CLUB
EVOLUTION), FLAMINGO TAVERN CORP. (D/B/A FRIEND'S TAVERN), EDUARDO
VALENTIN, and MAURICIO FINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04170
(E.D. N.Y., July 18, 2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiff, and
other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for
violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants without appropriate minimum wage
compensation for the hours that he worked, says the complaint.
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked; failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked;
and failed to pay Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. The Defendants
employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff's actual
duties in payroll records by designating him as a waiter and a
bartender instead of as a non-tipped employee. This allowed
Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff at the minimum wage rate and
enabled them to pay him at the tip-credit rate (which they still
failed to do). In addition, Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of unlawfully appropriating Plaintiff's and other tipped
employees' tips and made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff's and
other tipped employees' wages, says the complaint.
Defendants own, operate, or control a club and a bar, located at
76-19 Roosevelt Ave, Jackson Heights, NY 11372 under the name "Club
Evolution" and at 78-11 Roosevelt Ave, Jackson Heights, NY 11372
under the name "Friend's Tavern". Plaintiff was employed as a
waiter and a bartender at the Defendants' bars.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
KMR AMSTERDAM: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in Montera Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEN MONTERA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KMR AMSTERDAM LLC, Defendant,
Docket No. 160550/17 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Shlomo S. Hagler of the New
York County Supreme Court (i) denied KMR's motion for summary
judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, and (ii) granted Montera's motion
for class certification pursuant to CPLR 901.
Montera is the tenant of apartment 4E in a building located at 2201
Amsterdam Avenue in the County, City and State of New York. KMR is
the Building's owner.
Montera took possession of apartment 4E in March 2010, pursuant to
a "free market" rate lease with a monthly rent of $1,150. He
states that he subsequently executed regular renewal leases for
apartment 4E at higher "market rate" rents. He alleges that his
unit was actually subject to the Rent Stabilization Law ("RSL"),
and that KMR had improperly deregulated it along with many of the
Building's other apartment units.
Specifically, Montera alleges that the Building was enrolled in the
"J-51" real estate tax abatement program until approximately June
of 2013, and notes that the program required landlords to register
the apartments in such enrolled buildings as rent stabilized units,
and to provide the units' tenants with rent stabilized leases and
J-51 Riders.
It is uncontroverted that the Building's prior owner had enrolled
it in the J-51 program in 2003, that KMR purchased the Building in
2004, that it deregulated apartment 4E in 2010 when the Plaintiff
leased the apartment, and that the Building's J-51 benefits expired
in June of 2013. KMR nevertheless asserts that it properly
deregulated apartment 4E and other units in the Building.
Montera commenced the action on Nov. 29, 2017 by filing a Complaint
that seeks class certification on behalf of two proposed classes of
plaintiffs. A 'Class' of tenants seeks certification of claims for
money damages. The proposed Class is defined as all tenants at the
Building living, or who had lived, in apartments that were
deregulated during the period when J-51 benefits were being
received by KMR, except that the Class will not include (i) any
tenants who vacated before Nov. 29, 2013, or (ii) any tenants whose
occupancy in any such apartment commenced after such J-51 tax
benefits to the Building had ended.
The proposed Sub-Class of tenants seeking certification of claims
for declaratory and injunctive relief consists of all current
tenants at the Building who currently reside in unlawfully
deregulated apartments.
The Complaint asserts causes of action for: 1) rent overcharge in
violation of RSL Section 26-512, on behalf of the Class; 2) rent
overcharge in violation of RSL Section 26-512, on behalf of the
Sub-Class; and 3) a declaratory judgment of regulatory status, on
behalf of the Sub-Class.
On Feb. 2, 2018, KMR filed an answer with counterclaims for: 1) a
declaration that its deregulation of the Building was proper; 2) a
rental offset to any Plaintiffs' award of money damages; 3) money
and/or possessory judgments against any Plaintiffs found to owe
rental arrears in excess of any award of damages; and 4) a
declaration that the Court of Appeals holding in Roberts v Tishman
Speyer Props., L.P. cannot be applied retroactively.
Montera filed a reply to KMR's counterclaims on Feb. 12, 2018. The
Court dismissed KMR's fourth counterclaim on the record at oral
argument held on Sept. 6, 2018.
Now before the Court are KMR's motion for summary judgment to
dismiss the complaint, and Montera's motion for class
certification. Although KMR's motion seeks summary judgment to
dismiss the complaint on the ground that the claims therein should
be determined by the DHCR due to its primary jurisdiction, the
Court must address issues of class certification in the first
instance before it may consider any dismissal applications based on
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
KMR argues that the Plaintiff's claims should be determined by DHCR
due to its primary jurisdiction since the proposed class fails as a
matter of law. Judge Hagler finds that it is uncontroverted that
the DHCR has no authority to entertain a class action.
Turning to the class certification motion, among other things, the
Judge finds that (i) Montera has satisfied the statutory factors
set forth in CPLR 902(a); (ii) the fact that a defendant has now
offered plaintiffs a rent-stabilized lease does not render the
issue of plaintiffs' rent-stabilized status moot, because the
declaration is retroactive to the inception of the plaintiffs'
tenancy and affects their rights from that point in time to the
present; and (iii) the apartment rental history may be examined
beyond the four-year look-back period to determine the proper base
rent.
He concludes that Montera's motion for class certification should
be granted, with the concomitant result that the Court must deny
KMR's motion for summary judgment to dismiss pursuant to the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
On the basis of the foregoing, Judge Hagler denied the KMR's motion
for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212; and granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to CPLR 901 in
the form of the proposed order annexed to the Plaintiff's motion as
Exhibit F.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Decision/Order is
available at https://is.gd/oagPmz from Leagle.com.
LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Dismissal of Amended Ezell w/ Prejudice Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORMA EZELL, LEONARD WHITLEY, and ERICA BIDDINGS, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
Appellants, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
GROUP, INC.; AIG ASSURANCE COMPANY; AIG INSURANCE COMPANY; AIG
PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY; AIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY;
AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL UNION FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, PA.; AGC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
AMERICAN GENERAL ANNUITY SERVICE CORPORATION; AIG CLAIMS, INC.,
f/k/a AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., Defendants, Appellees, Case No.
18-2064 (1st Cir.), Judge David Souter of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of
the Plaintiffs' claims as raised for a second time under an amended
complaint.
Appellants Ezell, Whitley, and Biddings entered into structured
settlement agreements with Lexington. By the terms of their
settlements, the Appellants agreed not to pursue their wrongful
death and personal injury claims against parties insured by
Lexington. In exchange, Lexington agreed that the Appellants would
receive specific periodic payments from annuities that Lexington
would purchase.
One settlement agreement applied to Ezell and Whitley; the other,
to Biddings. Under each, Lexington would purchase annuities from
various life insurance companies, and the proceeds from the
annuities would be remitted to appellants in periodic installments.
As to Ezell and Whitley, a preliminary memorandum provided that
$200,000 would be "annuitized" by Lexington for the purpose of
financing periodic payments, while a formal agreement indicated the
exact amount Ezell and Whitley would receive each month. As to
Biddings, a formal agreement indicated that the "total present
value" of the periodic payments would be $1,642,000, and it also
specified the exact amount she would receive each month.
Years after these agreements took effect, the Appellants accused
Lexington and other affiliated insurers of misrepresenting the
amount the Appellants would receive from the settlements. The
Appellants brought the putative class action in federal court,
alleging that Lexington and other insurers made fraudulent
misrepresentations to the Appellants, actionable at common law, and
engaged in a scheme to defraud them in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").
The Appellants respectively allege that they did not receive the
promised amounts ($200,000 to be "annuitized" for Ezell and
Whitley, and $1,642,000 in "total present value" for Biddings)
because the life insurers that sold the annuities to Lexington
diverted four percent of those amounts to pay commissions to the
brokers who arranged the transactions with Lexington. Since these
commissions were not disclosed in the settlement agreements or
otherwise, they contend that the insurers fraudulently
misrepresented the amount appellants would receive from the
settlements. This allegation is the basis for the Appellants'
common-law fraud and RICO claims.
The Appellants now challenge the District Court's dismissal of
their claims as raised for a second time under an amended
complaint.
Judge Souter finds that the Appellants have failed to state with
particularity the circumstances constituting fraud. Under Rule
9(b), appellants must state the who, what, where, and when of the
allegedly misleading representation with particularity. However,
the basic problem with the Appellants' complaint is not that they
failed to state some facts "with particularity." Rather, it is
that the facts they have pleaded "with particularity" on the
matters discussed here demonstrate the absence of any
"circumstances constituting fraud." Accordingly, the Judge
affirmed the District Court's decision dismissing the amended
complaint with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/kH3WLO from Leagle.com.
Craig R. Spiegel -- craig@hbsslaw.com -- with whom Steve W. Berman
-- steve@hbsslaw.com -- was on briefs, for appellants.
Adam H. Offenhartz -- aoffenhartz@gibsondunn.com -- with whom James
L. Hallowell -- jhallowell@gibsondunn.com -- Nancy E. Hart --
nhart@gibsondunn.com -- Peter M. Wade -- pwade@gibsondunn.com --
William T. Hogan III -- bill.hogan@nelsonmullins.com -- and Nolan
J. Mitchell were on brief, for appellees.
LF SPORTSWEAR: Removes Summa Case to Central Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
LF Sportswear, Inc. removed the case captioned as JESSICA SUMMA,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and/or
aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of California, the
Plaintiff, vs. LF SPORTSWEAR, INC. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV17601 (Filed May 21,
2019), from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on July 11, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06082 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have a pattern and practice
of not providing Plaintiff and the Non-Exempt Class with legally
compliant 30-minute off-2 duty meal periods during their shifts,
even though they worked more than six hours during their workday.
LF Sportswear, Inc. manufactures women's apparels. The Company
offers women's blouses, jeans, hats, tops, skirts, and shirts.[BN]
Attorneys for LF Sportswear, Inc.
Scott F. Gautier, Esq.
Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
Daniel L. Allender, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310 552 0130
Facsimile: 310 229 5800
E-mail: SGautier@RobinsKaplan.com
GDanas@RobinsKaplan.com
DAllender@RobinsKaplan.com
LONGS JEWELERS: Sullivan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Longs Jewelers, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Longs Jewelers, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11588-NMG (D. Mass., July 23, 2019).
Long & Co. Jewelers is a retail jewelry store located in Barrington
IL.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Lee Litigation Group PLLC
148 west 24th Street
8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Tel: (212) 465-1180
Fax: (212) 465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
MANDARICH LAW GROUP: Felberbaum Files FDCPA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarich Law Group,
LLP. The case is styled as Raizy Felberbaum, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mandarich Law
Group, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04249 (E.D. N.Y., July 23,
2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Mandarich Law Group, LLP is a Law firm in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
MAOZ DEVELOPMENT: Samra Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIREILLE SAMRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MAOZ DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
9:19-cv-80947-RAR (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2019), seeks injunctive
relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted
in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption
of the daily life of thousands of individuals pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies.
The Defendant is a fast service vegetarian restaurant. To promote
its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the process, the lawsuit
says.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: 305-479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: 305-975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
utanski@edelsberglaw.com
MATINEE USA: Johnson Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------
ROBERT JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MATINEE USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-61802-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 18, 2019) is a putative class
action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
In efforts to drum-up business, Defendant would often send
marketing text messages promoting different types of social events,
as well as offer savings opportunities to recipients on purchases,
without first obtaining express written consent to send such
marketing text messages as required to do so under the TCPA. These
messages were sent using mass-automated technology through a
third-party company hired by Defendant to send marketing text
messages on the Defendant's behalf en masse. The Defendant
knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA, causing injuries to
Plaintiff and members of the putative class, including invasion of
their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,
trespass, and conversion, says the complaint.
Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Broward County,
Florida.
Defendant is a nationwide social event organizer and promoter
primarily focused on musical performances in the State of New York,
Florida, Nevada, and California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
JIBRAEL S. HINDI, ESQ.
THOMAS J. PATTI, ESQ.
The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-907-1136
Fax: 855-529-9540
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
MCS CLAIM SERVICES: Oved Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MCS Claim Services,
Inc. The case is styled as Shlomo Oved, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. MCS Claim
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04254 (E.D. N.Y., July
23, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
MCS Claim Services, Inc. is an insurance broker located in
Westbury, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Tel: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
MDL 2741: Johnson Estate Suit over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
ESTATE OF DEBORAH JOHNSON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.0:19-cv-01688 (Filed
June 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on July 27, 2019.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-04017-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 Johnson 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
Plaintiff allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiff 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:
Charles H. Johnson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES H. JOHNSON,
PA 2599 Mississippi Street
New Brighton, MN 55112-5060
Telephone: (651) 633-5685
Facsimile: (651) 633-4442
E-mail: bdehkes@charleshjohnsonlaw.com
MDL 2741: Moodys Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD MOODY and REBECCA MOODY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-496, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on June 20, 2019.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-04015-VC to the proceeding.
The suit 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. Donald
Moody'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.
The Moody 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
Plaintiff allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiff 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam J. Brody, Esq.
Brion B. Doyle, Esq.
Seth B. Arthur, Esq.
Bridgewater Place, P.O. Box 352
Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352
Telephone: (616) 336-6000
E-mail: ajbrody@varnumlaw.com
bbdoyle@varnumlaw.com
sbarthur@varnumlaw.com
MDL 2741: Robbins Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
GWENDOLYN ROBBINS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-338-LG-RHW, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Mississippi, 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-04014-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 Robbins 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
Plaintiff allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiff 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:
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
MENARD, INC: Faces Bucholz Suit in Western District of Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Menard, Inc. The case
is captioned as Kenneth R. Bucholz, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Menard, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00555-wmc (W.D. Wisc., July 8, 2019).
The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge William M. Conley.
Menard Inc. is a chain of home improvement stores, located in the
Midwestern United States. The privately held company, headquartered
in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, has 350 stores in 14 states.
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Peter James Nickitas, Esq.
PETER J. NICKITAS LAW OFFICE, L.L.C.
431 S. 7th Street, Suite 2446
P.O. Box 15221
Minneapolis, MN 55415-0221
Telephone: (651) 238-3445
Facsimile: (952) 546-6666
E-mail: peterjnickitaslawllc@gmail.com
MONAVIE INC: Pontrelli Discovery Deadlines Extension Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LISA PONTRELLI, in her individual capacity and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MONAVIE,
INC., and MONAVIE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01215-DN-DBP
(D. Utah), Judge David Nuffer of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah denied Ms. Pontrelli's request to extend the
discovery and class certification deadlines.
Plaintiff Pontrelli initiated a putative class action against
Defendants MonaVie, Inc. and MonaVie, LLC in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey. The Plaintiff's First
Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief
alleges that MonaVie falsely advertised health benefits of its
juice products and asserts claims for (1) violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"); (2) common law fraud; and (3)
unjust enrichment.
On June 16, 2017, the New Jersey District Court ordered fact
discovery to proceed on an expedited basis, with a close date of
Aug. 21, 2017; any motion to transfer venue to be filed by June 23,
2017; and any motion for class certification to be filed no later
than Sept. 15, 2017. Ms. Pontrelli timely filed a motion to
transfer venue to the District of Utah, which was granted.
However, no further action was taken following the case's
transfer.
In light of Ms. Pontrelli's failure to move for class
certification, the parties were ordered to provide briefing on
whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. Both parties have
filed a responsive brief.
Ms. Pontrelli asserts that subject matter jurisdiction existed
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") at the time
the Amended Complaint was filed. She further argues that
jurisdiction remains -- notwithstanding Ms. Pontrelli's failure to
move for class certification. In its response, MonaVie asserts
that jurisdiction under CAFA does not exist because class
certification did not occur and there is no reasonable foreseeable
possibility that a class could ever be certified.
In light of the failure to obtain class certification, Judge Nuffer
finds that the action remains limited to Ms. Pontrelli's individual
claims, which are minimal and would not satisfy the jurisdictional
amount under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)(2). The notion that the
Plaintiffs can manufacture federal jurisdiction by making classwide
allegations that turn out not to be certifiable, for whatever
reason, is deeply troubling. Nonetheless, as noted by other
courts, this is an issue for Congress to resolve.
Under the NJCFA, a plaintiff is entitled to a refund of all moneys
acquired by the defendant by means of the unlawful practices
alleged, as well as compensatory damages, including treble damages,
attorney's fees, and cost of suit. Based upon the size of the
prospective class members alleged, a fact finder might legally
conclude that the damages exceed $5 million dollars. Overall, the
Amended Complaint's jurisdiction allegations were not frivolous or
defective at the time of filing. Therefore, federal subject matter
jurisdiction over the matter continues to exist under CAFA,
regardless of class certification.
Ms. Pontrelli requests that the deadline to file a motion for class
certification be extended and discovery reopened. A schedule may
be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent. Ms.
Pontrelli has not shown that good cause exists to do so. The
initial class certification deadline of March 13, 2015 was
previously extended 6 times. As a result, Ms. Pontrelli had until
Sept. 15, 2017 -- almost 4 years -- to move for certification.
Ms. Pontrelli has not provided a legitimate excuse for her failure
to timely conduct the necessary discovery and to timely move for
class certification. MonaVie argues that extending the deadline at
this point in the litigation would be prejudicial. Fundamental
fairness, as well as the orderly administration of justice requires
that the Defendants haled into court not remain indefinitely
uncertain as to the bedrock litigation fact of the number of
individuals or parties to whom they may ultimately be held liable
for money damages. The matter has been pending for over five
years. Further delays are simply not warranted.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Nuffer ordered that the Order to Show
Cause is satisfied. Subject matter jurisdiction exists for Ms.
Pontrelli's individual claims for (1) violation of the NJCFA; (2)
common law fraud; and (3) unjust enrichment. The Judge denied Ms.
Pontrelli's request to extend the discovery and class certification
deadlines. A class will not be certified in the case.
A telephonic status conference is set for July 2, 2019 at 8:30
a.m., at which time trial and trial-related dates will be set. The
parties will meet and confer before the status conference to
discuss (i) participation in a Magistrate Judge Settlement
Conference; and (ii) whether a joint trial should be held on
overlapping issues in this matter and Parker et al v. MonaVie,
Inc., et al., 2:17-cv-00764-DN-DBP.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6epsy7 from Leagle.com.
Lisa Pontrelli, in her individual capacity and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jon V. Harper,
HARPER LAW PLC.
Mona Vie Inc, a Utah Corporation & Mona Vie LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Defendants, represented by Jon Kardassakis --
Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Mark F. James -- mjames@hjdlaw.com --
HATCH JAMES & DODGE & Bryan Leifer --
Bryan.Leifer@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
LLP, pro hac vice.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Daigle Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE B. DAIGLE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-04011-VC (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. The
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: Hoge Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
ESTATE OF VIOLA TORGESON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01847 (D. Minn., July 15, 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. Mr. Bumpus's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles H. Johnson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES H. JOHNSON,
PA 2599 Mississippi Street
New Brighton, MN 55112-5060
Telephone: (651) 633-5685
Facsimile: (651) 633-4442
E-mail: bdehkes@charleshjohnsonlaw.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Laughlins Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Laughlin and Gayle L. Laughlin, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-04016-VC(D. Minn., June
25, 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 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. Mr.
Laughlin'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:
Anthony J. Nemo, Esq.
Andrew L. Davick, Esq.
Ashleigh E. Raso, Esq.
2519 Commerce Drive NW, Suite 120
Rochester, MN 55901
Telephone: (507) 280-8090
Facsimile: (507) 280-0807
E-mail: tnemo@meshbesher.com
adavick@meshbesher.com
araso@meshbesher.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Reed Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA REED, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-04012-VC (W.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. The
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.
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
lgodshall@morrisbart.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Walker Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
MAXINE WALKER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-04009-VC (E.D. La., June 20, 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. The
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:
Betsy Barnes, Esq.
Richard L. Root, Esq.
MORRIS BART LLC
601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor
New Orleans LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 525-8000
Facsimile: (833) 277-4214
E-mail: bbarnes@morrisbart.com
rroot@morrisbart.com
MORDECHAI LIECHTUNG: Yerushalayim Suit Moved to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed against Dr. Mordechai Liechtung et
al., was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Brooklyn) on July 15, 2019. The Eastern
District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-04101-AMD-LB t the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Ann M Donnelly.
The case is styled as Ben-Siyon Ish Yerushalayim, Raizel
Brasch-Yerushalayim, and Abraham Hayyim David Brasch-Yerushalayim,
on behalf (potentially) all similarly situated patients, the
Plaintiffs, vs. Dr. Mordechai Liechtung; Milana (Dr. Liechtung's
office manager in Avenue U Dental Arts); Bridget (Dr. Liechtung's
office manager in Manhattan Dental Arts); Supervisors John Doe (not
yet identified accomplices of Dr. Liechtung); Jane Doe (not yet
identified accomplices of Dr. Liechtung); Dr. Tal J. Lebel; Avenue
U Dental Arts, Incorporated; Supervisors John Doe (a) an attorney
representing Dentist Leichtung in the purported "acquisition" of
Dentist Lebel's Brooklyn dental practice; Supervisors John Doe (b)
an attorneyrepresenting Dentist Tal J. Lebel in the purported
"sale" of Dentist Lebel's Brooklyn dental practice; Bill de Blasio
as ultimately responsible for all New York City policies and
practices; Joseph Esposito, NYC Commissioner of Emergency
Management, as chief executive of 911; Responding Police Officer A;
Responding Police Officer B; EMS Technician Timur chernichkin; and
EMS Technician Vincent Mazzarella, Case No. 1:19-cv-06202.[BN]
Dr. Mordecai Liechtung specializes in General Dentistry.
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
MOSANTO COMPANY: Gilmore Files Suit Over Dangerous Roundup Product
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Gilmore, a consumer residing in Oregon, individually and on
behalf of all others situated, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, a
foreign corporation; Bayer Corporation, a foreign corporation,
Bayer AG; a foreign corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01123-BR (D. Ore., July 19, 2019)
seeks to redress the unlawful and deceptive practices employed by
Defendants in connection with its marketing and sale of its
herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate.
The Defendants sell various formulations of Roundup which Plaintiff
maintains are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and
unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce without proper
warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
The Defendants' reckless, knowing, and/or willful omission of the
carcinogenic and/or otherwise harmful components to Roundup
products constitutes unlawful and deceptive business practices, and
violate Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act, says the complaint.
Plaintiff purchased Roundup Weed & Grass Killer in December 2018 in
Multnomah County, Oregon, as well as around late 2015--early 2016
in Multnomah County, Oregon.
Defendants engaged in the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, with
the active ingredient glyphosate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Casey, Esq.
THE CASEY LAW FIRM, LLC
20 NE Thompson Street
Portland, OR 97212
Phone: (503) 928-7611
Fax: (503) 345-7470
Email: ryan@rcaseylaw.com
- and -
Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
Sara D. Avila, Esq.
Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 396-9600
Fax: (310) 396-9635
MRS BPO: Mayer Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Eliezer Smaia and Esther Mayer, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MRS BPO,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04253 (E.D. N.Y., July 23, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
MRS BPO LLC is a debt collection agency located in Cherry Hill, New
Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Smaia Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Eliezer Smaia, Joshua Feldman and
Naftela Deutsch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-04247 (E.D. N.Y., July 23, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Nationwide Credit, Inc. provides customer relationship and accounts
receivable management services. The Company offers outsourcing,
including contingency collections, first and third party, customer
relationship management, attorney network, and skip program
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
ND AUTO SALES: Unsolicited Marketing Violates TCPA, Garcia Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICK GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ND AUTO SALES, LLC D/B/A NET DIRECT AUTO
SALES a Texas Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-23018-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 19, 2019) is an action against
Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through
this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint.
Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.
Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells pre-owned vehicles
for individuals and businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone (305) 479-2299
Facsimile (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
NIBCO INC: Garrett Sues Over Defective PEX Products
---------------------------------------------------
YOLANDA GARRETT, Plaintiff, v. NIBCO, INC. AND JOHN DOES 1-5,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01137-SGC (N.D. Ala., July 18, 2019)
is a class action complaint on behalf of Plaintiff and a class of
people similarly situated who are owners of property, residents,
and holders of property interests, constructed by D.R. Horton.
Said properties have been adversely affected by the use of NIBCO's
PEX Products in the construction of their homes. As a result of
NIBCO's negligent, willful and wanton conduct, Representative
Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered property
damages, incidental damages, and mental anguish and seek monetary
damages and/or injunctive or declaratory relief to repair or
replace the PEX Products, notes the complaint.
NIBCO sells various plumbing products including PEX Tubing, PEX
Fittings, PEX Clamps, and other plumbing accessories. The defective
NIBCO PEX Products have been, and continue to be, purchased and
installed in residential and commercial buildings across the
country. These PEX Products will inevitably fail, with the
potential to cause a range of damages including flooding and
property destruction. NIBCO knows and has known of the specific
design, material and/or manufacturing defects alleged herein, that
the PEX Products were not suitable for use within water-carrying
plumbing systems and that there was a substantial risk that its PEX
Products would degrade, fail and leak. NIBCO has failed to disclose
these risks to consumers, including the Plaintiff and proposed
class members. As a result of the defects in NIBCO's PEX Products,
the Plaintiff and proposed class members have suffered and continue
to suffer damages, including significant real and personal property
damage caused by flooding from degraded and leaking PEX Products,
says the complaint.
Representative Plaintiff Yolanda Garrett is a resident of Shelby
County, Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kirby D. Farris, Esq.
Ken E. Riley, Esq.
J.D. Lawrence, Esq.
Calle Mendenhall, Esq.
FARRIS, RILEY & PITT, LLP
505 20th Street North, Suite 1700
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 324-1212
Email: kfarris@frplegal.com
kriley@frplegal.com
jdlawrence@frplegal.com
cmendenhall@frplegal.com
- and -
H. Arthur Edge, III, Esq.
David L. Horsley, Esq.
ARTHUR EDGE, III, P.C.
2320 Highland Avenue South, Suite 175
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: (205) 453-0322
Facsimile: (205) 453-0326
Email: art@edgelawyers.com
david@edgelawyers.com
PACENATION: Hanks Sues for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------
KIM HANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PACENATION; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01347-KJM-EFB (E.D. Cal., July 18,
2019) is an action for Plaintiff and others similarly situated
seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants, in negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.
Beginning in March of 2019, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on her
cellular telephone in an effort to sell or solicit its services.
Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant's services and has never
provided any personal information, including her cellular telephone
number, to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. In addition, on at
least one occasion, Plaintiff answered the telephone and told
Defendant to stop calling her. Accordingly, Defendant never
received Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using
an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on her cellular telephone pursuant to the TCPA,
says the complaint.
Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Sacramento, California.
Defendants provide mortgage lending services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
PHI INC: Plaintiffs in Overbilling Case Balk at Exit Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Class action plaintiffs have appeared in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Dallas, Texas, to challenge the confirmation of PHI, Inc.'s chapter
11-exit plan.
Paul Bowman, Michael Iavagnilio, Vance Tomey, Tony Williams and
Christina Wray, individually and as proposed representative of a
class similarly situated, contend that debtor PHI Air Medical, LLC,
is "apparently relying on overvalued receivables it is seeking from
its patients to partially fund Debtors' Plan."
Bowman et al. sued in February 2018 alleging that PHI Air
transported them, then sought to collect outrageous and previously
undisclosed fees from them.
PHI Air has collected tens of thousands of dollars more than it is
owed from thousands of its patients, according to Larry A. Levick,
Esq., at Singer & Levick, P.C., and Edward L. White, Esq., at
Edward L. White, PC, counsel to the Plaintiffs. These patients are
owed refunds, in the aggregate, amounting to millions of dollars,
they contend.
Plaintiffs' counsel explain that the main source of revenue of PHI
Air is the collection of "obscenely large bills from critically ill
patients in the midst of a medical emergency with little ability to
say 'no' to a medical transport and who have zero disclosure of the
bills to follow that are often as large as $60,000.00." Private
insurance and Medicare/Medicaid typically pay only $5,000 to
$20,000 for medical transport, leaving even well-insured patients
to face a balance bill of as much as $50,000. "Such a debt is
financially devastating for most patients. The situation is
especially crushing since it usually comes on the heels of horrific
injuries or illnesses or even after the death of the primary
breadwinner," they assert.
PHI Air knows all of the contact and details of its patients and
could easily have given notice of the bankruptcy case and bar date
to its patients (claimants) of the bankruptcy.
"Yet, the Debtors chose not to even attempt to provide this
notice," Plaintiffs' counsel assert.
"Having chosen to deny its patients notice of the bankruptcy,
Debtor PHI Air is apparently relying on overvalued receivables it
is seeking from its patients to partially fund Debtors' Plan."
"If the Court approves the Plan as currently formulated and
discharges any claims Debtor PHI Air's patients have against it,
Debtor PHI Air can argue that its patients are utterly defenseless
against Debtor's efforts to collect its grossly inflated bills.
Debtor PHI Air can sue its patients, and they cannot assert their
valid counterclaims that arguably will be discharged in this
proceeding."
The class action complaint is styled Christina C. Wray, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated v. PHI Air Medical,
L.L.C.. Case No. 2:18-cv00432-SRB (D. Ariz., February 7, 2018). It
seeks to have the Arizona District Court determine a more equitable
fair market value for medical transport services. The Plaintiffs
submit that the proper average transport charge would be in the
range of $15,000, and the charges PHI Air seeks to collect from
them average $43,250.
According to Plaintiffs' counsel, a judicial determination that the
Debtors can collect, at most, one-quarter to one-third of the
amounts they previously sought could be devastating to their
Chapter 11 Plan. "Not all patients pay the outrageous billed
amounts, but a significant number of patients do pay the billed
amounts. If only 10% of patients pay the full billed amount, those
overpayments of circa $30,000.00 per patient add up quickly. If as
many as 1,000 of Debtor PHI Air's patients overpay by that amount,
the total collected would be $30,000,000.00. If the Debtors are
precluded from collecting those amounts going forward, it will
dramatically affect the viability of their Plan," Plaintiffs'
counsel point out.
The automatic stay has been lifted for the sole purpose for the
Arizona District Court to determine whether to certify class action
status in the Arizona Suit. PHI Air has contested the Arizona Suit
and is well aware of the overpayment/offset issues, the Plaintiffs
state.
The Bankruptcy Court will hold a hearing to consider confirmation
of the Plan on July 30, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. (CDT) at the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, Room 3, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75242-1496.
The lawsuit is captioned Christina C. Wray, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. PHI Air Medical, L.L.C., a Louisiana
limited liability company, Defendant, NO. 2:18-cv-00432-SRB, filed
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
Attorneys for the Class Plaintiffs:
Larry A. Levick, Esq.
SINGER & LEVICK, P.C.
16200 Addison Road, Suite 140
Addison, Texas 75001
Telephone: 972.380.5533
Fax: 972.380.5748
Email: levick@singerlevick.com
-- and --
Edward L. White, Esq.
Edward L. White, PC
829 East 33rd Street Edmond, OK 73013
Phone: 405.810.8188
Fax: 405.608.0971
Email: ed@edwhitelaw.com
PLANET BEACH FRANCHISING: Sullivan Files Class Suit under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Planet Beach Franchising Corporation is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Planet Beach
Franchising Corporation doing business as: Planet Beach Spray &
Spa, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00892-FJS-DJS (N.D. N.Y., July 23,
2019).
Planet Beach Franchising Corporation is a tanning salon in Marrero,
Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Lee Litigation Group PLLC
148 west 24th Street
8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Tel: (212) 465-1180
Fax: (212) 465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
POLLACK & ROSEN: Faces Danh Suit over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
HANH DANH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POLLACK & ROSEN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-61666 (S.D. Florida, July 6, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
Pollack and Rosen, Inc. operates as a law firm. The Company serves
clients in the areas of law such as liquidation of accounts
receivables and collections for both consumer and business
accounts, commercial and general litigation, and family law. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
PPG INDUSTRIES: Awaits Preliminary Approval in Mild Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the parties in the
case, Trevor Mild v. PPG Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry,
Vincent J. Morales, and Mark C. Kelly, are awaiting the Court's
ruling on the Petition for Preliminary Approval of the proposed
settlement.
On May 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company and three of its current and former
officers.
On September 21, 2018, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed
in the lawsuit. The Amended Complaint, captioned Trevor Mild v. PPG
Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J. Morales, and Mark
C. Kelly, asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired stock
of the Company between January 19, 2017 and May 10, 2018.
The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business, operations and prospects. The parties
reached a settlement in principal on May 1, 2019.
On June 2, 2019, the plaintiff filed with the Court a Petition for
Preliminary Approval of the proposed settlement, including a
proposed settlement amount of $25 million. The parties await the
Court's ruling on the Petition.
PPG Industries said, "If preliminary approval is granted, the
parties will proceed with the remaining procedures required to
obtain final approval of the settlement. PPG's insurance carriers
confirmed to the Company insurance coverage for the full amount of
the proposed settlement."
PPG Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes paints, coatings,
and specialty materials worldwide. The company was founded in 1883
and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
RMA RECOVERY: Hammock Alleges Violation under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RMA Recovery Group.
The case is styled as Hjorica Hammock, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RMA Recovery Group
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03185-MHW-EPD
(S.D. Ohio, July 23, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
RMA Recovery Group is a collection agency in Amherst, NY.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amichai Eitan Zukowsky, Esq.
23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
Beachwood, OH 44122
Tel: (216) 800-5529
Fax: (216) 514-4987
Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com
RUSSELL CELLULAR: Poole Seeks Overtime Pay for Store Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELISA POOLE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RUSSELL CELLULAR, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00634 (D.N.M., July 15, 2019), seeks to recover
overtime pay and all over available remedies under the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Russell Cellular, Inc. was formerly the employer of Plaintiff and
other Class Members. Ms. Elisa Poole started working for Defendant
as a store manager in 2012 until she was promoted to a District
Manger in 2017. As a store manager, the Plaintiff was required to
travel to and work in New Mexico regularly.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff never received overtime
pay for all her hours worked over 40 in a given work week. There
are at minimum dozens of store managers who since 2012 that have,
like Plaintiff, been denied overtime while working for Defendants
in New Mexico.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Josh Borsellino, Esq.
BORSELLINO, P.C.
1020 Macon St., Ste. 15
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: 817 908 9861
Facsimile: 817 394 2412
E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com
SAFETY DRUGS: Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Safety Drugs, Inc., an Arizona
Corporation; Nathan Kaplan and Jane Doe Kaplan, a Married Couple;
Vincent Chiarelli and Jane Doe Chiarelli, a Married Couple; and
Harvey Hill and Jane Doe Hill, a Married Couple, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-04754-SMB (D. Ariz., July 18, 2019) is an action
against Defendants for their unlawful failure to pay overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint asserts that Defendants engaged in the regular policy
and practice of subjecting Plaintiff and the Collective Members to
their policy and practice of failing and/or refusing to pay them
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all time they
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Therefore, Defendants did
not pay Plaintiff or the Collective Members the applicable overtime
rate, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
Plaintiff began employment with Defendants as a Medical
Courier/Delivery Driver on approximately March 1, 2018 through
approximately July 2019.
Safety Drugs is an independently owned and operated long term care
pharmacy that provides oral medications, injectables, I.V.
therapies, medicinal compounds, and consulting services to skilled
nursing facilities, assistant living and independent living
communities, care homes, and hospices throughout Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Phone: (480) 382-5176
Fax: (480) 304-3805
Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
chris@bendaulaw.com
SANCHEZ OIL & GAS: Flynn Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARK FLYNN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SANCHEZ OIL & GAS CORPORATION, Case No. 5:19-cv-00867
(W.D. Tex., July 19, 2019) is a lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages from Defendant under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Flynn, and the other workers like him, typically worked
12-14 hour shifts and regularly worked more than 60 hours per week.
But Sanchez does not pay all of these workers overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, notes the
complaint. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA,
Sanchez pays these workers a day rate and improperly classified
them as exempt. This action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime
wages and other damages owed to these workers.
Plaintiff Flynn worked for Sanchez as a Lease Operator From
approximately September 2017 until February 2018.
Sanchez is a large oil and gas company operating throughout the
United States, and in Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
ST LOUIS, MO: Court Grants Prelim Injunction Bid in Dixon
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID DIXON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS,
et al., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-0112-AGF (E.D. Mo.), Judge
Audrey G. Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, (a) granted the Plaintiffs'
motions for (i) class certification and (ii) preliminary
injunction; and (b) denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss the
case.
Named Plaintiffs Dixon, Jeffrey Rozelle, Aaron Thurman, and Richard
Robards were detained in St. Louis jails because they were unable
to afford bail. The Defendants are the City of St. Louis, its
Commissioner of Corrections Dale Glass, and its Sheriff Vernon
Betts and several judges of the 22nd Circuit.
On Jan. 28, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 asserting that the Defendants violated
their constitutional rights to equal protection and substantive and
procedural due process by detaining them after arrest without an
opportunity to challenge the conditions of their release.
When a person is arrested in the City of St. Louis, a bond
commissioner employed by the City makes a recommendation to a duty
judge to set bond to secure the arrestee's court appearance. In
formulating the recommendation, the commissioner considers the
charges and any prior convictions but does not inquire into the
arrestee's ability to pay, risk of flight, or danger to the public;
the duty judge then sets bond on the commissioner's recommendation.
If an arrestee can afford to pay the cash bond in full, then the
City will release him upon payment. If not, he remains detained
until a first appearance, which is held within 48 hours of arrest
and by videoconference from the jail.
The Plaintiffs allege that the sheriff's deputies who escort
arrestees to their video hearings instruct them not to speak and
specifically not to request a bond modification. The judge reads
the charges, states the bail amount pursuant to the commissioner's
recommendation, and asks the arrestee whether he intends to retain
counsel. The hearing lasts one to two minutes and is not on the
record. The Plaintiffs allege that, if an arrestee attempts to
contest his bail amount, the judge informs him that he cannot
request a modification until he obtains counsel and sets a motion
hearing. For indigent individuals eligible for a public defender,
that process takes approximately five weeks. Arrestees who do not
qualify for a public defender but cannot afford to pay a private
attorney often remain detained even longer.
The Plaintiffs aver that, even when arrestees receive the
assistance of counsel on a motion for modification, the Judges'
bail-setting practices remain constitutionally inadequate in that
the Judges fail to consider an arrestee's financial circumstances
or make specific findings as to alternative release conditions.
They further state that detainees in the Workhouse are exposed to
dangerous and inhumane conditions such as extreme temperatures,
lack of sanitation, vermin infestations, and violence. This period
of incarceration often results in physical and mental health
problems, loss of employment, eviction, and family separation.
The Plaintiffs request the following forms of relief:
1. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violate the
Plaintiffs' and the class members' rights by issuing detention
orders without due process;
2. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violate the
Plaintiffs' and the class members' rights by operating a system of
wealth-based detention that keeps them in jail because they cannot
afford to pay monetary conditions of release, without an inquiry or
findings concerning their ability to pay, the necessity of
detention, and alternative release conditions;
3. A declaratory judgment that the Plaintiffs and the class
members are entitled to an individualized hearing regarding release
conditions and including: (i) notice that financial information
will be collected, and the significance thereof; (ii) an
individualized determination of the arrestee's ability to pay and
how much; (iii) an opportunity to be heard concerning one's ability
to pay and the necessity of non-monetary release conditions,
including an opportunity to present and rebut evidence and argue
the issues; (iv) substantive findings by the court on the record as
to why detention is warranted and why less restrictive alternatives
are insufficient; and (v) free legal counsel;
4. A declaratory judgment that the Sheriff and Commissioner of
Corrections must not enforce any order requiring secured money bail
or a monetary release condition that was imposed prior to an
individualized hearing and that is not accompanied by a record
reflecting the foregoing procedures and findings;
5. An order permanently enjoining Defendants from operating
and enforcing a system of wealth-based detention that keeps the
Plaintiffs and the class members in jail because they cannot afford
to pay monetary release conditions, without an inquiry or findings
concerning their ability to pay, alternative release conditions,
and the necessity of detention;
6. An order permanently enjoining Defendants from operating
and enforcing pretrial detention without constitutionally valid
process as described; and
7. An order directing the Sheriff not to instruct arrestees to
remain silent during their hearings.
Concurrent with their complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
temporary restraining order, which was served on the Defendants on
Jan. 29, 2019. The next day, the parties appeared through counsel
for a hearing and informed the Court that they had reached a
tentative agreement obviating the immediate need for a hearing on
the TRO motion. The parties' finalized the terms of that agreement
on the record and filed it later that day.
Principally, the parties agreed that the Plaintiffs would receive a
bond hearing in accordance with proposed revised Missouri Supreme
Court Rule 33.01, scheduled to take effect July 1, 2019. This
revised rule clarifies that a court cannot impose cash bail absent
an individualized assessment of an arrestee's financial
circumstances, flight risk, threat to public safety, and
consideration of alternative release conditions; it further
provides the right to a review hearing on the record within seven
days and requires the court to make written findings supported by
clear and convincing evidence.
The next day, January 31, the Defendants held bond hearings for the
named Plaintiffs, who appeared through counsel. At the close of
those hearings, two Plaintiffs were released without bond, with
other conditions. Two others did not receive any reduction in
bond. On February 4, the Plaintiff's counsel attempted to post bail
for the two Plaintiffs still detained, by cashier's checks for
$15,000 and $30,000, respectively. The Defendants initially
refused to accept payment by cashier's check. The Plaintiffs'
counsel spent the entirety of February 5 communicating with various
the Defendants and other officials to secure approval and
acceptance of payment by cashier's check, resulting in the two
men's release from the Workhouse at 8 p.m. that night.
On Feb. 21, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the Defendants' practice of detaining
arrestees who are unable to pay cash bail without an individualized
hearing on their financial circumstances and the necessity of
detention. Specifically, they demand: (1) notice of the nature and
significance of the financial information required, (2) a prompt
hearing, on the record, regarding the person's ability to pay, (3)
legal counsel at such hearings, (4) findings on the record as to
whether the person has the ability to pay, and (5) clear and
convincing evidence supporting the necessity of detention.
On March 1, 2019, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case.
The City Defendants assert that they have no authority to
establish bail conditions and no policy or custom of silencing
arrestees in initial appearances. The Defendant Judges assert
theories of immunity and abstention.
On April 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs requested that their motion for
preliminary injunction be decided on the written record. After
some discussion among the counsel, the parties agreed to submit the
matter on the written record.
Also concurrent with their complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify a class comprised of all arrestees who are or will be
detained in the Medium Security Institution (the Workhouse) or the
City Justice Center, operated by the City of St. Louis, post-arrest
because they are unable to afford to pay a monetary release
condition.
Judge Fleissig holds that the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
class will be granted. She finds that the class has met the
requirements of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(2). She finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have standing to bring
their claims; (ii) the relief the Plaintiffs seek is entirely
systemic; (iii) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that
the injury prompting their complaint and the legal and remedial
theories advanced therein are typical of the putative class; (iv)
the Plaintiffs' interests are aligned with the putative class and
their counsel quite competent to prosecute the action; and (v) the
Plaintiffs seek systemic procedural reforms, applicable to all the
class members, in the form of a prompt and proper hearing.
The Judges' motion to dismiss will be denied. Among other things,
the Judge finds that while it is generally true that a plaintiff is
not entitled to equitable relief when there is an adequate remedy
at law, she cannot conclude, on dismissal standards, that the
Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law. Moreover, the Judges'
position that a pro se indigent arrestee must litigate the
constitutionality of his initial appearance and resultant bail by
petition for extraordinary writ under Missouri Supreme Court Rule
84.24 appears inadequate in the context of the Plaintiffs'
grievance. To require a lay citizen to exhaust state writ
proceedings from the Workhouse is tantamount to a guaranty of his
continued detention. This is hardly an adequate remedy for the
injury the Plaintiffs allege, where the irreparable harm of
detention is not only immediate but also enduring due to ruinous
collateral consequences.
The City Defendants' motion to dismiss will also be denied. The
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs plead that Sheriff Betts has
authority over arrestees in City custody at the time of their first
appearance and that Jail Commissioner Glass enforces pre-trial
detention orders. Without deciding at the dismissal stage whether
or what relief is proper with respect to these City Defendants, the
Judge cannot conclude that they are entitled to dismissal for
failure to state a claim.
Proceeding to the merits of the Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction
motion, the Judge finds that the Defendants' practices fall short
of constitutional standards in that Defendants fail to articulate
any governmental interest in detaining indigent defendants while
releasing moneyed defendants facing the same charges, without any
consideration of individual factors. The foregoing evidence
persuades the Court that Plaintiffs have a high probability of
prevailing on the merits. However, the Plaintiffs have not
supplied binding authority supporting their demand for appointed
counsel at initial appearances. The Judge will not grant their
prayer for preliminary relief in that respect.
The Judge then finds that the threat of irreparable harm to the
movants is obvious, not only in the form of prolonged incarceration
itself, but also in the form of its severe collateral consequences
such as physical illness and injury, mental trauma, loss of
employment, loss of benefits, and family crisis. She is not
reviewing the underlying state criminal charges or interfering in
any manner with the state processes that apply to the merits of
those charges. Finally, she finds that the Plaintiffs do not
request wholesale release of all class members but simply a
presumption favoring non-monetary release conditions and a hearing
that comports with due process. The Judge concludes that the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is meritorious and
should be granted.
Finally, the Plaintiffs request a waiver of the security normally
required under Rule 65(c). Given that the Plaintiffs and the class
members are indigent and that the matter involves the public
interest and carries no risk of monetary loss to the Defendants,
the Judge exercises her discretion to waive that requirement.
For the reasons set forth, Judge Fleissig granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The class will consist of all
arrestees who are or will be detained in the Medium Security
Institution (the Workhouse) or the City Justice Center (CJC),
operated by the City of St. Louis, post-arrest because they are
unable to afford to pay a monetary release condition. The
Plaintiffs' counsel is appointed counsel for the class.
The Judge denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss.
She granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.
Defendant Jail Commissioner Dale Glass is enjoined from enforcing
any monetary condition of release that results in detention solely
by virtue of an arrestee's inability to pay, unless the order is
accompanied by a finding that detention is necessary because there
are no less restrictive alternatives to ensure the arrestee's
appearance or the public's safety.
The order must reflect that: (1) a hearing was held on the record
within 48 hours of arrest or, for those currently detained, within
seven days of this order; (2) the arrestee had an opportunity to
present and rebut evidence as to whether detention is necessary,
with the government bearing the burden of proof; and (3) if
financial conditions of release are imposed, the court made
specific findings regarding the arrestee's ability to pay and
found, by clear and convincing evidence, that no alternative
conditions would reasonably assure the arrestee's future court
appearance or the safety of others.
The security requirement of Rule 65(c) is waived.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/toEeoj from Leagle.com.
David Dixon, Jeffrey Rozelle, Jr., Aaron Thurman & Richard Robards,
On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Mary B. McCord, INSTITUTE FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION, pro hac vice, Michael-John
Voss, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Robert D. Friedman --
rfriedman@burnslev.com -- INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND
PROTECTION, Sima Atri, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Alexander G.
Karakatsanis, CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Blake Alexander Strode, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Jacki J. Langum, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Jacqueline Marie
Kutnik-Bauder, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, John McCann Waldron, ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Seth T. Wayne, INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND
PROTECTION & Thomas B. Harvey, ADVANCEMENT PROJECT.
City of St. Louis, Vernon Betts, Sheriff & Dale Glass,
Commissioner, in his official capacity as St. Louis Commissioner of
Corrections, Defendants, represented by Robert H. Dierker, ST.
LOUIS CITY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE & Megan Kathleen G. Bruyns, Law
Department.
Robin Ransom, Judge, in her official capacity as preseiding judge,
Rex Burlison, in his official capacity as interim Presiding Judge,
Elizabeth Hogan, Judge, in her official capacity as Division 16
Judge and Duty Judge, David Roither, Judge, in his official
capacity as Division 25 Judge and Duty Judge & Thomas McCarthy,
Judge, in his official capacity as Division 26 Judge, Defendants,
represented by Michael E. Pritchett, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI,
Robert J. Isaacson, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, Thomas C. Albus,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Department of Justice, Dean John
Sauer, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI & Peter T. Reed, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI.
ST RENATUS: Walsh Suit Moved to District of Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Tim Walsh, Julie Walsh, Gregory
Ketchum, Patricia Ketchum, Peter Murphy, Cary Basnar, and Frank
Baca, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. Clifford M. Buchholz, Michael J. Herold, Ryan A.
Martorano, Mick A. Occhiato, Frank R. Ramirez, Brent M.T. Keele,
Stephen D. Tebo, Jerry Morgensen, James L. Parke, Joseph D.
Schofield, III, St. Renatus, LLC, and SR Merger Sub, LLC, the
Defendants, Receipt No. AMNDC-6996964, from the Hennepin County
District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on July 15, 2019. The District of Minnesota Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 0:19-cv-01856-DSD-HB to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge David S. Doty.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Daniel C Hedlund, Esq.
David A Goodwin, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
Attorneys for the Defendants:
Michael G Patiuk, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
901 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 695-3220
E-mail: michael@patiuklaw.com
TACOS AL SUADERO: Netzahualt Seeks Proper Minimum, OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEFINA HERNANDEZ NETZAHUALT, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE CORP. (D/B/A TACOS AL
SUADERO), AMADO HERREROS, and JULIA YANEZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04191 (E.D. N.Y., July 19, 2019) is an action on behalf of
Plaintiff, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread
of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control a Mexican restaurant, located
at 8721 Roosevelt Ave, Flushing, NY 11372 under the name "Tacos Al
Suadero".
Plaintiff was employed as a waitress at the restaurant. She was
required to spend a considerable part of her work day performing
non-tipped duties. She worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that she worked, asserts the
complaint. Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
she had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants employed and
accounted for Plaintiff as a waitress in their payroll, but in
actuality her duties required a significant amount of time spent
performing the non-tipped duties, says the complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
TEAM ENTERPRISES: Court Partly Grants Bid to Stay Wood Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXIS WOOD and FELICIA CIPOLLA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TEAM
ENTERPRISES, LLC, and NEW TEAM LLC, doing business as TEAM
ENTERPRISES, Defendants, Case No. C 18-06867 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge
William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to stay the action pending appeal of an order
denying arbitration; and (ii) vacated the June 20, 2019 hearing.
In 2013, the Defendants hired Plaintiffs Wood and Cipolla as
part-time promotional models. They classified them as "independent
contractors" and paid them an hourly wage. The Plaintiffs allege
they did not receive pay for all of the hours they worked because
the Defendants required them to arrive early and stay late without
compensation. The Defendants also paid a flat sum of $5 for
certain tasks that took a significant amount of time to complete
and inconsistently paid for time spent traveling between events.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants failed to provide
required rest breaks and to maintain accurate records of the hours
they worked.
In November 2014, the Plaintiffs signed acknowledgments attesting
that they had received a copy of, and read, the Defendants'
employee manual. An arbitration agreement on the tenth page of the
manual provided that by agreeing to be employed by TEAM and
executing the Receipt and Acknowledgment of TEAM's Employee Manual,
the employee will be bound by TEAM's dispute resolution and
arbitration policies. The agreement covered any civil claim,
dispute, or controversy between the Plaintiffs and New Team and its
parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates.
The Plaintiffs filed the action in November 2018, asserting claims
based on violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California
Labor Code, and the California Business and Professions Code, as
well as a representative action through California's Private
Attorneys General Act. The Defendants answered the complaint and
filed a motion to compel arbitration.
After full briefing and oral argument, an April 7 order denied the
Defendants' motion. The Defendants then appealed that order and
now move for a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of that
appeal.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), Judge Alsup finds the pending
motion suitable for submission without oral argument and vacated
the hearing scheduled for June 20.
The Defendants argues that they are likely to succeed on the merits
of their appeal because the arbitration agreement at issue
delegates gateway issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. In
its motion to compel arbitration, however, they affirmatively
argued that their arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable
while making only passing reference to the delegation provision and
failing to raise the issue in its reply brief or at oral argument.
Having considered the matter abandoned, the April 7 order proceeded
to address the Plaintiffs' arguments regarding the
unconscionability of the arbitration agreement. Nevertheless,
because of the lack of precedent directly on point as to whether
this constitutes abandonment or waiver, and because of the strong
preference for arbitration embodied in the Federal Arbitration Act,
the Judge finds that the Defendants have raised serious questions
as to whether the Plaintiffs' unconscionability arguments should be
addressed by the arbitrator rather than the district court.
The Defendants argue that, absent a stay, they may be forced to
incur substantial time and resources only for the court of appeals
to determine that the case should proceed in arbitration. Yet, all
discovery in the action will be usable in any future arbitration
(if arbitration is ever required). The Court would just be that
much further along if and when arbitration is ever required. A
stay, moreover, would likely force the Plaintiffs to wait an
extended period for any progress in the action, during which time
relevant data may disappear and witnesses' memories may fade. The
Judge agrees that there is a risk of harm to the Plaintiffs if a
stay is imposed, and finds that the Defendants have not shown that
the balance of hardships tips in their favor. Nevertheless, in
order to mitigate any potential for unnecessary costs, he limits
discovery to that concerning the named Plaintiffs for the pendency
of the Defendants' appeal of the order denying arbitration.
Finally, the Defendants contend that the public interest would be
served by a stay because there is a strong national policy in favor
of arbitration and a stay would conserve judicial resources that
would otherwise be wasted if they succeed on its appeal. But the
Court has found the arbitration agreement is unenforceable, so the
premise of this argument is doubtful. Meanwhile, the Court has a
need for the "just, speedy, and inexpensive" determination of the
action, as contemplated by FRCP 1.
For these reasons, Judge Alsup granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' motion for a stay pending its appeal of the order
denying arbitration, and vacated the June 20 hearing. The
Defendants' alternative request for a temporary stay of the action
to allow them time to move the court of appeals for a stay is also
denied. During the pendency of the Defendants' appeal, however,
discovery will be limited to that concerning the named Plaintiffs.
Upon receiving the court of appeals' schedule on the Defendants'
appeal, the parties will propose an amended case management
schedule to reflect any additional time needed for class discovery
and for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/FCyAqh from Leagle.com.
Felicia Cipolla & Alexis Wood, Plaintiffs, represented by Bryan J.
McCormack -- bryan@mcelawfirm.com -- McCormack & Erlich, LLP,
George Ryan Nemiroff -- gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com -- Wynne Law
Firm & Edward Joseph Wynne -- ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- Wynne Law
Firm.
Team Enterprises, LLC & New Team LLC, Defendants, represented by
William Hays Weissman -- wweissman@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C. & Yesenia Garcia Perez -- ygarciaperez@littler.com
-- Littler Mendelson P.C..
TOWN SPORTS: Turner Sues over Unauthorized Membership Renewal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Turner, the Plaintiff, vs. TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL
HOLDINGS, INC., the Defendant, (D. D.C., July 8, 2019), seeks
monetary damages and injunctive relief for Plaintiff, the general
public of the District of Columbia, and all those similarly
situated related to the membership practices of Town Sports
International in the District of Columbia.
TSI owns and operates Washington Sports Clubs in the District of
Columbia. On or about January 31, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into
a membership agreement with TSI for a membership at one of the
Washington Sports Clubs locations.
The Plaintiff never affirmatively renewed his membership, either
verbally or in writing. The Plaintiff attempted to dispute the
charge from Defendant with his credit card company in or around
January 2019. The Defendant, however, verified the charge as
accurate, and continued charging Plaintiff membership fees.
As of the time of filing, the Plaintiff pays more than $95 per
month for a membership he repeatedly attempted to cancel, the
lawsuit says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney L. Weiner, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC
1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: 202 827 9980
E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigiiaceio@ciasslawdc.com
jrathod@classlawde.com
TRIPLAY INC: Bunting Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Triplay, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Rasheta
Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Triplay, Inc. doing
business as: eMusic.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04243 (E.D.
N.Y., July 23, 2019).
TriPlay Inc. operates an open cloud based platform that provides
users with unlimited storage and access to their music, videos, and
photos.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
TURIN HOUSING: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Scher Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK SCHER, Plaintiff, v. TURIN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
FUND COMPANY, INC., MERCE WILLIAMS, MAURINE BERLINGS-MINSKY, RONALD
MISA, JAMES GOLDSTEIN, EVELYN RIVERA, LINDA BURSTION, Defendant,
Docket No. 155267/2018, Motion Seq. Nos. 002, 004 (N.Y. Sup.),
Judge Louis L. Nock of the Supreme Court, New York County, (i)
denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and (ii)
granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Turin is a housing corporation that owns a residential cooperative
building located at 609 Columbus Avenue, New York, New York,
containing 189 units, consisting of 188 shareholder-owned
apartments and one apartment designated for use by its
superintendent. The Plaintiff is a Turin shareholder and the owner
of shares allocated to Apartment 18-J of the Building, and is the
lessee of that apartment pursuant to an occupancy agreement with
Turin. The remaining Defendants are members of the Turin board of
directors.
Turin was incorporated in 1969 as a not-for-profit housing
development fund corporation ("HDFC"), and, thereafter entered into
a 40-year regulatory agreement with the Department of Housing and
Urban Development that ended in 2012. Both before and after the
expiration of the original regulatory agreement, there was
extensive discussion among the Turin shareholders regarding the
possibility of Turin entering into a new regulatory agreement with
the New York City Department of Housing and Preservation and
Development ("HPD"). On Sept. 9, 2013, the Turin shareholders
voted that the Board would not negotiate a new regulatory agreement
with HPD.
In May 2018, the Board held two informational meetings of Turin
shareholders regarding, once again, the possibility of a new
regulatory agreement with HPD. A shareholder vote on whether the
Board should enter into a regulatory agreement was scheduled for
June 25, 2018.
On June 5, 2018, the Plaintiff commenced the action on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated Turin shareholders, seeking
declaratory and injunct ive relief permanently barring the
Defendants from engaging in further negotiations with HPD or
entering into a regulatory agreement with HPD or any other
regulatory agency. Concurrent with commencement of the action, the
Plaintiff moved the Court, by order to show cause, for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining the
Defendants from engaging in further negotiations with HPD, entering
into a regulatory agreement with HPD or any other regulatory
agency, and from holding a vote of Turin shareholders related to
Turin entering into a regulatory agreement with HPD or any other
regulatory agency.
By order dated June 6, 2018, the Court, per Hon. Arlene P. Bluth,
declined the Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order
and scheduled the motion for a preliminary injunction to otherwise
proceed. On June 25, 2018, the Turin shareholders voted to
authorize Turin to enter into a new regulatory agreement with HPD.
On July 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
causes of action related to the June 25, 2018 vote. The Defendants
answered on Aug. 7, 2018.
After extensive briefing and oral argument before Justice Bluth,
the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied
pursuant to a written order and decision dated Sept. 5, 2018. The
Plaintiff appealed the Sept. 5, 2018 Order and moved the Appellate
Division, First Department, for a stay or a preliminary appellate
injunction, pending appeal, enjoining Turin from entering into a
regulatory agreement with HPD or imposing the terms of any such
agreement on its shareholders, and enjoining the Defendants from
enforcing or acting on the June 25, 2018 shareholder vote. The
Appellate Division, First Department denied the Plaintiff's motion
by order dated Nov. 27, 2018.
The Plaintiff now moves the Court pursuant to CPLR 902, 903, and
904(a) to certify and describe the putative class, dispense with
notice to the class, and to appoint the Plaintiff as the class
representative.
The Plaintiff seeks to define the class as all Turin shareholders
who held shares on Jan. 1, 2018, excluding the Defendants, their
family members and representatives. Conversely, the Defendants
move for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3212 and New York Business
Corporation Law Section 626, for summary judgment dismissing the
Amended Complaint.
The Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing the Amended
Complaint on the grounds that the Plaintiff's claims, although
asserted as class claims, are derivative in nature and the
Plaintiff did not serve a statutorily required demand on the Board
before commencing the action. They oppose, emphasizing that the
Complaint specifically asserts the elements for a class action and
that the action is being brought as a class action. The Defendants
also move for dismissal and oppose the motion for class
certification on the grounds that the Plaintiff is not a proper
class representative or derivative Plaintiff and cannot adequately
represent the interests of the Turin shareholders.
Judge Nock finds that whereas New York courts have repeatedly and
consistently affirmed that "the lost value of an investment in a
corporation is quintessentially a derivative claim by a
shareholder," there can be no doubt that the Plaintiff's claims are
derivative. Furthermore, any claims that allege harm resulting
from "changes, obligations and restrictions" imposed on Turin by a
regulatory agreement with HPD are also derivative because the harm
is alleged to be direct to the corporation and indirect to the
shareholders.
Although the rights of shareholders with respect to the apartments
they occupy will no doubt be affected by a regulatory agreement
with HPD, the rights of all shareholders are equally impacted and
the Plaintiff does not allege harm to the proposed class members
that is independent from the purported harm to the corporation, nor
can he demonstrate that the purported class can prevail without
showing an injury to the corporation. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
claims are derivative in nature.
A complaint that confuses shareholder's derivative claims with
individual claims requires dismissal, although leave to replead may
be granted where appropriate. In this instance, leave to replead
is not warranted because the Plaintiff is not a proper class
representative or derivative Plaintiff due to his waiver, in the
federal action captioned Akagi v Turin Housing Development, Co.
Inc., 13-cv-5258 (SDNY), of claims asserted in that action and in
the related actions pending in the New York State Supreme Court,
New York County, captioned Mark Scher, et al. v. Turin Housing
Development Fund Company, Inc., Index No. 110620/2006 and Turin
Housing Development Fund Co., Inc. v. Douglas Elliman LLC, et al,
Index No. 653847/2016, and because of his extensive history of
litigation and personal animus with Turin and various members of
the Board, including the action currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Scher, et al. v Turin Housing Development Fund, Company, Inc., et
al., 19-cv-02089 (SDNY).
Accordingly, Judge Nock denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, and granted the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment. The Amended Complaint is dismissed with costs and
disbursements to the Defendants as taxed by the Clerk upon the
submission of an appropriate bill of costs. The Clerk is directed
to enter judgment accordingly.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/ZBUFlR from Leagle.com.
UNITED FEDERAL: Effective Date of Gunter Suit Settlement Amended
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONYA GUNTER, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, DOES 1-5 inclusive and ROE CORPORATIONS 6-10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00483-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.), Judge Miranda
M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has
entered a stipulated order amending the effective date of the
Parties' Settlement Agreement.
On Feb. 5, 2019, the Parties' entered into a Settlement Agreement
and Release to resolve the claims in the case. In case of an
objection (an objection was filed but overruled), the Settlement
Agreement defines the "Effective Date" as that date which is, 90
days after entry of the Final Approval Order, if no appeals are
taken from the Final Approval Order; or (2) if appeals are taken
from the Final Approval Order, then 30 days after an Appellate
Court ruling affirming the Final Approval Order; or (3) 30 days
after entry of a dismissal of the appeal.
On June 4, 2019, the Court entered an Order Granting Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement,
the Defendant is required to make payments to the Class Members
within 10 days of the Effective Date, i.e. by Sept. 12, 2019. The
Defendant desires to make payment to the Class Members prior to
Sept. 12, 2019. The effect of the amendment is that the Class
Members will receive the settlement funds already approved by the
Court 60 days sooner, which is beneficial to them.
Therefore, the Parties stipulated and agreed to amend the
definition of the term "Effective Date" as used in the Settlement
Agreement as the later of, 30 days after entry of the Final
Approval Order, in accordance with Section 8(d)(iv), if no appeals
are taken from the Final Approval Order; or (2) if appeals are
taken from the Final Approval Order, then 30 days after an
Appellate Court ruling affirming the Final Approval Order; or (3)
30 days after entry of a dismissal of the appeal. All other
provisions of the Settlement Agreement will remain unchanged.
Judge Du granted and so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/SLgL1k from Leagle.com.
Tonya Gunter, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jae Eddie K. Kim --
jkk@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo LLP, pro hac vice,
James Strenio -- James@kicklawfirm.com -- The Kick Law Firm, APC,
Richard D. McCune- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo
LLP, pro hac vice, Robert James Dart -- robert@kicklawfirm.com --
The Kick Law Firm, APC, Taras Kick -- Taras@kicklawfirm.com -- pro
hac vice, Thomas A. Segal -- Thomas@kicklawfirm.com -- The Kick
Law
Firm, APC, pro hac vice & Gregory G. Gordon, Glen Lerner Injury
Attorneys.
United Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by James A.
Kohl, Howard & Howard Attorneys, PLLC, Robert W. Hernquist, Howard
& Howard Attorneys PLLC, Stephen Paul Dunn, Howard & Howard
Attorneys PLLC, pro hac vice & Brandon J. Wilson, Howard & Howard.
USA TECH: Has Until Aug. 19 to Plead or Respond
-----------------------------------------------
USA Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 16, 2019, that
parties in the class action suit initiated by City of Warren Police
and Fire Retirement System, have agreed to extend the time for the
defendants to plead or otherwise respond to the complaint until
August 19, 2019.
A purported shareholder, City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement
System, filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Pennsylvania, a purported class action complaint on behalf of all
purchasers of common stock pursuant to the follow-on public
offering of the Company that closed on May 25, 2018.
The complaint named as defendants the Company, its chief executive
officer, its then chief financial officer, each of the then serving
directors of the Company, and each of the underwriters of the
public offering.
The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, due to, among other things, that the Company's
registration statement used in connection with the public offering
purportedly contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made therein
not misleading.
The parties have agreed to extend the time for the defendants to
plead or otherwise respond to the complaint until August 19, 2019.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this action.
USA Technologies, Inc. provides wireless networking, cashless
transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services in
the United States and internationally. USA Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.
WABCO HOLDINGS: Faces ZF Friedrichshafen Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
WABCO Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company is defending
against several ZF Friedrichshafen AG merger-related suits.
On March 28, 2019, WABCO entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the Merger Agreement) with ZF Friedrichshafen AG (ZF), a
stock corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Federal Republic of Germany, and Verona Merger Sub Corp., a
Delaware corporation and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ZF,
pursuant to which ZF will acquire 100% of the issued and
outstanding shares of WABCO common stock (the Merger).
The Merger Agreement was adopted by WABCO's shareholders at the
June 27, 2019 special meeting of shareholders. Consummation of the
Merger is subject to customary closing conditions and regulatory
approvals and is expected to close in early 2020.
Due to the pending Merger, the Company has suspended previously
announced changes to its internal reporting. The Company will
maintain its current internal reporting to the chief operating
decision maker and continue to operate as one reportable segment.
Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement, two putative class action complaints and two individual
complaints were filed against the Company and the Board of
Directors.
On April 23, 2019, the first putative class action complaint was
filed against the Company and the Board of Directors in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware under the
caption Collier v. WABCO Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-00729
(D. Del.).
On April 24, 2019, the second putative class action complaint was
filed against the Company and the Board of Directors in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware under the
caption Kent v. WABCO Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-00735 (D.
Del.).
On April 29, 2019, a third complaint was filed against the Company
and the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware under the caption Stein v. WABCO Holdings
Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-00782 (D. Del.).
On May 2, 2019, a fourth complaint was filed against the Company
and the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware under the caption Kengchoon v. WABCO
Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-00816 (D. Del.).
The complaints allege violations of federal securities laws and
regulations due to allegedly material and misleading statements and
omissions in the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection
with the Merger, including with respect to the financial analyses
of the Company's financial advisors and financial projections
prepared by the Company's management.
The complaints sought to enjoin the special meeting and seek to
enjoin the closing, as well as damages, costs and attorneys' fees.
The defendants believe that the lawsuits are without merit and the
defendants specifically deny all allegations that any supplemental
disclosure was or is required.
However, to moot certain of plaintiffs' disclosure claims in the
lawsuits, to avoid nuisance, potential expense and delay and to
provide additional information to WABCO's shareholders, on June 17,
2019, WABCO voluntarily supplemented its definitive proxy statement
by publicly filing additional disclosures.
The Merger Agreement was adopted by WABCO's shareholders at the
June 27, 2019 special meeting of shareholders.
WABCO Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, supplies
electronic, mechanical, electro-mechanical, and aerodynamic
products worldwide. The company engineers, develops, manufactures,
and sells braking, stability, suspension, steering, transmission
automation, and air management systems primarily for commercial
vehicles. WABCO Holdings Inc. was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Brussels, Belgium.
WALT DISNEY: Court Dismisses Neversink Suit Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NEVERSINK PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. WALT
DISNEY PICTURES, a California corporation, and DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00266-AB-JC (C.D. Cal.), Judge Andre
Birotte, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division, dismissed without prejudice
Neversink's individual and putative class claims asserted against
Defendant Walt Disney.
Pursuant to the Parties' Stipulation, the Judge ordered the
dismissal with each side to bear their own costs and fees. The
notice of the voluntary dismissal to putative class members is not
required.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/vC0Qhc from Leagle.com.
Neversink Productions Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Bobby
Pouya -- bpouya@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon Warshaw LLP, Clifford
H. Pearson -- cpearson@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon Warshaw LLP,
Daniel L. Warshaw -- dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon and
Warshaw LLP, Douglas L. Johnson, Johnson and Johnson LLP, Jeffrey
A. Koncius, Kiesel Law LLP, Jordanna G. Thigpen, Johnson and
Johnson LLP, Neville Lawrence Johnson, Johnson and Johnson LLP,
Nicole Ramirez, Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R. Kiesel -- kiesel@kiesel.law
-- Kiesel Law LLP, Raymond Paul Boucher, Boucher LLP & Shehnaz M.
Bhujwala , Boucher LLP.
Walt Disney Pictures, a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Drew E. Breuder -- dbreuder@omm.com -- O'Melveny and
Myers LLP, Timothy Blaes Heafner -- theafner@omm.com -- O'Melveny
and Meyers LLP & Daniel M. Petrocelli -- dpetrocelli@omm.com -- O
Melveny and Myers LLP.
WALT DISNEY: Faces Farr Suit in Central District of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Walt Disney
Company. The case is captioned as James Farr individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. The
Walt Disney Company doing business as: shopDisney and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05855-PA-GJS (C.D. Cal.,
July 8, 2019). The suit alleges violation of Americans with
Disabilities Act. The suit demands $5 million worth of damages. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson.
The Walt Disney Company, commonly known as Disney, is an American
diversified multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate
headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios in Burbank,
California.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Pope Sues over $35 Insufficient Fund Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY POPE, on behalf of himself and call others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WINTRUST FINANCIAL CORPORATION d/b/a
TOWN BANK, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00554-slc (W.D. Wisc.,
July 8, 2019), seeks monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory
relief from Wintrust, arising from the unfair and unconscionable
assessment and collection of multiple $35 insufficient funds fees
("NSF Fees") on the same items in violation of the Wisconsin
Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Besides being deceptive, unfair, and
unconscionable, this practice breaches contract promises made in
Wintrust's adhesion contracts.
Wintrust Financial Corporation is a financial holding company based
in Lake Forest, Illinois that operates, controls, and manages
chartered community banks in northern Illinois and southern
Wisconsin. Wintrust is one of the largest banking companies in
Illinois with more than $32 billion in assets.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street No. 201
Madison, WI
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Vess A. Miller, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Gold, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20009
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielpllc.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***