/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190801.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, August 1, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 153
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Correa Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Jackson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: James Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Perez-Sanchez Sues over Defective CAEv2 Earplugs
400 WEST: Medina Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Restaurant Staff
ADVANTAGE SALES: Schaut Seeks Unpaid Wages & Benefits
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Silverberg Balks at Extreme Networks Merger
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: 10th Cir. Affirms Judgment in Zevallos Suit
AMAZON.COM: Tice Says Alexa Records Voices & Conversations
AMERICA SUNSHINE: Luster Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Kissick TCPA Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
AT LAST SPORTSWEAR: Bunting Files ADA Class Action in New York
BALSAM LIVING: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAR LA GRASSA: Gabriel Sues over Tip-Pooling System
BARNES & NOBLE: Karia Balks at Elliott Buyout Deal
BARNES & NOBLE: Shaev Balks at Elliott Takeover
BILL HAMILTON: Padilla et al. Seek to Certify 4 Classes
BMW NA: Martinez Sues over Warranty
BOEING COMPANY: Pilot D Alleges Aircraft Design Flaw Cover-Up
CALIBER HOME: Greer Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Failed to Pay Wages, Mosley Suit Says
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Removes Rough Suit to E.D. California
CPLG PROPERTIES: Nekouee Files ADA Suit in Kansas
CREDIT BUREAU: Keagle Files Suit Over Illegal Fees
CREDIT CONTROL: Deutsch Hits Collection Letter's Multiple Addresses
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Nozawa Files Suit Over Infineon Merger Deal
D.C.G. INC: Parrott Sues over House Fees & Tip-Pooling
DENVER HOTELS: Accused by Lobatos of Not Paying Overtime Wages
DIGNITY HEALTH: Maaba Seeks Unpaid Wage Compensation
DIRECTV LLC: Settlement in Jantos Suit Has Final Approval
DOMINION DENTAL: Brown Files PI Suit in E.D. Virginia
E&O RESTAURANT: Denied Staff Meal/Rest Breaks, Paystubs, Says Cruz
EDWARD D. JONES: Time to File Notice of Appeal in Huang Extended
EL PASO ELECTRIC: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over Sun Merger Deal
ELITE SECURITY: Roby, et al Seek Overtime Pay for Security Guards
FERRARA CANDY: Gruber Says Product Contains Malic Acid
FIRST STUDENT: Removes Provencio Case to N.D. California
FORTUNE INT'L: Schamy Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
FRED'S INC: Zaller Sues over Botched Rite-Aid Purchase Deal
FREEMAN SECURITY: Rivera to Recover Money Damages for Unpaid Wages
GARDA USA: Sunderland Sues over Wage & Hour Violations
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Loreto Suit Seeks Proper Wages
GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Molina Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
GOOGLE.COM INC: Morales Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Info
GRAGIL ASSOCIATES: Navarro Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
GREENLIGHT ENERGY: Jawk Enterprises Asserts TCPA Violation
HARBOR FREIGHT: Winkles Seeks Unpaid Wages for Logistics Managers
HEALTHCOMPARE: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
HEALTHSCOPE BENEFITS: Hampton Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Jesse Sues Over Deceptive Pricing on Room Rates
HOBBY LOBBY: Faces Farr Suit in Central District of California
ICONIX BRAND: Slade Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
IFIXANDREPAIR LLC: Gomez Files Suit in S.D. Florida
INSEL AIR: Saade Suit over Exit Fees Wins Class Certification
INTRA-NATIONAL HOME: Mishra Seeks OT Pay for Direct Care Workers
IOC-KANSAS CITY: Fails to Pay Minimum/Overtime Wages, Lilley Says
JACKOVICS ENTERPRISES: Fitness SF Underpays Trainers, Wrench Says
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Childress Case
KETORO INC: Reaves Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
LABOR SOURCE: Murphy Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
LIBERTY INSURANCE: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Horn Insurance Suit
MADANGSUI INC: Jong Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
MAGELLAN HRSC: Coffin, et al. Suit Moved to S.D. California
MEDIDATA SOLUTIONS: Kent Files Suit Over Dassault Merger Deal
MENASHA CORP: Alvarez Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ball Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Banker Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Carter Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Kusnetzes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Mutelet Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Morandi Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
NCAA: Rhodes Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
NCAA: Rice Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
NETCOLLECTIONS LLC: Roberts Sues over Debt Collection Practices
NEW YORK: Nell et al. Seek OT Pay for Motor Vehicle Operators
NORTHFIELD MEDICAL: Dobson Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime
O M NAMAH INC: Patel Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
OXY USA: Court Won't Certify Class of Gas Wells Royalty Owners
PATIENT FINANCIAL: Metsuyan Foods Asserts TCPA Breach
PFIZER INC: Class Certification Bid in Al Haj Labeling Suit Nixed
POWER STOP: Luna Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
PRESIDIO BANK: Parshall Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RAPID RESPONSE: Shelton Sues over Unauthorized Voice Calls
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Tanaskovic Sues over DOJ Probe, Share Price Drop
ROCKWELL LEGAL: Faces Pula Suit in Hawaii District Court
ROYAL POWER SOLUTIONS: Lopez Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
STARKIST CO: Administrative Fee Cap in Hendricks Raised by $618K
STATS LLC: Parker Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Illegal Deductions
TOTAL SYSTEM: Peters Challenges Global Payments Merger Deal
TROPICANA PRODUCTS: Lewis Appeals Decision in Martinucci Suit
ULINE INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNIFIED TECH: Mansur Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
VENTURA CTY, CA: Sanders Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
VISALUS INC: Settlement in Harris Suit Has Prelim Approval
VISALUS INC: Settlement in Kerrigan Suit Has Prelim Approval
WESTERN STOCK: Rogers Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: O'Neill Sues Over Defective Drain Valves
WILMINGTON TRUST: Swain, et al. Seek to Certify Class Action
XEROX CORPORATION: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN: Hauser Files Fraud Class Suit in N.D. Alabama
*********
3M COMPANY: Correa Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANGEL A. CARDONA CORREA, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02102-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla., July 17,
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: Jackson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KENNETH JACKSON, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02128-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 17,
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: James Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, GREGORY JAMES, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02129-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 17,
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: Perez-Sanchez Sues over Defective CAEv2 Earplugs
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HECTOR L. PEREZ-SANCHEZ, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02130-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 17,
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
400 WEST: Medina Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Restaurant Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
DONATO ROSALES MEDINA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 400 WEST 23RD STREET
RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A THE RAIL LINE DINER), TEDDY NICTAS , and
ENRIQUE DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06681 (S.D.N.Y., July
17, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New York
Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff Rosales worked for Defendants 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 pay Rosales appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly
failed to pay Plaintiff Rosales wages on a timely basis.
Mr. Rosales was employed as a dishwasher and a delivery worker at
the Defendants' restaurant. He was ostensibly employed as a
delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable
part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but
not limited to dishwashing, taking out the garbage, peeling
potatoes, and cleaning the counter, basement, boiler, and the
dessert refrigerator (non-tipped duties).
The Defendants own, operate, or control a diner, located at 400
West 23rd St, New York, NY 10001 under the name "The Rail Line
Diner".[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.com
ADVANTAGE SALES: Schaut Seeks Unpaid Wages & Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER SCHAUT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING LLC, and
PETRUSS MEDIA GROUP, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
9:19-cv-81030-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 17, 2019), seeks to collect
unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the
Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are liable under the
WARN Act for the failure to provide the Plaintiff and the other
similarly situated former employees at least 60 days' advance
notice of their termination as required by the WARN Act.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' employment
were terminated as part of a plant shutdowns as defined by the WARN
Act, for which they were entitled to receive 60 days advance
written notice under the WARN Act from Defendant.
On July 11, 2017, approximately 100 other similarly situated
employees who reported to the Defendant's facilities were
terminated as part of plant shutdowns at its Boca Raton, Florida
location, the lawsuit says.
Advantage's website states it is a leading sales and marketing
agency in North America, specializing in consumer packaged goods.
PMG operates as a marketing agency in the State of Florida. The
Company offers consumer targeting and build responsive audiences
using cross-channel digital engagement strategies.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Main No.: 813-224-0431
Facsimile: 813-229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
jcornell@wfclaw.com
gnicols@wfclaw.com
- and -
Chad A. Justice, Esq.
JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
1205 N Franklin St. Suite 326
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: 813 566-0550
Facsimile: 813 566-0770
E-mail: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Silverberg Balks at Extreme Networks Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
HERBERT SILVERBERG, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AEROHIVE NETWORKS, INC., INGRID
BURTON, REMO CANESSA, DAVID K. FLYNN, CURT GARNER, FRANK MARSHALL,
JOHN GORDON PAYNE, and CONWAY RULON-MILLER, the Defendants, Case
3:19-cv-04089-JD (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2019), seeks to enjoin the
expiration of a tender offer which, if completed, will result in
Extreme Networks, Inc., through its affiliate Clover Merger Sub,
Inc., acquiring Aerohive without Defendants making disclosure of
relevant material facts, pursuant to Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Alternatively, should
the Proposed Transaction close based upon an uninformed shareholder
vote, the Plaintiff seeks appraisal damages for all damages
sustained as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing.
On June 26, 2019, Extreme and Aerohive issued a joint press release
announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated June 26, 2019 pursuant to which Extreme proposes to
acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Aerohive
at a price of $4.45 per share in cash, in a transaction valued at
approximately $272 million, and which assigns an enterprise value
of approximately $210 million to Aerohive after accounting for its
net cash balance of approximately $62 million.
The Information Agent for the Offer is MacKenzie Partners, Inc.,
1407 Broadway, New York, New York 10018. Extreme commenced the
Offer on July 12, 2019. The Offer is scheduled to expire at
midnight (New York City Time) at the end of the day on Thursday,
August 8, 2019.
On July 12, 2019, Aerohive filed, with the SEC, a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement under Section 14(d)(4) of the
Exchange Act on Schedule 14D-9 recommending that Aerohive's
stockholders tender their shares in favor of the Proposed
Transaction. The Recommendation Statement omits or misrepresents
material information regarding, among other things: (a) Aerohive's
Financial Projections, including the projections relied upon by
Evercore, its financial advisor; (b) Evercore's Analyses and
Fairness Opinion; and (c) the Process Leading up to the Proposed
Transaction.
The Board proposes, through the Recommendation Statement and
without fully disclosing all material information, that Aerohive's
public stockholders divest of valuable Company equity. As a result
of the Board’s omissions, Aerohive stockholders are unable to
make 28 a fully informed decision whether to tender their shares in
support of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal, in violation
of the Exchange Act. To remedy Defendants' violations, the
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the expiration of the Offer unless and
until such problems are remedied, the lawsuit says.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:
Takeo A. Kellar, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 764-2580
Facsimile: (858) 764-2582
E-mail: tkellar@aftlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
Michael J. Klein, Esq.
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, NY 10119
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
E-mail: JAbraham@aftlaw.com
mklein@aftlaw.com
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: 10th Cir. Affirms Judgment in Zevallos Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIRIAM ZEVALLOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLSTATE
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-1150
(10th Cir.), Judge Harris L. Hartz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of judgment
in favor of Allstate.
The sole issue before the Court is whether Colorado public policy
renders void a settlement agreement entered into by the Plaintiff
and Allstate. The issue was recently resolved by the Court's
decision in McCracken v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co.
On Aug. 20, 2012, the Plaintiff was injured in an automobile
accident. She was insured under a policy issued by Allstate that
provided two types of coverage relevant to this dispute: $5,000
coverage for Medical Payments ("MedPay") and
$50,000-per-person/$100,000-per-accident coverage for Uninsured and
Underinsured Motorist ("UM/UIM") benefits. Allstate paid the
Plaintiff $5,000 under her MedPay coverage; and she reached a
$100,000 policy-limit settlement with the tortfeasor's insurer.
She then sought to recover from Allstate under her UM/UIM
coverage.
On June 11, 2014, Allstate sent the Plaintiff a letter offering to
settle the UM/UIM benefits claim. The letter stated that Allstate
had calculated the Plaintiff's total damages as $96,737 ($68,737 in
medical expenses plus $28,000 in noneconomic damages) and evaluated
her claim at $91,737 after subtracting the $5,000 previously paid
under the MedPay coverage. Allstate concluded that the Plaintiff's
evaluation of her claim was within the amount settled by the
underlying $100,000 and therefore offered her $1,500 as a
compromised offer of settlement. Ultimately, the parties executed
a settlement agreement on Sept. 26, 2014, with Allstate paying the
Plaintiff $2,700 in UM/UIM benefits and the Plaintiff discharging
Allstate of all liability under the UM/UIM coverage.
More than two years later, the Colorado Supreme Court held in
Calderon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., that the setoff
prohibition of Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 10-4-609(1)(c) (2016) bars
insurers from subtracting MedPay benefits from their UM/UIM
liability. Four days after that decision, the Plaintiff filed a
putative class action against Allstate in Colorado state court
alleging breach of contract and seeking damages and a declaratory
judgment on the ground that the Allstate companies had unlawfully
reduced amounts paid to their insureds under their UM/UIM coverages
by setoffs from their MedPay coverages under their respective
automobile policies.
Allstate removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado. Allstate's answer attached copies of the
insurance policy, its settlement-offer letter, and the settlement
and release executed by the Plaintiff. It moed for judgment on the
pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The district court granted
the motion, ruling that the Plaintiff's claim was barred by the
release in her settlement agreement, which was not contrary to
Colorado public policy.
The Plaintiff does not dispute that she voluntarily signed the
release or that the matter before the Court falls within the scope
of the release. Rather, she asserts that Allstate reduced the
amount of UM/UIM benefits it agreed to pay her in the settlement by
offsetting the amount already paid in MedPay benefits, thus
rendering the settlement agreement contrary to public policy, as
determined in Calderon. She contends that insurers like Allstate
cannot use releases to accomplish what the law forbids, and illegal
agreements improperly diluting UM/UIM coverage are unenforceable.
Judge Hartz holds that the Court rejected an identical argument in
McCracken. In that case, the plaintiffs held insurance policies
that included MedPay coverage and UM/UIM coverage, and they
received MedPay benefits after bing injured in motor-vehicle
collisions. Then, before Calderon was handed down, they discharged
all their claims against their insurers in settlement agreements
where the insurers offset the MedPay payments in calculating the
settlement amounts under the UM/UIM coverage. Relying in large
part on the decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals in Arline v.
American Family Mutual Insurance Co., the Court held that the
releases were not contrary to public policy and were enforceable.
The Court has filed its opinion in McCracken by the time the
Plaintiff submitted her reply brief in the case. That brief noted
that a petition for certiorari with the Colorado Supreme Court was
pending in Arline, and she made the reasonable request that it
withholds decision until the high court acted on the petition. It
has now denied the petition.
Because the relevant facts in the matter are indistinguishable from
those in McCracken, the Court is bound by that precedent and
accordingly rejects the Plaintiff's argument. Judge Hartz
accordigly affirmed the judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/t9iUTZ from Leagle.com.
AMAZON.COM: Tice Says Alexa Records Voices & Conversations
----------------------------------------------------------
HAYLEY CHARMAINE TICE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMAZON.COM INC.
and A2Z DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-01311 (C.D. Cal., July 17, 2019), targets Amazon's unlawful
recording, permanent storage, analysis, and use of the voices and
conversations of adult Californians communicating with or otherwise
heard by Amazon's Alexa recording devices.
According to the complaint, every time Plaintiff used the Echo Dot
Device to communicate with Alexa, Amazon recorded her voice and
communications and permanently stored those recordings on its
servers. It may also have analyzed some or all of these.
The Plaintiff was not a registered Alexa account holder and Amazon
never warned Plaintiff that her voice and communications were being
recorded by the Alexa Device. The Plaintiff also never consented to
the recording, storage, review/analysis, or use of her voice and
communications, the lawsuit says.
Amazon.com, Inc., is an American multinational technology company
based in Seattle, Washington that focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. It is
considered one of the Big Four technology companies along with
Google, Apple, and Facebook.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Conrad B. Stephens, Esq.
STEPHENS & STEPHENS LLP
505 South McClelland Street
Santa Maria, CA 93454
Telephone: (805) 922-1951
Facsimile: (805) 922-8013
E-mail: conrad@stephensfirm.com
- and -
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Michael J. Vanselow, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
mjvanselow@locklaw.com
- and -
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
Brian O. Marty, Esq.
Brandon M. Bohlman, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
marty@sagwlaw.com
bohlman@sagwlaw.com
- and -
Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
Brendan Thompson, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: 202 789 3960
E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
brendant@cuneolaw.com
AMERICA SUNSHINE: Luster Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
--------------------------------------------------
Frederick Luster, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. America Sunshine, LLC, Defendant, Case
19-cv-03192 (N.D. Ga., July 12, 2019) seeks damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs together with other relief for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
American Sunshine does business under the trade-name "Intima
Hogar," a business into online and catalog sales of clothing and
linens, primarily to the Spanish-speaking community. In order to
generate sales, it relies on telemarketing. Luster claims to
receive multiple SMS ads from Intima on his cellphone without his
prior express written consent. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kris Skaar, Esq.
Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
133 Mirramont Lake Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189
Telephone: (770) 427-5600
Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
Email: kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com
jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
James M. Feagle, Esq.
Cliff R. Dorsen, Esq.
2374 Main Street, Suite B
Tucker, GA 30084
Tel: (404) 373-1970
Fax: (404) 601-1855
Email: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (312) 729-5288
Fax: (312) 729-5289
Email: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Kissick TCPA Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as DANIEL KISSICK, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01460 (Filed Feb. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S
District Court for the Central District of California, to U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Memphis) on
July 18, 2019. The Western District of Tennessee assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-02459-SHL-tmp to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman.
The suit seeks to stop Defendant's practice of placing calls using
an automatic telephone dialing system to the cellular telephones of
consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent;
enjoin Defendant from continuing to place calls using an ATDS to
consumers who did not provide their prior express written consent
to receive them; and obtain redress for all persons injured by its
conduct, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Blair Elizabeth Reed, Esq.
Scott A Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR AND FISHER PA
1990 North California Boulevard Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
scott@bursor.com
Attorneys for American Residential Services, LLC are:
Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
James Todd Kennard, Esq.
Erna Mamikonyan, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 489-3939
Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
E-mail: asommerfeld@jonesday.com
jtkennard@jonesday.com
AT LAST SPORTSWEAR: Bunting Files ADA Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against At Last Sportswear,
Inc. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. At Last Sportswear, Inc. doing business as: Beach Lunch Lounge,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04327 (E.D. N.Y., July 26, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
At Last Sportswear Inc. designs and manufactures apparels. The
Company offers clothes and accessories for women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
44 Court Street, Suite 1217
Brooklyn, NY 11217
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Fax: (718) 504-7555
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
BALSAM LIVING: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Balsam Living Inc.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Balsam Living Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07051 (S.D. N.Y., July 29, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Balsam Living Inc. makes artificial Christmas trees, Christmas
decorations and home decor for consumer and commercial use.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
BAR LA GRASSA: Gabriel Sues over Tip-Pooling System
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned styled Christopher Dean Gabriel and Austin Weir,
Soderberg Holiday, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Bar La Grassa, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 27-CV-19-11629 (Minn. 4th Jud. Ct., Hennepin Cty.), is a
wages and labor case arising under the common law and the Minnesota
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs and members of the putative class are individuals
who have worked at least one shift as a server or bartender at Bar
La Grassa from July 10, 2016 until the date of final judgment in
this matter.
Since Defendant opened Bar La Grassa, Defendant has always made
participation in its tip-pooling system a condition of employment
for servers and bartenders.
The Defendant has always collected all of the tips that servers and
bartenders receive from customers and subsequently diverted a
portion of those tips to employees who do not generally receive
tips from customers, such as wait assistants and food runners.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Brian L. Ranwick, Esq.
Nik Nowicki, Esq.
RANWICK & NOWICKI PLLC
310 4th Ave. S., Suite 5010
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Telephone: 612-206-3775
E-mail: brian@Zuramvicknowicki.com
nik@ranwicknowicki.com
BARNES & NOBLE: Karia Balks at Elliott Buyout Deal
--------------------------------------------------
MITUL KARIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BARNES & NOBLE, INC., GEORGE CAMPBELL,
JR., MARK D. CARLETON, SCOTT S. COWEN, WILLIAM T. DILLARD II, AL
FERRARA, PAUL B. GUENTHER, PATRICIA L. HIGGINS, LEONARD RIGGIO,
IRWIN D. SIMON, KIMBERLY A. VAN DER ZON, CHAPTERS HOLDCO INC., and
CHAPTERS MERGER SUB INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2019-0552 (Del.
Chy., July 18, 2019), seeks to enjoin the expiration and
consummation of a tender offer unless and/or until defendants cure
their breaches of fiduciary duty, and/or to recover damages
resulting from defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of Barnes & Noble, Inc. against the members of the
Company's Board of Directors for their breaches of fiduciary duties
arising out of their attempt to sell the Company to Elliott
Associates, L.P. and its affiliates, Chapters Holdco Inc. and
Chapters Mergers Sub Inc. without disclosing material information
to the Company's stockholders necessary for them to determine
whether to tender their shares or seek appraisal.
On June 7, 2019, the Company announced that it had signed a
definitive agreement under which, Elliott, through its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Holdco and Merger Sub, would commence a tender offer
to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Barnes & Noble for
$6.50 per share in cash. The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $683 million including the assumption of debt. On
June 24, 2019, the Company entered into an amendment to the Merger
Agreement that prescribed and finalized the two-step tender offer.
The Board members have breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing
to the Proposed Transaction for inadequate consideration. The
Company received and improperly rejected an offer of $7.25 per
share in cash following the entry into the Original Merger
Agreement merely because this superior offer would take a few weeks
to finalize.
On July 9, 2019, Merger Sub commenced the Tender Offer, which is
set to expire at 5:00 p.m., New York City Time, on August 6, 2019.
The Tender Offer provides that the number of shares of Barnes &
Noble's common stock that have to be validly tendered, together
with the shares beneficially owned by Merger Sub and its
affiliates, if any, must represent at least one share more than
one-half of the total number of outstanding shares of Barnes &
Noble common stock as of the Expiration Date or at the time and
date to which the Tender Offer has been extended. The Tender Offer
is not subject to any financing condition.
Contemporaneously with the commencement of the Tender Offer, on
July 9, 2019, the Defendants filed, or caused to be filed, a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Scheduled 14D-9 with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction, which contained material omissions in
breach of the fiduciary duty of candor owed by the Individual
Defendants to Barnes & Noble's stockholders.
Barnes & Noble, Inc., a Fortune 1000 company, is the bookseller
with the largest number of retail outlets in the United States and
a retailer of content, digital media, and educational
products.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
- and -
Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
901 Market Street, Suite 1000
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 778-4000
Facsimile: (302) 295-2873
E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com
BARNES & NOBLE: Shaev Balks at Elliott Takeover
-----------------------------------------------
DAVID SHAEV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BARNES & NOBLE, INC., LEONARD RIGGIO,
GEORGE CAMPBELL JR., SCOTT S. COWEN, WILLIAM T. DILLARD II, AL
FERRARA, MARK D. CARLETON, PAUL B. GUENTHER, PATRICIA L. HIGGINS,
KIMBERLY A. VAN DER ZON, and IRWIN D. SIMON, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01341-UNA (D. Del., July 17, 2019), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a merger transaction
or, in the event the transaction is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' wrongdoing.
The action stems from a proposed transaction initially announced on
June 7, 2019, pursuant to which Chapters Holdco Inc. will acquire
Barnes & Noble, Inc. by way of a tender offer.
On June 6, 2019, B&N's board of directors caused the Company to
enter into a merger agreement with Chapters Merger Sub Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Chapters
Holdco Inc.; and Chapters Holdco Inc., a Delaware corporation
controlled by Elliott Associates, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership, and Elliott International, L.P., a Cayman Islands
limited partnership.
The Original Merger Agreement was subsequently amended on June 24,
2019. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement Amendment, the
acquirer will purchase all of B&N's outstanding shares at a
purchase price of $6.50 per share in cash.
On July 9, 2019, B&N filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement
on a Schedule 14D-9 with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Tender Offer. According to
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. in a press statement, the Complaint alleges
that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed
Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in
a solicitation statement filed with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the
Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to,
among other things, Barnes & Noble's financial projections and the
analyses performed by Barnes & Noble's financial advisors. The
Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of Barnes & Noble common stock.
Barnes & Noble, a Fortune 1000 company, is the bookseller with the
largest number of retail outlets in the United States and a
retailer of content, digital media, and educational products. As of
March 7, 2019, the company operates 627 retail stores in all 50
U.S. states.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Brian D. Long, 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 -
Carl L. Stine, Esq.
Antoinette Adesanya, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
aadesanya@wolfpopper.com
BILL HAMILTON: Padilla et al. Seek to Certify 4 Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JUAN PADILLA, an individual,
et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. BILL HAMILTON, an individual, BILL
HAMILTON ROOFING, INC a California Corporation, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:18-cv-03845-SVK (N.D. Cal., July 16, 2019), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying these classes:
OFF THE CLOCK CLASS:
"all hourly non-exempt roofing laborers who work off the clock
hours and not paid regular or overtime wages including but not
limited to those required to report to the Hamilton yard at
7am and not compensated any travel time from the Hamilton yard
to the job site and/or back to the Hamilton yard from June 27,
2014 through August 20th, 2019";
203 CLASS:
"all former non-exempt roofing laborers still owed wages at
the time of their termination from June 27, 2014 through
August 20th, 2019 are entitled to a thirty day waiting time
penalty pursuant to California Labor Code section 203, for
unpaid wages accrued at the end of their employment";
PIECE WORKER CLASS DEFINED AS:
"all non-exempt roofing laborers who were paid by the piece
and not compensated for their nonproductive time, including
but not limited to: travel time, 20 minutes per day for rest
breaks, waiting time in either regular or overtime wages from
June 27, 2014 through August 20th, 2019";
PAYSTUB CLASS DEFINED AS:
"all non-exempt roofing laborers whose hours were not
accurately recorded on their timecards and/or paystubs are
entitle to penalty pursuant to California Labor Code section
226".
The wage and hour case involves approximately 120 putative laborer
class who work or worked as non-exempt roofers for the
Defendants.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
James Dal Bon, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON
606 N. 1st St.
San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: (408)466-5845
- and -
Victoria Booke, Esq.
BOOKE & AJLOUNY
606 N. 1 ST St.
San Jose CA 95112
Telephone: (408)286-7000
BMW NA: Martinez Sues over Warranty
-----------------------------------
ROLANDO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. RGl9027350 (Cal.
Super., July 17, 2019), alleges that BMW failed to properly
identify all "high-priced warranted parts" that should be covered
under California's 7-year 70,000-mile emissions control warranty.
As a result, Plaintiff and members of the Class are paying out of
pocket for repairs that should be covered under warranty.
For decades, BMW has been in the business of importing and
distributing BMW vehicles to the State of California, with the
intent to sell BMW vehicles to consumers in California. As such,
the BMW vehicles have been subject to state and federal regulations
regarding both emissions standards and BMW's obligation to provide
consumers with warranties relating to emissions parts.
The Plaintiff and other consumers have suffered damage and lost
money or property as a result of BMW's wrongful, unfair, unlawful,
and fraudulent conduct, the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon A venue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 432-8492
E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
abasser@pomlaw.com
- and -
Robert L. Starr, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
BOEING COMPANY: Pilot D Alleges Aircraft Design Flaw Cover-Up
-------------------------------------------------------------
PILOT D, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH08418 (Ill. Cir., July
18, 2019), seeks compensation on behalf of the Plaintiff and more
than 100 pilots qualified to fly the Boeing 737 MAX series of
aircraft (the "MAX") as employees of an international airline
("Airline X"), whose professional and personal lives were harmfully
impacted when BOEING and the Federal Aviation Administration
engaged in an unprecedented cover-up of the known design flaws of
the MAX, which predictably resulted in the crashes of two MAX
aircraft and subsequent grounding of all MAX aircraft worldwide.
The Plaintiff says he relied on BOEING's representations that the
MAX was safe when qualifying to fly the MAX, and thus suffered --
and continues to suffer -- significant lost wages, among other
economic and non-economic damages, since the MAX was grounded.
Additionally, the Plaintiff says he suffered severe emotional and
mental stress when they were effectively forced to fly the MAX --
and required to place their own life and the lives of their crew
and passengers in clanger -- despite the growing awareness of the
dangerous nature of the previously concealed software on board the
MAX and other problems, the lawsuit says.
Boeing Company is an American multinational corporation that
designs, manufactures, and sells airplanes, rotorcraft, rockets,
satellites, comms gear and missiles worldwide.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the proposed Class are:
Patrick M. Jones, Esq.
Sarah M. Beaujour, Esq.
PAT JONES PLLC
100 South State Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 255-7976
E-mail: pmj@patjonespllc.com
smb@patjonespllc.com
- and -
Joseph C. Wheeler
IALPG PTY LTD
ID, 7/139 Junction Road
Clayfield, Queensland
Australia 4011
Telephone: 617 3040 1099
E-mail: jwheeler@ialpg.com
CALIBER HOME: Greer Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caliber Home Loans.
The case is styled as Paul Greer, Jr. individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Caliber Home Loans,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00915-GTS-ATB (N.D. N.Y., July 26,
2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Caliber Home Loans, Inc. is an Irving, Texas-based home mortgage
originator and servicer established in 2013 by the merger of
Caliber Funding and Vericrest Financial. The firm is owned by
affiliates of private equity fund managers Trillian Fund and Lone
Star Funds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Ave-Ste 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Failed to Pay Wages, Mosley Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
ASIA MOSLEY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06378 (C.D.
Cal., July 23, 2019) is a class action brought on behalf of
Plaintiff and the class she seeks to represent against Defendants
who have consistently maintained and enforced against Plaintiff and
Plaintiff Class unlawful practices and policies.
Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of Plaintiff Class, seeks
relief against Defendants, for Defendants' practices of violating
the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders,
Code of Regulations, and California Labor Codes, including: (1)
failure to pay all wages (including minimum, regular, and overtime
wages); (2) failure to make available meal and rest periods or
provide compensation in lieu thereof; (3) failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; and (4) failure to pay all wages
due upon separation of employment. These violations concern current
and past employees of Defendants, says the complaint.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee
within the 4 years prior to the commencement of this action.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION is a California corporation that
operates a membership warehouse club that provides a wide selection
of merchandise to its members throughout California and was
Plaintiff's employer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
Katherine Odenbreit, Esq.
Atoy Wilson, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
awilson@mahoney-law.net
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Removes Rough Suit to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation removed the case styled as MEGAN
ROUGH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current
and former employees of DEFENDANTS in the State of California, the
Plaintiff, vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. FSC
052953 (Filed May 28, 2019), from the Solano Superior Court, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
on July 17, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01340-MCE-DB to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to pay minimum and
regular wages, failed to pay all overtime wages, failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statement, failed to timely pay all wages
due upon separation of employment pursuant to the California Labor
Code.[BN]
Attorneys for the Defendant are:
David D. Kadue, Esq.
David D. Jacobson, Esq.
Jinouth D. Vasquez Santos, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com
djacobson@seyfarth.com
jvasquezsantos@seyfarth.com
CPLG PROPERTIES: Nekouee Files ADA Suit in Kansas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CPLG Properties
L.L.C. The case is styled as Fred Nekouee individually and on
behalf of all other mobility impaired individuals similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CPLG Properties L.L.C. doing business as: La
Quinta Inn, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-02436-JAR-JPO (D. Kan., July 26, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
La Quinta Inns & Suites is a chain of limited service hotels in the
United States, Canada, Mexico, and Honduras.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Vincze, Esq.
Law Offices of Robert J. Vincze
PO Box 792
Andover, KS 67002
Phone: (303) 204-8207
Email: vinczelaw@att.net
CREDIT BUREAU: Keagle Files Suit Over Illegal Fees
--------------------------------------------------
Kevin Keagle and Tabitha Fling, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Credit Bureau of Carbon
County, Inc. dba CollectionCenter, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02107 (D. Colo., July 22, 2019) is a putative class action
against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
In connection with the collection of the Debt, Defendant sent
Plaintiffs written communication in or around October 2018. In
response, Ms. Fling called Defendant to make payment arrangements
on the Debt. During the call, Ms. Fling agreed that Plaintiffs
would make payments of $25 each month. Ms. Fling authorized
Defendant to electronically withdraw $25 from her checking account
on the fifth day of each month. The Defendant informed Ms. Fling
that Plaintiffs' first payment would necessarily include a one-time
"convenience fee" of $3. On November 5, 2018, Defendant withdrew
$28 from Plaintiffs' checking account which included the one-time
"convenience fee" of $3. Upon information and belief, no law
expressly permits Defendant to charge Plaintiffs with a $3
convenience fee for withdrawing payments from a consumer's checking
account, says the complaint.
Plaintiffs are natural persons allegedly obligated to pay a debt.
Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or
indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due,
another.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
Amorette Rinkleib, Esq.
Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC
5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
Mesa, AZ 85206
Phone: 602-388-8898
Facsimile: 866-317-2674
Email: tclg@conusmerlawinfo.com
arinkleib@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com
CREDIT CONTROL: Deutsch Hits Collection Letter's Multiple Addresses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishel Oestreicher and Samuel Deutsch, individually, and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Credit
Control, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04046, (E.D. N.Y., July 12,
2019), seeks actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Credit Control is in the business of the collection of debts
allegedly owed by consumers. It attempted to collect from
Oestreicher and Deutsch vis-a-vis collection letters that contain
confusing multiple addresses as to which to remit the payment.
[BN]
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) 706-5055
Email: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Nozawa Files Suit Over Infineon Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
HIROYUKI NOZAWA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, W. STEVE
ALBRECHT, HASSANE EL-KHOURY, OH CHUL KWON, CATHERINE P. LEGO,
CAMILLO MARTINO, JEFFREY J. OWENS, JEANNINE SARGENT, and MICHAEL S.
WISHART Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06821 (S.D. N.Y., July 23,
2019) is a class action on behalf of the public shareholders of
Cypress against the Company's Board of Directors for their
violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act in connection with the proposed sale of the Company to Infineon
Technologies AG.
On June 3, 2019, Cypress entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with Infineon and IFX Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among other
things, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the
Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Infineon. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the
Company's shareholders will receive $23.85 in cash for each share
of Cypress common stock owned. The consummation of the Proposed
Transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the
approval of the stockholders of Cypress.
On July 2, 2019, in order to convince Cypress' stockholders to vote
in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement
with the SEC, in violation of the Exchange Act, says the complaint.
For this reason, the Plaintiff asserts claims against Cypress and
the Board for violations of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed
Transaction unless and until the material information is disclosed
to Cypress stockholders before the vote on the Proposed Transaction
or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover
damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange
Act, says the complaint.
Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, the owner
of Cypress common stock.
Cypress manufactures and sells advanced embedded system solutions
for automotive, industrial, consumer and enterprise end
markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 493-9780
Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com
D.C.G. INC: Parrott Sues over House Fees & Tip-Pooling
------------------------------------------------------
LAURA PARROTT on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. D.C.G., INC., d/b/a THE
LODGE AND DAWN M. RIZOS, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01718-N
(N.D. Tex., July 18, 2019), alleges that Defendants misclassify
dancers, including Plaintiff, as independent contractors so that
they do not have to compensate them at the federally mandated
minimum wage rate, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants required and/or
permitted Laura Parrott to work as an exotic dancer at their adult
entertainment club but refused to compensate her at the applicable
minimum wage. In fact, the Defendants refused to compensate her
whatsoever for any hours worked. Plaintiff's only compensation was
in the form of tips from club patrons.
The Defendants took money from Parrott in the form of "house fees"
or "rent" as a prerequisite to do her job for the benefit of the
club. Parrott was also required to divide her tips with Defendants'
managers and employees who do not customarily receive tips outside
of a valid tip pool. Without justification or excuse, Plaintiff's
tips and wages were confiscated, and she is owed lost wages, the
lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and class members are:
Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com
DENVER HOTELS: Accused by Lobatos of Not Paying Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANA LOBATOS on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DENVER HOTELS, LLC, and NILAY PATEL, Case No.
1:19-cv-02035-DME (D. Colo., July 15, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants refused to pay the Plaintiff and other hourly employees
proper overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Colorado Minimum Wage of Workers Act.
Denver Hotels, LLC is a registered domestic limited liability
company, which has a principal street address of 4590 Quebec St.,
in Denver, Colorado. Nilay Patel is a member and manager of the
Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandt Milstein, Esq.
MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
1123 Spruce Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Telephone: (303) 440-8780
Facsimile: (303) 957-5754
E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com
DIGNITY HEALTH: Maaba Seeks Unpaid Wage Compensation
----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MAABA, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. DIGNITY HEALTH,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC
-19-577710 (Cal. Super., July 18, 2019), seeks to recover all
unpaid wages, denied meal and rest periods, and waiting time
penalties under the California Labor Code. Mr. Michael Maaba, has
been employed by Defendant in California.
The Defendant's unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and
willful throughout their California facilities. The Defendant knew,
or should have known, that their policies and practices have been
unlawful and unfair, the lawsuit says.
Dignity Health is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit
corporation that operates hospitals and ancillary care facilities
in 3 states. As such, it is exempt from federal and state income
taxes.[BN]
Attorney for the Plaintiff and the proposed Class are:
Randy Rumph, Esq.
RMR LAW
218 H Street
Bakersfield, CA 93304
Telephone: 661-322-4600
Facsimile: 661-322-8473
E-mail: Rmrlaw1O@sbcglobal.net
DIRECTV LLC: Settlement in Jantos Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES JANTOS, individually, and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV, a Delaware
Corporation; DIRECTV, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Corporation; and QWEST CORPORATION d/b/a CENTURYLINK QC, a Colorado
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00413-TSZ (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted (i) the Parties' joint
motion for final approval of the proposed class settlement, and
(ii) the Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees, costs, and incentive
award.
On Dec. 12, 2018, the Parties executed an Amended Class Action
Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims. The ourt granted
preliminary approval to the proposed class action settlement
between the Parties in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement.
The proposed Settlement resolves all of the Settlement Class's and
the DIRECTV Subclass' claims against the Defendants in exchange for
specified benefits outlined in the Settlement Agreement. The Court
also certified the Settlement Class and the DIRECTV Subclass for
settlement purposes only, appointed Plaintiff Jantos as the Class
Representative of the Settlement Class and the DIRECTV Subclass,
and appointed the law firms of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger,
and Myers & Company, PLLC as the Class Counsel for the Settlement
Class and the DIRECTV Subclass.
The Court held a fairness hearing on June 14, 2019, to consider
whether to grant final approval to the Settlement. It heard
argument from counsel for the Parties concerning the Settlement.
No other person appeared to object, to support, or comment on the
Settlement.
Having read, reviewed and considered the papers filed in support of
final approval of the Settlement, to which no written objection was
filed, the Settlement Agreement, and the pleadings, Judge Zilly
made final the Court's conditional certification of the "Settlement
Class" and the "DIRECTV Subclass" as defined in its Preliminary
Approval Order. One member of the Settlement Class, June Williams,
has timely requested to be excluded from the Class and the
Settlement. Accordingly, the Order and the Settlement will not
bind or affect June Williams.
The Settlement requires the Defendants to provide specified
benefits to each Participating Settlement Class Member, as defined
and set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
All Settlement Class Members that have not excluded themselves from
the Settlement will receive an activation code for one year of
three-bureau credit monitoring service and $1 million in identity
theft insurance, which has an approximate retail value of $180.
All DIRECTV Subclass members that have not excluded themselves from
the Settlement will receive, in addition to the ability to activate
credit monitoring service and identity theft insurance, $520 in the
form of a credit to their CenturyLink bill if they are a Current
CenturyLink Customer. Current CenturyLink Customers may seek
distribution of any credit balance on their account in accordance
with the usual policies and procedures of CenturyLink for refunding
credit balances. The initial determination of who qualifies as a
Current CenturyLink Customer will be based upon CenturyLink's
records as of the date of the Order.
All DIRECTV Subclass members who are no longer Current CenturyLink
Customers as of the date that the class benefit is provided to
Settlement Class Members will receive, in addition to the ability
to activate credit monitoring service and identity theft insurance,
$520 payable by check.
The Judge granted the parties' joint motion for final approval of
the Settlement, and the Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees,
costs, and incentive award. The Defendants will pay the Class
Counsel's fees and costs in the amount of $150,000 and the $10,000
incentive fee to Class Representative James Jantos, in accordance
with and at the times prescribed by the Settlement Agreement.
The claims in the matter are dismissed with prejudice, except as to
June Williams, who has opted out of the Settlement, and the Clerk
is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1bAxQS from Leagle.com.
James Jantos, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Chris Robert Youtz --
chris@sylaw.com -- SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER, Michael
David Myers -- mmyers@myers-company.com -- MYERS & COMPANY &
Richard E. Spoonemore -- rspoonemore@sylaw.com -- SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER.
DirecTV, a Delaware corporation & DirecTV LLC, a California
limited
liability corporation, Defendants, represented by Emily J. Harris
-- eharris@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER
FOGG
& MOORE LLP & Jordann Hallstrom, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER
FOGG & MOORE LLP.
Qwest Corporation, a Colorado corporation, Defendant, represented
by Erin K. Earl -- EEarl@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE, Jennifer
J. Oxley -- Oxley@wtotrial.com -- WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP, pro
hac vice, Kathryn A. Reilly, WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP, pro hac
vice, Todd M. Hinnen, PERKINS COIE & Amanda J. Beane, PERKINS
COIE.
DOMINION DENTAL: Brown Files PI Suit in E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dominion Dental
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Barbara Brown, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Dominion Dental Services, USA, Inc. doing business as: Dominion
National, Dominion Dental Services, Inc. doing business as:
Dominion National, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00540 (E.D. Va.,
July 29, 2019).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Dominion Dental Services, Inc. operates as an insurance company.
The Company offers dental and vision insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dale Wood Pittman, Esq.
The Law Office of Dale W. Pittman, P.C.
112-A W Tabb St
Petersburg, VA 23803-3212
Phone: (804) 861-6000
Fax: (804) 861-3368
Email: dale@pittmanlawoffice.com
E&O RESTAURANT: Denied Staff Meal/Rest Breaks, Paystubs, Says Cruz
------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Antonio Cruz, Caitlin James and Eddie Castillo, individuals
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. E&O
Restaurant Company, LLC. and Does 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No.
CGC-19-577567, (Cal. Super., July 12, 2019), seeks compensation for
denied and/or improper meal periods, rest breaks and damages for
failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements and failure
to pay earned wages upon discharge including waiting time penalties
under the California Labor Code, Unfair Practices Act of the
California Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission.
Defendants operates E&O Kitchen and Bar, in San Francisco,
California where Plaintiffs worked as kitchen staff. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq.
Ernesto Sanchez, Esq.
LIBERATION LAW GROUP, PC.
2760 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
Telephone: (415) 695-1000
Facsimile: (415) 695-1006
EDWARD D. JONES: Time to File Notice of Appeal in Huang Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALESKA SCHULTZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDWARD D.
JONES & CO., L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-1346-JAR
(E.D. Mo.), Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted
Objector-Appellant Shiyang Huang's pro se motion for extension of
time to file a notice of appeal.
On April 22, 2019, the Court entered its judgment approving
settlement of the class action and order awarding attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of expenses and case contribution awards. Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1), Huang had 30 days
to file his notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit. The deadline, therefore, for filing a notice of
appeal in thie case was May 22, 2019. However, Huang's notice of
appeal was filed on May 28, 2019. After being notified by the
Eighth Circuit that his notice of appeal appeared untimely, Huang
filed the instant motion pursuant to Rule 4(a)(5). Under Rule
4(a)(5), the district court may extend the time to file a notice of
appeal if the party so moves no later than 30 days after the
original filing deadline and shows excusable neglect or good
cause.
In support of his motion, Huang asserts that the delay in filing
was beyond his control. He explains that as a pro se litigant he
lacks access to the CM/ECF electronic filing system and thus mailed
his notice of appeal by U.S. mail on May 20, 2019, with expected
delivery on May 22, 2019. The envelope in which Huang's notice of
appeal was mailed to the Court is date stamped received by the
Court on May 23, 2019. Huang also states he separately served his
notice of appeal to all parties by electronic mail on May 20, 2019
as well as by U.S. first-class mail.
Judge Ross finds good cause under the circumstances. Furthermore,
any impact on judicial proceedings caused by the late filing was
minimal, as is any prejudice to the defendants. Huang also appears
to have acted in good faith. Although he might have mailed his
notice earlier to account for any delivery issues with the postal
service, the Judge will grant Huang's motion for good cause. Huang
is cautioned that he must pay the $505 docketing fee for his appeal
immediately and that failure to do so will result in the issuance
of an order from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to show cause
why his appeal should not be dismissed.
Huang's pro se motion for extension of time to file a notice of
appeal is therefore granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/WOBDjH from Leagle.com.
Valeska Schultz & Melanie Waugh, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeffrey
R. Baron -- jbaron@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY AND GLASSER, LLP,
Julie E. Siebert-Johnson, KESSLER AND TOPAZ, pro hac vice, Mark G.
Boyko -- mboyko@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY AND GLASSER, LLP & Mark
K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- KESSLER AND TOPAZ, pro hac
vice.
Rosalind Staley, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey R. Baron, BAILEY
AND GLASSER, LLP & Mark G. Boyko, BAILEY AND GLASSER, LLP.
Edward D. Jones & Co., L. P. & The Edward Jones Investment and
Education Committee, Defendants, represented by James F. Bennett --
jbennett@dowdbennett.com -- DOWD BENNETT, LLP, James E. Crowe, III,
EDWARD JONES, Jonathan D. Thier, CAHILL AND GORDON, Thomas J.
Kavaler -- tkavaler@cahill.com -- CAHILL AND GORDON & Philip Allen
Cantwell -- pcantwell@dowdbennett.com -- DOWD BENNETT, LLP.
Brett Bayston, Bonnie Caudle, Mark Vivian, Stina Wishman, Jan-Marie
Kain, Linda Banniester, Ann Echelmeier, Curtis Long, David Gibson,
Ken Blanchard, Jason Jonczak, Julie Rea, Asma Usmani, Glenn Kolod,
Juli Johnson, Jess Dechant, Peggy Robinson & Edward Jones Profit
Sharing and 401(k) Administrative Committee, Defendants,
represented by James F. Bennett, DOWD BENNETT, LLP, James E. Crowe,
III, EDWARD JONES & Philip Allen Cantwell, DOWD BENNETT, LLP.
Shiyang Huang, Objector, pro se.
Anna Mae Krause, Objector, pro se.
Heath J. Petsche, Objector, pro se.
EL PASO ELECTRIC: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over Sun Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. EL PASO ELECTRIC COMPANY, CHARLES
A. YAMARONE, EDWARD ESCUDERO, PAUL M. BARBAS, JAMES W. CICCONI,
MARY E. KIPP, RAYMOND PALACIOS, JR., ERIC B. SIEGEL, STEPHEN N.
WERTHEIMER, SUN JUPITER HOLDINGS LLC, and SUN MERGER SUB INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01367-UNA (D. Del., July 23, 2019) is
an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on June 3,
2019, pursuant to which El Paso Electric Company will be acquired
by Sun Jupiter Holdings LLC ("Parent"), a Delaware limited
liability company, and Sun Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub," and
collectively with Parent, "Sun").
On June 1, 2019, El Paso's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Sun. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Sun's stockholders will receive
$68.25 in cash for each share of El Paso common stock they own. On
July 16, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. However, the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy
Statement, says the complaint.
Plaintiff is the owner of El Paso common stock.
El Paso is an electric utility that provides generation,
transmission, and distribution service to approximately 428,000
retail and wholesale customers in a 10,000 square mile area of the
Rio Grande valley in west Texas and southern New Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
ELITE SECURITY: Roby, et al Seek Overtime Pay for Security Guards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HEIDI ROBY, ROCKY M. CREMEANS, II, ANTHONY FRAME, KELLEY KREMER,
AMANDA M. LUCCHESI, AUSTIN LUTE, LYLE VALENTICH, DESMOND WALLACE,
and JOHN L. WILLIAMS, the Plaintiffs, vs. ELITE SECURITY
CONSULTANTS LLC, TIMOTHY BOYLE, THE LEAD GRAVEYARD LLC, LISA
HENDERSCHOTT, SHERYN BRUEHL, JOHN DOE, INDIVIDUAL, and JOHN DOE
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01631 (N.D. Ohio,
July 17, 2019), seeks to recover back overtime pay; liquidated
damages; injunctive and affirmative relief; punitive damages and
compensatory damages; and attorney fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Revised Code.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs never received overtime
pay for working over 40 hours in one workweek. The Plaintiffs' work
duties were not exempt from the overtime pay requirements of R.C.
4111.03.
As the direct and proximate result of defendants' unlawful conduct,
the Plaintiffs have suffered a loss of income and other damages,
the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff worked for defendants as a Security Guard from on or
about September 9, 2017 until on or about January 8, 2018.
Elite Security provides armed security guard services, self defense
classes and conceal carry courses.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:
Tod J. Thompson, Esq.
810 Sycamore Street
Cincinnati, OH o 45202
Telephone: (513) 332-4348
Facsimile: (513) 263-9001
E-mail: tod@thompsonlaw.com
- and -
Joseph F. Albrechta, Esq.
John A. Coble, Esq.
ALBRECHTA & COBLE, Ltd.
2228 Hayes Avenue, Suite A
Fremont, OH 43420
Telephone: (419)332-9999
Facsimile: (419)333-8147
E-mail: jcoble@lawyer-ac.com
- and -
Eleni Albrechta, Esq.
David Albrechta, Esq.
ALBRECTA & ALBRECTA, LLC
530 Main Avenue, Suite D-3
Durango, CO 81301
Telephone: (970)442-3288
E-mail: eleni@albrechtalaw.com
FERRARA CANDY: Gruber Says Product Contains Malic Acid
------------------------------------------------------
Jake Gruber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ferrara Candy Company, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-04700 (N.D. Ill., July 12, 2019), seeks damages, injunctive
relief and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from common law fraud and unjust enrichment and for
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses
Practices Act.
Ferrara manufactures, advertises, markets, sells and distributes
candy products throughout Illinois and the United States.
Gruber disputes Ferrara's claim that its products does not contain
artificial flavors despite containing artificial Malic Acid. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, 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
- and -
David B. Levin, Esq.
Steven G. Perry, Esq.
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
Northbrook, IL 60062
Phone: (224) 218-0882, 218-0875
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com
sperry@toddflaw.com
FIRST STUDENT: Removes Provencio Case to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
First Student, Inc. and First Student Management, LLC remove case
captioned as CYNTHIA PROVENCIO, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FIRST STUDENT, INC.; FIRST
STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. RG19021391 (Filed June 3, 2019), from the
Alameda County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on July 18, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-04152-SK to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts the Defendants failed to pay wages for all
time worked at minimum wage, failed to pay proper overtime wages
for overtime hours worked and all hours worked, failed to indemnify
for employment-related losses/expenditures, failed to provide
complete and accurate wage statements, and failed to timely pay all
earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of
employment in violation of the California Labor Code.[BN]
Attorneys for the Defendants are:
David J. Dow, Esq.
Matthew B. Riley, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101.3577
Telephone: 619-232-0441
Facsimile: 619-232-4302
E-mail: ddow@littler.com
mriley@littler.com
FORTUNE INT'L: Schamy Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SCHAMY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FORTUNE INTERNATIONAL REALTY, INC., a
Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22952-UU (S.D.
Fla., July 17, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant is a luxury real estate brokerage.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf
of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, 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
FRED'S INC: Zaller Sues over Botched Rite-Aid Purchase Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
THEODORE J. ZALLER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FRED'S INC., MICHAEL K.
BLOOM, WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., STEFANO PESSINA and GEORGE
R. FAIRWEATHER, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02415 (W.D. Tenn.,
June 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants'
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants
who purchased or otherwise acquired Fred's securities between
December 20, 2016 and June 28, 2017, both dates inclusive.
On October 27, 2015, Rite Aid Corp. and Walgreens jointly announced
an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Walgreens would
acquire Rite Aid for $9.00 per share in cash. To convince the
investing public that it would receive Federal Trade Commission
("FTC") approval to complete the Original Merger, Walgreens and
Rite Aid entered into an agreement with Fred's to sell 86 Rite Aid
stores for $950 million in an all-cash transaction to complete the
Original Merger.
On January 30, 2017, Rite Aid and Walgreens announced that they had
entered into a new merger agreement, which cut the proposed
consideration for Rite Aid stockholders from $9.00 per share to
between $6.50 to $7.00 per share. On June 29, 2017, Rite Aid and
Walgreens announced that they had terminated the Revised Merger
Agreement. Following the termination of the Revised Merger
Agreement, Walgreens terminated the Fred's Pharmacy asset purchase
agreement.
The preliminary proxy statement related to the Revised Merger
Agreement that Rite Aid filed with the SEC on Schedule 14A on March
3, 2017 the termination of the Revised Merger Agreement, Walgreens
terminated the Fred's Pharmacy asset purchase agreement. The
Defendants made numerous materially false and misleading statements
concerning the level of regulatory risk faced by the Original
Merger and the Revised Merger which would ultimately cause the
termination of the Fred's Asset Purchase Agreement.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements:
(i) downplaying or disputing contrary reports from journalists
signaling regulatory turbulence in closing the merger; (ii)
representing that inside knowledge of the FTC gave confidence that
the deal would close.
The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages in that, in
reliance on the integrity of the market, they paid artificially
inflated prices for Fred's stock. Plaintiff and the Class would not
have purchased Fred's common stock during the Class Period at the
prices they paid, or at all, if they had been aware that the market
prices had been artificially and falsely inflated by Defendants'
misleading statements.
Fred's Inc. operates approximately 550 discount value stores and
its mission is to make it easy and exciting to save money. Its
unique format offers customers a full range of value-priced
everyday items, along with terrific deals on closeout merchandise
throughout the store.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:
Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
P.O. Box 150734
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: 615-248-2828
Facsimile: 866-816-4116
E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com
- and -
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
821 Franklin Ave, Suite 209
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 493-9780
Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com
FREEMAN SECURITY: Rivera to Recover Money Damages for Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN RIVERA, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FREEMAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a Florida
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01353 (M.D. Fla., July 23,
2019) is an action seeking to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages, retaliation and additional damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees were never compensated for any work performed beyond 40
hours per week. The Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff, and
those similarly situated employees, at one and a half times their
hourly rate for any hours worked over 40 per workweek. The
Defendant and its representatives knew that Plaintiff, and those
similarly situated employees, were working overtime and that
federal law requires employees such as the Plaintiff to be
compensated at time and one-half per hour for overtime pay, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately 2012
through November 2018 starting as a Security Officer before rising
to supervisor.
FREEMAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC., is a Florida corporation which
maintains its business operations, among others, in Orange County,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
Louis Montone, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
1950 Lee Rd., Suite 213
Winter Park, FL 32789
Phone: (407) 574-4999
Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com
lmontone@theleachfirm.com
GARDA USA: Sunderland Sues over Wage & Hour Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dean Sunderland and Peter John Reiff, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals and the Proposed
Minnesota Rule 23 Class, the Plaintiffs, vs. Garda USA, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-01877 (D. Minn., July 17, 2019), seeks
redress for wage and hour violations committed by GardaWorld
Security Corporation.
The Plaintiffs have worked as drivers/messengers/guards for Garda
USA. The Plaintiffs worked as non-exempt hourly employees for more
than 40 hours per week with vehicles having a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of less than 10,001 pounds.
Garda has not paid -- and does not pay -- Plaintiffs overtime wage
rates for all hours worked over 40 per week. Rather, Garda has
implemented a policy of refusing to pay overtime wages for all
hours worked over 40 per week.
As a result of Garda's illegal practices, Plaintiffs, similarly
situated individuals, and the proposed Rule 23 Class have been
injured, suffering economic damages for which they are entitled to
relief.
GardaWorld is a Canadian private security firm.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:
Joshua A. Newville, Esq.
MADIA LAW LLC
323 Washington Ave. N., No. 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: 612 349 2743
Facsimile: 612 235 3357
Email: newville@madialaw.com
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Loreto Suit Seeks Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------
JOSE LORETO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
INC., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01366-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal., July 23,
2019) is a class and collective action against Defendant under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants had a consistent policy of that did not accurately
calculate the regular rate of pay for non-exempt employees because
it failed to add all remuneration earned, including bonuses, cash
in lieu of benefits, and other amounts, in violation of California
and federal wage and hour laws.
Moreover, the Defendants issued wage statements to Plaintiff and
other Class members, with the incorrect name and address of the
legal entity that is the employer, and inaccurately state the gross
wages, total hours worked, net wages earned, applicable hourly
rates in effect and the number of hours worked at each hourly rate.
These wage statement defects are the result of Defendants' failure
to pay overtime and meal and rest period premiums at the regular
rate of pay, thus rendering the wage statement total amounts
inaccurate. The Defendants' wage statements fail to include pay for
all overtime wages and premiums at the lawful regular rate of pay,
which render the wage statements inaccurate, incomplete, and
unlawful, says the complaint.
Plaintiff was employed by GDIT in San Diego County, California as a
Maintenance Technician, and later a Maintenance Worker, from
February 2016 through the present.
General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. is a Virginia
corporation, which conducts business in the County of San Diego,
was the employer of Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
Michael D. Singer, Esq.
Jeff Geraci, Esq.
COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
605 C Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 595-3001
Fax: (619) 595-3000
Email: ikhoury@ckslaw.com
msinger@ckslaw.com
jgeraci@ckslaw.com
- and -
Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
FERRARO EMPLOYMENT LAW, INC.
2305 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92106
Phone: (619) 693-7727
Email: nick@ferraroemploymentlaw.com
GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Molina Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yolanda Molina and Granville Senters, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated employees, v. Genesis Healthcare, LLC
and 590 North Poplar Fork Road Operations, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-00516 (S.D. W.V., July 12, 2019) seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
The Defendants failed to pay overtime wages and denied rest/meal
breaks as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the West
Virginia Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Act, says the complaint.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Payne, Esq.
REDMAN & PAYNE, PLLC
4855 MacCorkle Avenue SW
South Charleston, WV 25309
Tel: (304) 342-6800
Email: mpayne@redmanpaynelaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Rist, Esq.
RIST LAW OFFICE, LC
103 Fayette Avenue
Fayetteville, WV 25840
Tel: (304) 574-0222
Email: tom@helpwv.com
GOOGLE.COM INC: Morales Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
NYLTZA MORALES, RITU KATHPALIA, and RITU KATHPALIA, as next friend
of D.Z.K., a minor, each individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GOOGLE.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
GOOGLE.COM SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2019CH08309 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., July 15, 2019), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Plaintiffs' privacy rights guaranteed
under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Google LLC is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located
in Mountain View, California. Google is a purveyor of a multitude
of services. One of those services is Google Assistant, which much
like Amazon's Alexa or Apple's Siri, is a voice-based smart
assistant.
Google Assistant devices record and respond to oral communications
upon hearing the wake word. Google Assistant device records the
oral communications that follow, including ambient speaking in the
background not even meant for Google Assistant. The Google
Assistant device transmits all of these oral communications to
Google's servers. Google then indefinitely stores copies of all
recordings on its own servers for continued use and analysis.
The Plaintiffs alleges that Google does not inform Google Assistant
users in writing that Google Assistant is collecting biometric
information or biometric identifiers. They add, among other
things, that Google does not inform bystanders--people who speak in
the vicinity of Google Assistant devices but do not own Google
Assistant devices nor have Google Assistant accounts--in writing
that Google is collecting biometric information or biometric
identifiers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gerald J. Bekkerman, Esq.
Marc A. Taxman, Esq.
Bradley N. Pollock, Esq.
Sean P. Murray, Esq.
Brennan B. Hutson, Esq.
TAXMAN, POLLOCK, MURRAY, & BEKKERMAN, LLC
225 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1750
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 586-1700
Facsimile: (312) 586-1701
E-mail: gbekkerman@tpmblegal.com
mtaxman@tpmblegal.com
bpollock@tpmblegal.com
smurray@tpmblegal.com
bhutson@tpmblegal.com
- and -
Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
Adam York, Esq.
KAMBERLAW, LLC
220 N. Green Street
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (212) 920-3072
Facsimile: (573) 341-8548
E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com
ayork@kamberlaw.com
- and -
Scott Kamber, Esq.
KAMBERLAW, LLC
201 Milwaukee Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80206
Telephone: (212) 920-3072
Facsimile: (573) 341-8548
E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com
GRAGIL ASSOCIATES: Navarro Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gragil Associates,
Inc. The case is styled as Clasrissa Navarro individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gragil
Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-23124-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
July 28, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Gragil Associates, Inc. is a full service accounts receivable
management firm which specializes in Healthcare Receivables.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas John Patti, III, Esq.
Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq.
Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi
110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 907-1136
Fax: (954) 529-9540
Email: tom@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
GREENLIGHT ENERGY: Jawk Enterprises Asserts TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
JAWK ENTERPRISES, LLC and JON FREY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GREENLIGHT ENERGY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04212 (E.D. N.Y., July 22, 2019) is a
class action against Defendant for its violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the regulations promulgated
thereunder.
The Defendant, using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS")
caused to be made at least five calls to two of Jawk's VOIP
telephones and one call to Frey's VOIP residential telephone--for
which Plaintiffs were charged per minute for each call received and
without Plaintiffs' prior express consent--and advertising
Defendant's energy services and encouraging Plaintiffs to purchase
Defendant's energy services. Defendant made some of these calls
using a prerecorded or artificial voice.
By doing so, Defendant violated the TCPA, which prohibits using an
ATDS and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice to make any
advertising or telemarketing telephone calls to any service for
which the called party is charged for the call, without the called
party's prior express written consent, says the complaint.
Jawk is a single member Pennsylvania limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Defendant is a New York Corporation with its principal office
located at 108-18 Queens Boulevard, Fourth Floor, Forest Hills, New
York 11375.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
85 Miles Avenue
White Plains, NY 10606
Phone: (914) 358-5345-2400
Fax: (212) 571-0284
Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com
- and -
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
HARBOR FREIGHT: Winkles Seeks Unpaid Wages for Logistics Managers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WINKLES on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, vs. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00825-CB (W.D. Pa., July 10, 2019),
seeks to recover damages for non-payment of wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Logistics Manager in a
retail store, and in the western counties of Pennsylvania,
including Pittsburgh, where Defendant operates multiple retail
stores. As a Logistics Manager, Plaintiff's primary duty was
merchandising.
Defendant breached its contractual obligation to compensate
Plaintiff and the similarly situated Logistics Managers in
Pennsylvania when it falsified time records and suffered and
permitted Plaintiff and the similarly situated Logistics Managers
in Pennsylvania to work without compensation. Defendant did not
have any good-faith basis on which to withhold the wages. As a
result of Defendant's breaches, Plaintiff and the similarly
situated Logistics Managers in Pennsylvania have been denied the
benefit of the bargain, and have suffered substantial damages in
the form of unpaid wages.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are:
Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LLC
First & Market Building, Suite 650
100 First Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 227-0763
Facsimile: (412) 774-1994
E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com
HEALTHCOMPARE: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Naiman, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HealthCompare
Insurance Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04748-DLR
(D. Ariz., July 18, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited telephone
calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff never consented to
receive the calls, which were placed to him for telemarketing
purposes.
HealthCompare Insurance offers health insurance plans online for
individuals and families in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 2008 and is based in Orange, California.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
99 High St., Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 738-7080
E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
- and -
Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
1 South Avenue, Suite 3
Natick, MA 01760
Telephone: (508) 655-1415
Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net
HEALTHSCOPE BENEFITS: Hampton Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Hampton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Healthscope Benefits, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00489 (E.D. Ark., July 12, 2019), seeks to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendant owns and operates a full-service claims administration
and health management firm where Hampton worked in the Customer
Care Department, fielding phone calls from Healthscope's customers
regarding initial precertification and predetermination of their
health insurance plans. She claims to be misclassified as exempt an
independent contractor and denied overtime pay for hours rendered
in excess of 40 hours per week. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
Post Office Box 39
Russellville, AR 72811
Tel: (479) 880-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Jesse Sues Over Deceptive Pricing on Room Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanna Jesse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-04713 (N.D. Ill., July 12, 2019), seeks redress for
violations of Section 2 of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of contract, promissory
estoppel, common law fraud and unjust enrichment.
Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc., is a multinational hospitality
company with 15 brands across different market segments including
Hampton Inn & Suites.
Jesse booked a room for two nights at the Hampton Inn & Suites
Tomball for a rate of $134 for the first night and $129 for the
second night. However, the post-stay receipt at the time of
checkout showed that Jesse was charged a $268.00 room rate for the
first night and a $258.00 room rate for the second night. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
SWEETNAM LLC
100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 757-1888
Email: wms@sweetnamllc.com
HOBBY LOBBY: Faces Farr Suit in Central District of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hobby Lobby Stores,
Inc. The case is captioned as James Farr, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Hobby
Lobby Stores, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05949-DMG-AS (C.D.
Cal., July 10, 2019). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities
Act violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dolly M.
Gee.
Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. retails arts and craft products. The
Company offers greeting cards, party crafts, fabric, floral,
frames, hobby items, home accent, jewelry, needles, paper crafting,
seasonal items, wearables, decorations, and wedding products.[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
ICONIX BRAND: Slade Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. ICONIX BRAND GROUP, INC.
d/b/a Pony and ICONIX ECOM, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06808
(S.D. N.Y., July 22, 2019) is a civil rights action against Iconix
for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendants is denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services they provide to their non-disabled customers through
http//:www.pony.com. The Defendants' denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations,
is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, says the complaint. Pony.com provides to the
public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials,
employment opportunities and other programs offered by Iconix. Yet,
Pony.com contains thousands of access barriers that make it
difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website, the complaint relates.
Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Iconix provides to the public a website known as pony.com which
provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services,
including, the ability to view the various lines of footwear and
make purchases among other features.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
IFIXANDREPAIR LLC: Gomez Files Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IFixandRepair, LLC.
The case is styled as Kevin Gomez individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IFixandRepair, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-61892-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2019).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Ifixandrepair LLC is a privately held company in Wellington, FL,
categorized under Mobile Telephones and Equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
INSEL AIR: Saade Suit over Exit Fees Wins Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR G. SAADE, the Plaintiff, vs. INSEL AIR f/k/a INSEL AIR
INTERNATIONAL B.V. and INSELAIR ARUBA N.V., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-22003-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen M.
Williams entered an order:
1. affirming and adopting Magistrate Judge Edwin G.
Torres's report and recommendation; and
2. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
According to a Law360.com report, a Florida man won class
certification in his lawsuit accusing Dutch Caribbean airline Insel
Air of charging passengers illegal, mandatory exit fees before
boarding flights from Miami International Airport, although a
federal judge noted the bankrupt airline's lack of participation in
the case presents obstacles.
Insel Air was a Dutch Caribbean carrier that served as the national
airline of Curacao. It was headquartered in Maduro Plaza,
Willemstad. Insel Air last served five destinations throughout the
Caribbean, South America. Its fleet consisted of Fokker 50
aircraft.[CC]
INTRA-NATIONAL HOME: Mishra Seeks OT Pay for Direct Care Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Khina M. Mishra, Narayan Dhungana, Deepa Ghimirey, and Virendra K.
Dhungel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Intra-National Home Care, LLC, Dilli
Adhikari, Meg Subedi, Bhagiman Gurung, Doe Narayan Bharati, and
Kamal Pokhrel, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01233-UN1 (M.D.
Pa., July 18, 2019), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968.
The Plaintiffs were employed as Direct Care Workers (DCWs) by
Intra-National. The Plaintiffs have been required and/or permitted
to work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, but have not been
compensated at time and a half for all hours worked over 40 hours
in a given workweek. Because the DCWs were not properly paid
overtime for more than 80 hours in any given two-week pay period,
Intra-National received unpaid labor from its DCWs. Rather, DCW's
have been compensated at straight time, the lawsuit says.
Intra-National provides non-medical in-home care services,
companionship and personal care to consumers throughout
Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:
WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
Stephen T. Mahan, Jr., Esq.
Stephen P. Gunther, Esq.
2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-5707
Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
E-mail: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
smahan@weisbergcummings.com
sgunther@weisbergcummings.com
IOC-KANSAS CITY: Fails to Pay Minimum/Overtime Wages, Lilley Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL C. LILLEY, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. IOC-KANSAS CITY, INC. d/b/a ISLE OF CAPRI
CASINO KANSAS CITY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00553-SRB (W.D. Mo., July 15,
2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and
others the mandated federal and/or state minimum wage rate for all
hours worked and overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a single
workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Missouri Minimum Wage Law.
IOC-Kansas City, Inc., doing business as Isle of Capri Casino
Kansas City, is a corporation organized under the laws of the state
of Missouri, with its principal place of business located in
Missouri.
The Defendant operates a casino located at 1800 E. Front Street, in
Kansas City, Missouri, where the Plaintiff worked as a Table Games
Dealer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068-1170
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com
JACKOVICS ENTERPRISES: Fitness SF Underpays Trainers, Wrench Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN WRENCH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JACKOVICS ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a
FITNESS SF; BRANNAN STREET FITNESS, INC. d/b/a FITNESS SF SOMA;
EMBARCADERO FITNESS, INC. d/b/a FITNESS SF EMBARCADERO; FIFER
STREET FITNESS, INC. d/b/a FITNESS SF MARIN; FILLMORE FITNESS, INC.
d/b/a FITNESS SF FILLMORE; LAKE MERRITT FITNESS, INC. d/b/a FITNESS
SF OAKLAND; MID MARKET FITNESS, INC. d/b/a FITNESS SF MID MARKET;
SUPERBLOCK FITNESS, INC. d/b/a FITNESS SF CASTRO; TRANSBAY FITNESS,
INC. d/b/a FITNESS SF TRANSBA Y; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-577525 (Cal. Super., July 10,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor
Code.
Fitness SF paid Plaintiff and aggrieved employees who are or were
personal trainers a percentage rate based on the amount billed by
Fitness SF to its clients for personal training. Fitness SF pays
fitness directors on a salary basis.
However, Fitness SF failed to pay Plaintiff and aggrieved employees
for their rest periods, for work performed before and after
personal training sessions, and for nonproductive time between
personal training sessions. Furthermore, the wages that Fitness SF
paid Plaintiff and aggrieved employees regularly failed to meet the
requirements of applicable minimum wage laws.
Fitness SF provides personal training at its health and fitness
facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area. The company employed
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees as personal trainers and/or
fitness directors, whose duties included providing one-on-one
fitness training for Fitness SF's clients.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees are:
Hunter Pyle, Esq.
Chad Saunders, Esq.
HUNTER PYLE LAW
428 Thirteenth Street, Eleventh Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 444-4400
Facsimile: (510) 444-4410
E-mail: hunter@hunterpylelaw.com
csaunders@hunterpylelaw.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Childress Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Bankcard Services, Inc.,
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Gary Childress, et al. v.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00298-BO, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at
Raleigh.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 11, 2019, the Hon.
Judge Terrence W. Boyle entered an order on July 2, 2019, granting
the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class of:
"all persons who, at any time on or after January 1, 2005
(the "Class Period"), received reduced interest and/or fee
benefits from defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A. on a credit
card obligation or account because of an obligor's military
service, but excluding persons who have executed a release
of the rights claimed in this action."
The Court also, among other things, appointed Plaintiffs Gary
Childress, Russell Ho, and Michael Clifford as the class
representatives, and appointed the Plaintiffs' counsel as class
counsel.
The appellate case is captioned as JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al. v.
Gary Childress, et al., Case No. 19-281, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents GARY CHILDRESS, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated; ANNE CHILDRESS, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated; RUSSELL HO, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated; SUZANNAH HO, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated; and MICHAEL CLIFFORD, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, are represented by:
Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
Mark Adam Griffin, Esq.
KELLER & ROHRBACK, LLP
1201 3rd Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
E-mail: rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com
mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Brandon S. Neuman, Esq.
Kieran J. Shanahan, Esq.
SHANAHAN LAW GROUP
128 East Hargett Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-0000
Telephone: (919) 856-9494
E-mail: bneuman@shanahanlawgroup.com
Kieran@shanahanlawgroup.com
Defendants-Petitioners JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A.; CHASE BANK USA, N.A.; and CHASE BANKCARD SERVICES, INC., are
represented by:
Joshua Koppel, Esq.
WILMERHALE LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006-0000
Telephone: (202) 663-6000
E-mail: joshua.koppel@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq.
WILMERHALE LLP
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 937-7294
E-mail: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Pressly McAuley Millen, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
555 Fayetteville Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 755-2135
E-mail: press.millen@wbd-us.com
KETORO INC: Reaves Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK REAVES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. KETORO, INC. d/b/a ORO LOS ANGELES
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01421 (C.D. Cal., July 23, 2019) is
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all persons in
the United States who have received unsolicited and unconsented-to
commercial text messages to their mobile phones from Defendant in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
On November 20, 2018, the Plaintiff received a marketing text from
Defendant through its 961-67 short code, attempted to opt-out by
texting "Stop" as per the instructions on the text, and then
received a confirmation text from Defendant affirming that he had
unsubscribed and would not be receiving any further messages.
Despite opting out and being informed that he would receive no
further texts, the Plaintiff received another marketing text from
Defendant the next day, November 21, 2018.
Even if he had provided such consent for the text of November 20,
2018, his "Stop" text that day revoked it, such that all subsequent
texts were unconsented-to and in violation of the TCPA. The
Defendant texted Plaintiff REAVES through an automated telephone
dialing system ("ATDS" or "autodialer"). The messages were
disruptive and diminished the Plaintiff's and the Class's usage and
enjoyment of their mobile phones, says the complaint.
Plaintiff REAVES is a citizen of the state of New York and a
resident of Queens County.
KETORO, INC. d/b/a ORO LOS ANGELES is an online clothing retailer
that operates under the name "ORO Los Angeles".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
- and -
Ted. K. Lippincott, Esq.
LEVINE & BLIT LLP
6300 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1870
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Phone: (310) 281-0100
Fax: (310) 281-0140
Email: tlippincott@levineblit.com
LABOR SOURCE: Murphy Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCQUISE MURPHY and RATANYA ROGERS, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LABOR SOURCE, LLC
d/b/a/ CATSTAFF d/b/a ONE SOURCE STAFFING AND LABOR, and BLUSKY
RESTORATION CONTRACTORS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01929
(D. Minn., July 23, 2019) is a collective and class action on
behalf of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals who
have worked for Defendants to challenge Defendants' minimum wage
and overtime violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as
the wage, hour, labor, and other applicable laws of the States of
Minnesota, including the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act.
As manual laborers, Plaintiffs and the putative Class and
Collective Members were and are non-exempt employees under federal
and state wage and hour laws, and should receive minimum wage and
overtime pay consistent with the requirements of those laws.
However, Defendants do not pay their manual laborers minimum wage
and overtime as required by law. Instead, Defendants fraudulently
misrepresent the actual number of hours worked by their manual
laborers and make improper deductions from wages, thereby robbing
said employees of pay at the applicable minimum wage and at
time-and-a-half for overtime hours worked, says the complaint.
Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as manual laborers and
non-commercial driver in the States of Minnesota and Illinois.
One Source is a staffing agency and hires workers who perform work
in various states in the Country, including Minnesota and
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Phone: (612) 594-5933
Fax: (612) 584-4470
Email: rpaul@bm.net
apark@bm.net
- and -
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
William M. Hogg (to be admitted pro hac vice)
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77098
Phone: (713) 338-2560
Fax: (415) 421-7105
Email: whogg@schneiderwallace.com
LIBERTY INSURANCE: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Horn Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jacob Horn filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Jacob Horn, et al. v. Liberty Insurance
Underwriters, Inc., Case No. 9:18-cv-80762-RLR, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
On September 13, 2017, an amended class action styled Jacob Horn et
al v. iCAN, Case No. 9:17-cv-81027-RLR, was filed against Liberty's
insured, iCan Benefit Group, LLC (iCan). The Class Action asserted
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) against
iCan. iCan is a national direct response marketer and seller of
insurance products.
Liberty issued a Private Advantage Insurance Policy to iCan Holding
LLC, as a named insured.
On June 13, 2019, the Class Action Reporter said the District Court
issued an Order granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment.
The appellate case is captioned as Jacob Horn, et al. v. Liberty
Insurance Underwriters, Inc., Case No. 19-12525, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states the Appellee's
Certificate of Interested Persons was due July 31, 2019, as to
Appellee Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JACOB HORN and ROBERT VETTER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated as assignes of Ican
Benefit Group LLC, a Florida Limited Liability company, are
represented by:
Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S Biscayne Blvd., Floor 28
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
- and -
Ignacio Javier Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (786) 496-4469
E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO, PA
401 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Ellen Novoseletsky, Esq.
HICKS PORTER EBENFELD & STEIN, PA
799 Brickell Plz., Suite 900
Miami, FL 33131-2805
Telephone: (305) 374-8171
E-mail: ellen@novoslaw.com
- and -
Yelena Shneyderman, Esq.
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, PA
100 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 2100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394-0014
Telephone: (954) 377-8100
E-mail: yelena@yspalaw.com
- and -
Randy Marc Weber, Esq.
WEBER LAW, PA
1221 Brickell Ave., Suite 900
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 670-3422
E-mail: rmweber@pwdlawfirm.com
Defendant-Appellee LIBERTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, INC., is
represented by:
Steven Lane Ehrlich, Esq.
John Cody German, Esq.
COLE SCOTT & KISSANE P.A.
9150 S Dadeland Bvld., Suite 1400
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 350-5381
E-mail: steven.ehrlich@csklegal.com
cody.german@csklegal.com
- and -
Stephen Hunter Johnson, Esq.
LYDECKER DIAZ, LLC
1221 Brickell Ave., Floor 19
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 416-3180
E-mail: shj@lydeckerdiaz.com
- and -
Daniel J. Layden, Esq.
Mia S. Rosati, Esq.
Ronald P. Schiller, Esq.
John S. Stapleton, Esq.
HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL PUDLIN & SCHILLER
1 Logan Sq., Floor 27
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-7021
E-mail: dlayden@hangley.com
mrosati@hangley.com
rschiller@hangley.com
jstapleton@hangley.com
MADANGSUI INC: Jong Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------
Jong Suk Hong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Madangsui Inc. and Sangwoo Kim, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-04052, (E.D. N.Y., July 12, 2019) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to
provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants operate as "Madangsui Korean BBQ" where Jong was
employed. She claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and overtime
compensation for the hours that they worked. Defendants also failed
to maintain accurate recordkeeping of her hours worked, says the
Plaintiff. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
RYAN KIM LAW
163-10 Northern Blvd. Suite 205
Flushing, NY 11358
Tel: (847) 905-6262
Email: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com
MAGELLAN HRSC: Coffin, et al. Suit Moved to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Christie Coffin, Kimberly
Willmott, and Brenda Kasaty individually, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Magellan
HRSC, Inc., an Ohio Corporation and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No.: 37-02019-00030724-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the San Diego County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (San Diego) on July 17, 2019.
The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01337-JLS-NLS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino.
Magellan HRSC was founded in 1998. The company's line of business
includes providing management consulting services.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Sheldon A. Ostroff, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SHELDON A OSTROFF
2488 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92106
Telephone: (619) 232-3122
E-mail: sostrofflaw@aol.com
Attorneys for the Magellan HRSC, Inc. are:
Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 457-8216
Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
E-mail: mcurtis@reedsmith.com
MEDIDATA SOLUTIONS: Kent Files Suit Over Dassault Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDIDATA SOLUTIONS, INC., TAREK SHERIF,
GLEN DE VRIES, CARLOS DOMINGUEZ, GEORGE MCCULLOCH, NEIL KURTZ,
MARIA RIVAS, LEE SHAPIRO, and ROBERT B. TAYLOR, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01361-UNA (D. Del., July 22, 2019) is an action
stemming from a proposed transaction announced on June 12, 2019,
pursuant to which Medidata Solutions, Inc. will be acquired by
Dassault Systemes SE, Dassault Systemes Americas Corp., and 3DS
Acquisition 6 Corp.
On June 11, 2019, Medidata's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger
Agreement") with Dassault. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Medidata's stockholders will receive $92.25 in cash for
each share of Medidata common stock they own. On July 19, 2019,
Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction for August 16, 2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") in connection with
the Proxy Statement.
Plaintiff is the owner of Medidata common stock.
Defendant Medidata is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices at 350 Hudson Street, 9th Floor, New
York, New York 10014.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
MENASHA CORP: Alvarez Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
--------------------------------------------------
Noe Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Menasha Corporation, Case No. 2019CH08270
(Ill. Cir., July 12, 2019), seeks an injunction requiring
Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture,
collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory damages
together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Menasha Corporation offers packaging solutions throughout Illinois,
including in Cook County where Alvarez worked. He was required to
"clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned
fingerprints. Menasha also improperly disclosed employees'
fingerprint data without informed consent, says the complaint.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
Jad Sheikali, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (312) 893-7002
Fax: (312) 275-7895
Email: wkingston@mcgpc.com
jsheikali@mcgpc.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ball Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
The case, FRANK E. BALL, JR., Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00685 (Filed on April 29, 2019), was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The transfer is
pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-137) regarding MDL
NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Furthermore,
this product liability lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Vince
Chhabria. The United States District Court for the Northern
District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03541-VC to the
proceeding.
In this complaint, Plaintiff seeks redress for the damages they
suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of
State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in
St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural
biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading
producer of glyphosate. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Banker Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT L. BANKER, SR., Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01039 (Filed on April 29, 2019), was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The transfer is
pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-137) regarding MDL
NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Furthermore,
this product liability lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Vince
Chhabria. The United States District Court for the Northern
District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03542-VC to the
proceeding.
In this complaint, Plaintiff seeks redress for the damages they
suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of
State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in
St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural
biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading
producer of glyphosate. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Carter Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case, FELICIA Y. CARTER, individually and on behalf of DARYUS
DE SHAWN BREZIAL, (deceased) Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00804 (Filed on April 1, 2019), was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The transfer is
pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-137) regarding MDL
NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Furthermore,
this product liability lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Vince
Chhabria. The United States District Court for the Northern
District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03522-VC to the
proceeding.
In this complaint, Plaintiff seeks redress for the damages they
suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent
and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup,
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of
State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in
St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural
biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading
producer of glyphosate. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth S. Webb, Esq.
BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 222-2222
Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Kusnetzes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY KUSNETZ and FANY B. KUSNETZ, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-04069-VC (S.D.N.Y., May
23, 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. Stanley
Kusnetz' 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:
Paul D. Rheingold, Esq.
RHEINGOLD GIUFFRA
RUFFO & PLOTKIN LLP
551 Fifth Avenue, 29 th Floor
New York, NY 10176
Telephone: (212) 684-1880
MONSANTO COMPANY: Mutelet Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
OLIVIA G. MUTELET, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-81028-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 17, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.
The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff '
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.
The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP
295 Palmas Inn Way
Suite 6 Palmanova Plaza
Humacao, PR 0791
Telephone: (939) 220-2424
Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
E-mail: andrew@kaganlegalgroup.com
- and -
Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC
1473 S. Fourth Street
Louisville, KY 40208
Telephone: (502) 717-4080
Facsimile: (502) 717-4086
E-mail: jennifer@moorelawgroup.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Morandi Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
KEN MORANDI and BLANCA MERCADO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
d/b/a MR. COOPER, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06334-MWF-MAA (C.D.
Cal., July 23, 2019) is a complaint under California's Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleging that Mr. Cooper
charged Plaintiffs, and the rest of its customers in California, a
fee for paying over the phone. Because Mr. Cooper retains a portion
of this fee, it is illegal under California law.
Mr. Cooper is a debt collector because it regularly engages in debt
collection, on behalf of itself or others.
Plaintiffs are the owners of residences which are subject to a
mortgage serviced by Defendant.
Plaintiffs' statements demonstrated that Mr. Cooper charged, and
Plaintiffs paid, a fee of $14.00 for making their payment over the
phone. In the months of December 2018, and September 2018 Mr.
Cooper also charged, and Plaintiff Blanca Mercado paid, a fee of
$19.00 (labeled "E-Pay Fee Assessed"). Mr. Cooper's website
currently admits that it charges the $14.00 to make an automated
phone payment and $19.00 to make a payment via phone call to a
representative.
Convenience fees, such as those charged by Mr. Cooper, have been
held unlawful because they violate the Rosenthal Act when the debt
collector retains any portion of the fee instead of passing the
entire fee through to the payment processor, the complaint asserts.
Mr. Cooper does not pass the entire fee to a payment processor and
instead retains a considerable portion thereof, says the
complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew Wheeler-Berliner, Esq.
DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
2154 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-765-7324
Email: andrew@davisnorris.com
- and -
Brittany McClintick, Esq.
DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
177 E Colorado Blvd, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105
Phone: 310-562-7889
Email: bmcclintick@davisnorris.com
NCAA: Rhodes Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
--------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO RHODES, the Plaintiff, vs. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, AND MOUNTAIN WEST CONFERENCE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02816-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., July 9, 2019), seeks redress for
injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for
the health and safety of generations of student-athletes.
According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.
But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.
Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.
Football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately,
Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would
haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff
experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to
protect Plaintiff and other football players from the long-term
dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for
profit.
As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive
injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this
Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights
and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says.
NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:
Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
George Parker Young, Esq.
Kelli L. Walter
CIRCELLI , WALTER & YOUNG, PLLC
Tindall Square Warehouse
500 E. 4th Street, Suite 250
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 697-4942
E-mail: gpy@cwylaw.com
vinny@cwylaw.com
kelli@cwylaw.com
NCAA: Rice Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
------------------------------------------------------
PAUL HAROLD RICE, the Plaintiff, vs. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, THE PAC-12 CONFERENCE, AND THE LONE STAR
CONFERENCE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02817-SEB-TAB (S.D.
Ind., July 9, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of student-athletes.
According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.
But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.
Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.
Football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately,
Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would
haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff
experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to
protect Plaintiff and other football players from the long-term
dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for
profit.
As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive
injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this
Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights
and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says.
NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:
Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
George Parker Young, Esq.
Kelli L. Walter
CIRCELLI , WALTER & YOUNG, PLLC
Tindall Square Warehouse
500 E. 4th Street, Suite 250
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 697-4942
E-mail: gpy@cwylaw.com
vinny@cwylaw.com
kelli@cwylaw.com
NETCOLLECTIONS LLC: Roberts Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NETCOLLECTIONS LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00076-BSJ (D. Utah, July 17, 2019), seeks damages
against Defendant arising out of attempts by Defendant to
unlawfully and abusively collect debts allegedly owed by Plaintiff
and Class Members, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Any violations by the Defendant were knowing, willful, and
intentional, and the Defendant did not maintain procedures
reasonably adapted to avoid any such violation, the lawsuit says.
NetCollections is a technology-based debt collection agency.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
- and -
Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON LAW GROUP
290 25th Street, Suite No. 102
Ogden, UT 84401
Telephone: (801) 392-9324
Facsimile: (801) 337-2087
E-mail: theron@morlg.com
NEW YORK: Nell et al. Seek OT Pay for Motor Vehicle Operators
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN NELL, ABDUL PONTON, and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06702 (S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime for the plaintiffs when they have worked as Motor Vehicle
Operators (MVOs) at the New York City Department of Corrections
without compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
While working as MVOs, the plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated routinely work over 40 hours a week. However, the City
fails to compensate plaintiffs for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay.
Specifically, the City fails to compensate the Plaintiffs for hours
worked before the start of their scheduled shifts, after the end of
their scheduled shifts and during their 30-minute unpaid meal
periods, the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
slf@mselaborlaw.com
- and -
Hope Pordy, Esq.
SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP
1700 Broadway, Suite 2100
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 765-2100
E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com
NORTHFIELD MEDICAL: Dobson Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Dobson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Northfield Medical, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00818 (W.D. Tex., July 12, 2019), seeks to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's
failure to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Northfield Medical operates a service and repair companies of
medical equipment, specializing in the repair of endoscopes,
surgical instruments and other operating room equipment. Dobson
worked as a territory manager for the San Antonio area from 2012
until his termination in February 2019. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
Post Office Box 39
Russellville, AR 72811
Tel: (479) 880-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com
O M NAMAH INC: Patel Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------
JAYA PATEL, individually and on behalf of persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. O M NAMAH, INC., an Illinois corporation,
MANEKLAL PATEL, an individual, and CHANDRIKA PATEL, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04918 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2019) is a
claim brought by Plaintiff for overtime compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, for Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages to
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all time
worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks.
The Defendants regularly required Jaya and many other O M Namah
employees at the Brookfield, Illinois location to work more than 40
hours per week. Indeed, Jaya regularly worked in excess of 70 hours
per week. The Defendants' unlawful compensation practices have had
the effect of denying Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees their lawfully earned and living wages, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff Jaya began working for Defendants at their Brookfield,
Illinois location in or about September 2012 as a regular
employee.
O M Namah, Inc. is an Illinois corporation which owns and operates
a Dunkin' Donuts restaurant franchise located in Brookfield,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ethan E. White, Esq.
EMERY LAW, LTD.
2021 Midwest Road, Suite 200
Oak Brook, IL 60523
Phone: (630) 984-0339
Email: ewhite@emerylawltd.com
OXY USA: Court Won't Certify Class of Gas Wells Royalty Owners
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as HITCH ENTERPRISES, INC., the
Plaintiff, vs. OXY USA INC., the Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-01030-EFM-KGG (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Eric F. Melgren
entered an order:
1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:
"royalty owners in approximately 631 oil and gas wells
located throughout Kansas";
2. granting in part and denying in part Oxy USA Inc.'s motion
for partial summary judgment; and
3. denying Plaintiff's motion to strike expert reports of John
C. McBeath and Stephen L. Becker and to exclude their
testimony.[CC]
PATIENT FINANCIAL: Metsuyan Foods Asserts TCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
METSUYAN FOODS INC. on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated consumers Plaintiff, v. PATIENT FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC AND
BROOKDALE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04226
(E.D. N.Y., July 22, 2019) seeks redress for the illegal practices
of Patient Financial Services LLC ("PFS") and Brookdale Health
System, Inc. ("Brookdale"), concerning their widespread, pervasive
and unlawful telemarketing campaign using automated dialing systems
in violation of the Telephone Communications Protection Act
("TCPA").
Using sophisticated data extraction programs to cull names and
telephone numbers of individuals, the Defendants amass telephone
numbers of individuals in an electronic database used to then place
unsolicited calls. The Defendants dump the extracted telephone
numbers into an automated dialing system and cause tens of
thousands of telephone calls to be placed every hour on their
behalf. In these "robocalls," the Defendants provide the consumer
with various one-time offers and opportunities.
The Defendants have initiated numerous automated telemarketing
calls utilizing prerecorded voice messages and have directed these
calls to cellular telephones and residential telephone lines. These
calls fail to identify the entity on whose behalf the call is being
placed. In each instance, the automated calls generated by
Defendants violate the TCPA and/or Section 399-p of New York's
General Business Law, says the complaint.
Plaintiff is a business entity that operates in the State of New
York.
Defendants PFS's principal place of business is located in Clifton,
New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
PFIZER INC: Class Certification Bid in Al Haj Labeling Suit Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Karmel Al Haj, et al., the
Plaintiff, vs. Pfizer Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:17−cv−06730 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman
entered an order denying, without prejudice to renewal, Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.
On behalf of herself and a putative nationwide class, Karmel Al Haj
alleges in this diversity suit that Pfizer Inc. deceived consumers
by charging more for "Maximum Strength" Robitussin cough syrup than
for "Regular Strength" Robitussin even though the former had a
lower concentration of active ingredients than the latter.
In two prior opinions, the court dismissed another plaintiff's
claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and allowed Al Haj's
individual and putative class claims to proceed. Pfizer now moves
for summary judgment, and Al Haj moves for class certification.
According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on July 16, 2019,
Defendant's summary judgment motion is denied, and Plaintiff's
class certification motion is denied without prejudice to renewal.
If Plaintiff wishes to pursue class certification, she shall file
her renewed class certification motion by July 30, 2019. The status
hearing set for July 22, 2019 was stricken and re−set for August
7, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.[CC]
POWER STOP: Luna Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
---------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUNA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. POWER STOP, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH08545 (Circuit Ct.,
Cook Cty., Ill., July 22, 2019) is a class action complaint against
Defendant for its violation of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act
("BIPA"), and to obtain redress for persons injured by their
conduct.
The Defendant implemented biometric scanning and time-tracking
devices and technology at its facilities to monitor and track its
employees', including Plaintiffs, time. Plaintiff was required to
scan his biometric information into Defendant's databases as a
requirement for employment and for managerial purposes. Plaintiff
relied on Defendant to not only provide a lawful and legally
compliant system, but to also disclose all material information
regarding the technology and system, including all relevant
retention, destruction, and dissemination policies. Defendant's
biometric timekeeping regime allows for and resulted in the
dissemination of Plaintiff and other Class member's biometrics to
third parties, including vendors for timekeeping, data storage, and
payroll purposes.
Prior to taking Plaintiffs biometrics, Defendant did not inform
Plaintiff in writing that his biometrics were being collected,
stored, used, or disseminated, or publish any policy specifically
about the collection, retention, use, deletion, or dissemination of
biometrics. The Defendant did not seek, and Plaintiff never
provided, any written consent relating to the collection, use,
storage, or dissemination of his biometrics. To this day, Plaintiff
is unaware of the status of his biometrics obtained by Defendant.
Defendant has not informed Plaintiff whether it still retains his
biometrics, and if it does, for how long they intend to retain such
information without his consent, says the complaint.
Plaintiff worked at one of Defendants' facilities in Illinois.
Defendant is an automobile brakes manufacturer and retailer,
dealing with the design, production, and distribution of its
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
Jad Sheikali, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 6060l
Phone: (312) 893-7002
Fax: (312) 275-7895
Email: wkingston@mcgpc.com
jsheikali@mcgpc.com
PRESIDIO BANK: Parshall Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PRESIDIO BANK. The
case is styled as PAUL PARSHALL ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. PRESIDIO BANK, BRUCE H CABRAL,
PAULA R COLLINS, STEVE HEITEL, HERITAGE COMMERCE CORP., HERITAGE
BANK OF COMMERCE, ROBERT B LEET, STEPHEN D MAYER, GREGORY J MOSS,
LARRY NIBI, MARINA H PARK, Defendants, Case No. CGC19577973 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 29, 2019).
The case type is stated as "SECURITIES/INVESTMENT".
PRESIDIO BANK offers a wide range of customized finance, cash
management and deposit solutions for commercial businesses.[BN]
RAPID RESPONSE: Shelton Sues over Unauthorized Voice Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVERETT SHELTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RAPID RESPONSE MONITORING
SERVICES INCORPORATED, a New York company, and FIVE DIAMOND
SECURITY, LLC, a Florida company, the Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-61787-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 17, 2019), seeks to stop
Defendants from making unauthorized pre-recorded voice message
calls promoting the Defendant's home alarm services, and to obtain
redress for all persons similarly injured by its conduct.
Mr. Shelton and putative class members never consented to receive
these calls. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls
to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en
masse, Mr. Shelton brings this action on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class of other persons who received illegal
telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Five Diamond for
Defendants, the lawsuit says.
Rapid Response provides monitoring and security services. The
Company offers GPS and video monitoring, remote management, two-way
voice and medical monitoring, wireless communications, emergency
line, and elevator alarm services.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Tanaskovic Sues over DOJ Probe, Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
SASA TANASKOVIC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., RICHARD A.
SMITH, RYAN M. SCHNEIDER, ANTHONY E. HULL, AND TIMOTHY B.
GUSTAVSON, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-15053 (D.N.J., July 11,
2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of federal securities laws.
The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
persons and entities, other than Defendants, who purchased the
securities of Realogy during the period of February 24, 2017
through May 22, 2019, inclusive.
On February 24, 2017, the Company filed its annual report on Form
10-K with the SEC for the year ending December 31, 2016. The 2016
10-K was signed by Defendants Smith, Hull, and Gustavson. Attached
to the 2016 10-K were certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 signed by Defendants Smith and Hull attesting to the
disclosure of all fraud.
On April 18, 2019, Housingwire reported in an article "NAR slapped
with second class-action lawsuit to end buyer broker compensation".
On this news, shares of Realogy fell $0.57, or over 4.4%, to close
at $12.327 on April 22, 2019, damaging investors.
On May 22, 2019, media reports revealed that the U.S. Department of
Justice opened an investigation regarding antitrust practices of
the real estate industry, which included Realogy. That day,
Bloomberg published the article, "U.S. Opens Antitrust Probe of
Real Estate Brokerage Industry". On this news, shares of Realogy
fell $0.71, or over 9%, over the next two trading days to close at
$7.13 on May 23, 2019, further damaging investors.
Realogy, through its subsidiaries, provides real estate and
relocation services. The Company operates through four segments:
Real Estate Franchise Services, Company Owned Real Estate Brokerage
Services, Relocation Services, and title and Settlement
Services.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiff are:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
South Orange, NJ 07079
Telephone: (973) 313-1887
Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
ROCKWELL LEGAL: Faces Pula Suit in Hawaii District Court
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rockwell Legal Group.
The case is captioned as TASHA PULA, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. ROCKWELL LEGAL GROUP, the Defendant,
Case No. 1CC191001085 (Hawaii Dist. Ct., July 10, 2019).
Rockwell Legal is a law firm providing legal services,
concentrating on consumer debt, and bankruptcy legal advice.[BN]
ROYAL POWER SOLUTIONS: Lopez Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
RAMIRO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL POWER SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH08549
(Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., July 22, 2019) is a class action
complaint against Defendant for its violation of the Illinois
Biometric Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and to obtain redress for persons
injured by their conduct.
This case concerns the misuse of individuals' biometrics by
Defendant, a company that develops, manufactures, and sells
automotive and technological components, using
biometrically-enabled technology. Defendant is capturing,
collecting, disseminating, or otherwise using the biometrics of
Plaintiff and other Class members, without their informed written
consent as required by law, in order to track their employment and
work performance, says the complaint. The Defendant's biometric
managerial system works by extracting biometric information from
individuals, such as handprints, fingerprints or portions thereof,
and subsequently using the same for authentication and timekeeping
purposes. The system includes the dissemination of biometrics to
third parties, such as data storage vendors and payroll services.
Prior to taking Plaintiffs biometrics, Defendant did not inform
Plaintiff in writing that his biometrics were being collected,
stored, used, or disseminated, or publish any policy specifically
about the collection, retention, use, deletion, or dissemination of
biometrics. The Defendant did not seek, and Plaintiff never
provided, any written consent relating to the collection, use,
storage, or dissemination of his biometrics, adds the complaint.
Plaintiff worked at one of Defendants' facilities in Illinois.
Defendant is a self-proclaimed leader in the automotive,
electronic, and telecommunication industries dealing with the
design, production, and distribution of its products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
Jad Sheikali, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 6060l
Phone: (312) 893-7002
Fax: (312) 275-7895
Email: wkingston@mcgpc.com
jsheikali@mcgpc.com
STARKIST CO: Administrative Fee Cap in Hendricks Raised by $618K
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK HENDRICKS, Plaintiff, v. STARKIST CO, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-00729-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted KCC Class Action Services, LLC's motion for
an order increasing the administrative fee cap and authorizing
payment of fees.
KCC was appointed as settlement administrator in the action.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, KCC's fees for notice and
administration of the class action were capped at $675,000. KCC
estimated that the actual costs of providing claims administration
services would be $671,996; the estimate was based on the estimated
receipt of 200,000 claims, and the assumption that 80,000 postcard
vouchers and 120,000 check payments would be issued. The
"not-to-exceed" amount was contingent upon no significant change in
the scope of work.
In fact, however, KCC received more than 2.5 million claims and now
anticipates that it will issue more than 900,000 cash awards by
electronic payment, more than 390,000 cash awards by check and more
than 790,000 vouchers by mail. As a result, KCC's fees and costs
will exceed the cap by $618,308. This constitutes a significant
change in the scope of work. Because KCC incurred additional
reasonable costs and fees based on a significant change in the
scope of its administration services, it is entitled to payment of
those fees and costs.
For these reasons, Judge Gilliam granted KCC's Motion. The
administrative fee cap is thus raised by $618,308, $468,308 of
which will be paid from the Cash Settlement Fund and $150,000 of
which will be paid from the uncashed checks fund.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/C5dQ2O from Leagle.com.
Patrick Hendricks, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy
Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Annick
Marie Persinger, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Neal J. Deckant --
ndeckant@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Sarah Nicole Westcot,
Bursor and Fisher, P.A. & Scott Bursor -- scott@bursor.com --
Bursor & Fisher, P.A., pro hac vice.
Starkist Co, Defendant, represented by J. Christopher Mitchell,
King & Spalding LLP, Michael J. Shepard --
michael.shepard@hoganlovells.com -- King & Spalding, LLP & Sarah
Minchener Jalali -- chris.mitchell@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP.
Brittany Ference, Defendant, represented by Caroline Victoria
Tucker, TUCKER POLLARD.
Brett Butler, Interested Party, represented by Forrest Arthur
Hainline, Goodwin Procter LLP.
Elizabeth Twitchell, Objector, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, Brittany Nicole DeJong,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP, Marisa C. Livesay,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Elizabeth Cheryl
Pritzker, Pritzker Levine LLP & Rachele R. Byrd, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.
Kelly Marie Spann, Objector, represented by Steve A. Miller, Steve
A. Miller, P.C.
Colin Moore & Kathy Durand Gore, Objectors, represented by Kathleen
Styles Rogers, Kralowec Law, P.C. & Kimberly Ann Kralowec, Kralowec
Law, P.C.
Carla Lown, Objector, represented by Chad A. Saunders, Sundeen
Salinas & Pyle, Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle LLP, Jiangxiao
Athena Hou, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Judith A. Zahid,
Zelle LLP, Kathleen Styles Rogers, Kralowec Law, P.C. & Kimberly
Ann Kralowec, Kralowec Law, P.C.
Janet Machen & Lesgo Personal Chef, LLC, Objectors, represented by
Kimberly Ann Kralowec, Kralowec Law, P.C. & Michael J. Flannery,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice.
Eric Michael Lindberg, Objector, represented by Aaron M. Dawson,
Dawson & Rosenthal & Sam Andrew Miorelli, Law Office of Sam
Miorelli, P.A.
Jemea Graham, Julius Dunmore & Valerie Williford, Objectors,
represented by Alan J. Sherwood, Law Office of of Alan J.
Sherwood.
Kerry Ann Sweeney, Objector, pro se.
National Fisheries Institute, Amicus, represented by Forrest Arthur
Hainline, Goodwin Procter LLP.
KCC LLC, Miscellaneous, represented by Robert C. Holtzapple,
Farella Braun & Martel LLP.
STATS LLC: Parker Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Illegal Deductions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shantel Parker, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees, v. Stats, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00325
(S.D. W.V., July 12, 2019) seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay overtime
wages and denial of rest/meal breaks as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the West Virginia Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours
Act.
Defendant operates as Stats Restaurant Bar located at 3425 David
Cox Road, Charlotte, North Carolina 28269 where Parker worked as a
tipped employee. Stats allegedly required Parker to perform work
off-the-clock without compensation. Tipped workers were allegedly
required to reimburse Defendant for unpaid customer bills and was
taken out from their tips. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Chestnut, Esq.
Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
Craig L. Leis, Esq.
GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325
Charlotte, NC 28277
Telephone: (704) 612-0038
E-Mail: jason@gibbonsleis.com
phil@gibbonsleis.com
craig@gibbonsleis.com
TOTAL SYSTEM: Peters Challenges Global Payments Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PETERS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES, INC., M. TROY
WOODS, KRISS CLONINGER III, DR. SIDNEY E. HARRIS, RICHARD W.
USSERY, PHILIP W. TOMLINSON, MASON H. LAMPTON, JOHN T. TURNER,
WILLIAM M. ISAAC, RICHARD A. SMITH, CONNIE D. MCDANIEL, WALTER W.
DRIVER JR., F. THADDEUS ARROYO, and JOIA M. JOHNSON, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00114-CDL (M.D. Ga., July 18, 2019),
seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding a shareholder vote on a
proposed merger transaction and taking any steps to consummate the
proposed transaction unless, and until, the material information is
disclosed to TSS shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote
on the proposed transaction or, in the event the proposed
transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.
The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other public holders of the common stock of Total
System Services, Inc. against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection
with the proposed merger between TSS and Global Payments Inc.
On May 27, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive 0.8101 shares of Global Payments
stock for each share of TSS they own.
On July 3, 2019, in order to convince TSS shareholders to vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing
of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The materially
incomplete and misleading S-4 violates both Regulation G (17 C.F.R.
section 244.100) and SEC Rule 14a-9 (17 C.F.R. section 240.14a-9),
each of which constitutes a violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.
While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the S-4, Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the S-4 materially incomplete and
misleading.
In particular, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections
for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by
Defendants in recommending that TSS shareholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation
analyses conducted by TSS's financial advisors, Greenhill & Co.,
LLC and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC in support of their opinion that
the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the
Board relied.
It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to
allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision
regarding the Proposed Transaction, the lawsuit says.
Total System is an American credit card processor, merchant
acquirer and bank credit card issuer. TSYS provides payment,
processing, merchant, and related payment services to financial and
nonfinancial institutions in the United States, Europe, Canada,
Mexico, and internationally.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiff are:
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com
TROPICANA PRODUCTS: Lewis Appeals Decision in Martinucci Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Angelena Lewis filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Michael Martinucci, et al. v. Tropicana Products
Inc., et al., Case No. 2-11-cv-07382, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring this class action against the Defendant alleging numerous
violations of common law and state consumer protection laws, in
connection with the Defendant's sale of orange juice.
The appellate case is captioned as Michael Martinucci, et al. v.
Tropicana Products Inc., et al., Case No. 19-8027, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner ANGELENA LEWIS, on Behalf of Themselves and
all Others Similarly Situated, and Plaintiffs MICHAEL MARTINUCCI,
et al., are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
DEcklund@carellabyrne.com
LTaylor@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSO & FISHER PA
888 Seventh Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7127
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
- and -
Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
VOZZOLO LLC
345 Route 17 South
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
Telephone: (201) 630-8820
E-mail: avozzolo@vozzolo.com
Plaintiff JOHN ALBERT VEAL, JR., is represented by:
Andrew S. Herring, Esq.
DAVIS & NORRIS LLP
2154 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 930-9900
E-mail: aherring@davisnorris.com
Defendant-Respondent TROPICANA PRODUCTS INC., a division of
PepsiCo, Inc., is represented by:
Christine I. Gannon, Esq.
CONNELL FOLEY LLP
56 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 597-3168
E-mail: cgannon@connellfoley.com
- and -
Joseph L. Linares, Esq.
Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY & FALANGA LLP
Three Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 535-0500
E-mail: jlinares@walsh.law
lwalsh@walsh.law
- and -
Lucas C. Townsend, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 887-3731
E-mail: ltownsend@gibsondunn.com
Defendant-Respondent PEPSICO INC. is represented by:
Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY & FALANGA LLP
Three Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 757-1100
E-mail: lwalsh@walsh.law
ULINE INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uline, Inc. The case
is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Uline, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07050 (S.D. N.Y., July 29, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Uline is a privately held United States company which offers
shipping and other business supplies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
UNIFIED TECH: Mansur Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL J. MANSUR, and all others similarly situated under Section 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. UNIFIED TECH USA, LLC, UNIFIED TECH CARIBBEAN,
LLC, UNIFIED TECH CAYMAN, LTD., and ANTHONY SILVA, individually,
Case No. 1:19-cv-22925-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2019), is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover from the Defendants
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.
Unified Tech USA, LLC, is a Florida for-profit limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida, and
operates under the "d/b/a" of "Unified Technologies." Unified Tech
USA, LLC, is the parent company and/or an affiliated company
for/with UNIFIED TECH CARIBBEAN, LLC, and/or UNIFIED TECH CAYMAN,
LTD.
Unified Tech Caribbean, LLC, is a for-profit limited liability
company, and maintains offices in Guaynabo, San Juan, Puerto Rico,
but primarily operates its business and conducts its deals out of
Miami, Florida. Unified Tech Cayman, Ltd., is a for-profit
company, and maintains offices in Georgetown, Grand Cayman, Cayman
Islands, but primarily operates its business operations out of
Miami.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christian E. Rodriguez, Esq.
Kevin D. Pardinas, Esq.
TREMBLY LAW FIRM
9700 South Dixie Highway, PH 1100
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 431-5678
E-mail: christian@tremblylaw.com
kevin@tremblylaw.com
VENTURA CTY, CA: Sanders Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SANDERS, SHAWN HOLZBERGER, JUSTIN DOERING, ROBERT COUGHLIN,
and VIRGINIA TINOCO, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF VENTURA, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06370 (C.D. Cal., July 23, 2019) is an action
brought pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), to recover from Defendant unpaid overtime and other
compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit,
and reasonable attorney fees.
This action arises from Defendant's failure to include all
statutorily required forms of compensation in the "regular rate"
used to calculate overtime compensation for Plaintiffs and all
similarly situated individuals, as well as Defendant's practice of
deducting "opt-out" fees from the wages paid to Plaintiffs and
similarly situated individuals. This action also arises from
Defendant's failure to pay wages to employees free and clear, as
required by the FLSA, by deducting "risk-sharing" fees from the
wages of Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals who opted
out of medical coverage, says the complaint.
Plaintiffs ANTHONY SANDERS, SHAWN HOLZBERGER, JUSTIN DOERING,
ROBERT COUGHLIN, and VIRGINIA TINOCO are employed by the
Defendant.
COUNTY OF VENTURA, is a political subdivision of the State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
DAVID E. MASTAGNI, ESQ.
ISAAC S. STEVENS, ESQ.
IAN B. SANGSTER, ESQ.
TASHAYLA D. BILLINGTON, ESQ.
MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
A Professional Corporation
1912 "I" Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Phone: (916) 446-4692
Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
Email: davidm@mastagni.com
istevens@mastagni.com
isangster@mastagni.com
tbillington@mastagni.com
VISALUS INC: Settlement in Harris Suit Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC J. HARRIS, SR., individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and CAPRECE BYRD, BRYANT WATTS,
RENAE WHITE, LAURA HERL, DR. FRANK McWHORTER, ERIC J. HARRIS, SR.
and CONNIE BATES, individually on their own behalf, Plaintiffs, v.
VISALUS, INC., a corporation, et al, Case No. 17-cv-12626 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Named
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed
Settlement.
The Motion seeks preliminary approval of the Named Plaintiff's
agreement, for himself and on behalf of the Class, with ViSalus,
Nick Sarnicola, Ashley Sarnicola, Blake Mallen, Ryan Blair, Todd
Goergen, Gary J. Reynolds, Vincent Owens, Kevin Merriweather, and
Michael Craig, to settle all individual and class claims that have,
or could have, been made, in the Plaintiffs' Third Amended
Complaint.
Judge Leitman, having reviewed the Motion and the exhibits,
including the written settlement agreement, finds himself apprised
of the issues and granted the Motion. Accordingly,
he reliminarily approved the Agreement, between the parties,
subject to further consideration thereof at the Final Approval
Hearing.
Under the Agreement, each Cash Payment Eligible Settlement Class
Member may elect between two alternative forms of relief: first, a
Cash Option that terminates the Class Member's Independent Promoter
("IP") status with ViSalus and forfeits all that Class Member's
rights to receive or own Units under the Founders Equity Incentive
Plan ("FEIP"); and second, a Benefits Option which allows the Class
Member to retain all rights to receive or own Units under the FEIP,
and provides enhanced compensation, free services, and other
benefits. The Class Members who submit no Valid Election Form
receive the Benefits Option.
Under the Agreement, each Cash Payment Eligible Settlement Class
Member who elects the Cash Option receives a cash payment of, for
Class Members who the first time reached the rank of National
Director, Executive Director or Presidential Director during the
time period that the FEIP was offered (Jan. 1, 2015 to March 1,
2017), $1,500, and for the Class Members who for the first time
reached the rank of Ambassador or higher, $4,000, with payment to
the Class Members in both categories subject to possible reduction
depending on the number of the Class Members choosing this option.
Under the Agreement, each Class Member who is not a Cash Payment
Eligible Settlement Class Member or who does not submit a Valid
Election Form will be deemed to have elected the Benefits Option
and receive all corresponding benefits, which includes these
benefits (besides any other benefits to which he or she may be
entitled as an IP):
a. 25% Commission Rate on all sales (both first time sales and
subsequent sales) made to customers who purchase product from
ViSalus for the first time after the Effective Date (i.e., new
customers) for one year from the Effective Date;
b. Free re-enrollment as an IP on the Basic enrollment track
(no purchase necessary) for one year from the Effective Date;
c. Free event registration for one event, if any are held
within one year from the Effective Date, and if none are held
within one year, then free event registration for the next held
event, if held within 18 months from the Effective Date;
d. Free Vi-Net Pro Subscription for: (i) one year from the
Effective Date for all the Settlement Class Members who choose the
free re-enrollment listed and who previously paid for Vi-Net Pro;
or (ii) six months from the Effective Date for all Settlement Class
Members who choose the free re-enrollment listed and did not
previously pay for Vi-Net Pro.
The Agreement also requires ViSalus to pay, or cause to be paid, to
Individual Plaintiffs Caprece Byrd, Byrant Watts, Renae White,
Laura Herl, Dr. Frank McWhorter and Connie Bates, through their
counsel, the total sum of $450,000.
The Judge conditionally certified the following Settlement Class,
as of the date of the Order, to consider the Settlement: All U.S.
Independent Promotors of ViSalus, Inc. who qualified for units in
the Founders' Equity Incentive Plan between Jan.y 1, 2015 through
March 1, 2017.
He preliminarily finds that Eric J. Harris, Sr. has, and will
fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the
absent Class Members.
The Judge appointed these attorneys and their respective firms to
serve as Class Counsel and represent the Settlement Class for the
Settlement: Andrew Kochanowski Lance C. Young Sommers Schwartz,
P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Matthew
Prebeg Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott PLLC 8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 307
Houston, TX 77017 Edward Wallace Mark Miller Wexler Wallace LLP 55
W. Monroe St. Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603
The Judge preliminarily approved the Settlement as described in the
Agreement.
He has reviewed and approved the Notice Plan set forth by the
Parties. He appointed Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
as the Settlement Administrator. He authorized the Settlement
Administrator to provide notice of the Settlement to the Settlement
Class and administer the claims of the Class Members as provided in
the Agreement.
The Judge further ordered the Settlement Administrator to implement
the notice events identified in the Notice Plan, using the forms
attached as Exhibit 1-A & C to the Order under the schedule:
Settlement Notice emails sent to Class Members - No later than 30
days after the Preliminary Approval Date
Any Class Member who objects to the Agreement will file a written
objection with the Court, with a copy served on the Class Counsel
and ViSalus' counsel no later than 75 days after the Deadline of
Notice to Appear at the Preliminary Approval Date and Final
Fairness Hearing
Any Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the Settlement
Class will mail written notice of exclusion to the Settlement
Administrator no later than 75 days after Preliminary Approval
Date.
To effectuate the Settlement and the Notice Plan, the Settlement
Administrator will be responsible for receiving all notices of
exclusion and Election Forms. The Settlement Administrator will
preserve (on paper or transferred into electronic format) all
documents received from Class Members in response to the notices
for three years, or under a further order of the Court.
29. Each Class Member may submit a Valid Election Form by email or
mail to the Settlement Administrator. Valid Elections Forms may be
submitted no later than 75 days after the Preliminary Approval
Date.
Any Class Member who does not submit a Valid Election Form will
receive the Benefits Option.
The Court will have the Final Fairness Hearing no earlier than 100
days after the Preliminary Approval Date. Specifically, this Court
will hold the Final Fairness Hearing on Oct. 1, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/8TOH3J from Leagle.com.
Caprece Byrd, Bryant Watts & Renae White, Plaintiffs, represented
by Brent Caldwell bcaldwell@pfalawfirm.com -- Pregeg Faucett &
Abbott PLLC, Mark R. Miller -- mrm@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler
Wallace, Matthew J.M. Prebeg -- mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com -- Prebeg,
Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Patrick E. Cafferty --
PCafferty@CaffertyClobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP & Andrew Kochanowski -- akochanowski@sommerspc.com --
Sommers Schwartz, P.C.
Dr Frank McWhorter, Connie Bates & Laura Herl, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark R. Miller, Wexler Wallace, Patrick E. Cafferty,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP &Andrew Kochanowski,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C.
Eric J Harris Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Brent Caldwell, Pregeg
Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Mark R. Miller, Wexler Wallace, Patrick E.
Cafferty, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Andrew
Kochanowski, Sommers Schwartz, P.C.
VISALUS, INC., Nick Sarnicola, Ashley Sarnicola, Blake Mallen, Ryan
Blair, Todd Goergen & Gary J. Reynolds, Defendants, represented by
Andrew Clark -- aclark@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller, Schwartz
& Cohn, LLP, Brian A. Howie -- brian.howie@quarles.com -- Quarles &
Brady LLP, Edward A. Salanga -- esalanga@quarles.com -- Quarles &
Brady LLP, Kevin D. Quigley -- kevin.quigley@quarles.com -- Quarles
& Brady LLP, Michael S. Catlett -- michael.catlett@quarles.com --
Quarles & Brady LLP & Nicholas B. Gorga -- ngorga@honigman --
Honigman, Miller.
Vincent Owens, Defendant, pro se.
Michael Craig, Defendant, represented by Andrew Clark, Honigman LLP
& Nicholas B. Gorga, Honigman LLP.
VISALUS INC: Settlement in Kerrigan Suit Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY KERRIGAN, LORI MIKOVICH and RYAN M. VALLI,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. VISALUS, INC., a corporation, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:14-cv-12693 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Matthew F. Leitman of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, granted the Named Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement.
The Motion seeks preliminary approval of the Named Plaintiffs'
agreement with ViSalus to settle all multi-level marketing related
individual and class claims that have, or could have, been made,
the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint. Judge Leitman, having
reviewed the Motion and the exhibits, including the written
settlement agreement, finds himself apprised of the issues and
granted the Motion. Accordingly, he preliminarily approved the
Agreement, between the partues, subject to further consideration
thereof at the Final Approval Hearing.
Under the Agreement, each Class Member may elect between two
alternative forms of relief: first, a Cash Option that terminates
the Class Member's Independent Promoter ("IP") status with ViSalus;
and second, a Benefits Option which provides enhanced compensation,
free services, and other benefits. The Class Members who submit no
Valid Election Form receive the Benefits Option.
Under the Agreement, each Class Member who elects the Cash Option
receives a cash payment of $25 or $50, subject to possible
reduction depending on the number of the Class Members choosing
this option. The maximum amount to be paid out under the Cash
Option is $4,535,000, and the Class Members who elect the Cash
Option will be terminated as IPs and no longer eligible to receive
benefits as IPs.
Under the Agreement, each Class Member that does not submit a Valid
Election Form will be deemed to have elected the Benefits Option
and receive all corresponding benefits, which includes these
benefits (besides any other benefits to which he or she may be
entitled as an IP):
a. 25% Commission Rate on all sales (both first time sales and
subsequent sales) personally made by the Class Member to customers
who purchase product from ViSalus for the first time after the
Effective Date (i.e., new customers) for one year from the
Effective Date;
b. 35% Product Discount on up to $1,000 in product purchases
made by the Class Member at normal IP (i.e., wholesale) prices for
one year from the Effective Date (up to $1,000 in product purchases
for only $650);
c. Free re-enrollment as an IP on the Basic enrollment track
(no purchase necessary) for one year from the Effective Date;
d. Fr ee event registration for one event, if any are held, for
one year from the Effective Date, and if none are held within one
year, then free event registration for the next held event, if held
within 18 months from the Effective Date; and
e. Free Vi-Net Pro Subscription for: (i) one year from the
Effective Date for all the Settlement Class Members who choose the
free re-enrollment listed and who previously paid for Vi-Net Pro;
or (ii) six months from the Effective Date for all the Settlement
Class Members who choose the free re-enrollment listed and who did
not previously pay for Vi-Net Pro.
The Agreement also requires the adoption of the following corporate
reforms/injunctive relief for a period of three years from the
Effective Date:
a. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, ViSalus will publish
and maintain a retail price list for all products on its corporate
website which will be prominently available to all IP's and
customers;
b. ViSalus will prominently disclose in the IP Application and
the ViSalus Policies and Procedures that any product purchases are
optional and that IPs are not required to purchase or stock
inventory as a condition of doing business;
c. ViSalus will not compensate IPs primarily for the act of
recruiting or registering other IPs;
d. ViSalus will maintain a policy allowing buy backs of
product at commercially reasonable terms for a period of at least
30 days from purchase;
e. When making sales-based bonus payments or incentives to
IP's, ViSalus will condition such payments or incentives on
reasonably reliable reported levels of sales to end-user consumers
(i.e., non-IP customers) and IPs who purchase product for personal
consumption;
f. ViSalus will not make any false or misleading
representations regarding IPs who are parties to a special
compensation agreement with any IP named as a Defendant in the
ViSalus Action or with ViSalus;
g. ViSalus will maintain a compliance department and have and
enforce rules requiring IP compliance with applicable law; and
h. ViSalus will not make any representations regarding its current
or former relationship with Blyth, the Goergen family, or its sales
activity between 2010 and 2014 that are false or misleading.
The Judge conditionally certified the following Settlement Class,
as of the date of the Order, to consider the Settlement: All
current or former independent promoters (IPs) of ViSalus who reside
in the United States or Canada that lost money as a ViSalus IP
between July 9, 2008 and the Preliminary Approval Date.
The Judge preliminarily finds that Timothy Kerrigan, Lori Mikovich
and Ryan M. Valli have and will fairly and adequately represent and
protect the interests of the absent Class Members.
The Judge appointed these attorneys and their respective firms to
serve as Class Counsel and represent the Settlement Class for the
Settlement: Andrew Kochanowski Lance C. Young Sommers Schwartz,
P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Matthew
Prebeg Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott PLLC 8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 307
Houston, TX 77017 Edward Wallace Mark Miller Wexler Wallace LLP 55
W. Monroe St. Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603
He preliminarily approved the Settlement as described in the
Agreement. He has reviewed and approved the Notice Plan set forth
by the Parties.
The Judge appoints Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. as
the Settlement Administrator. He authorized the Settlement
Administrator to provide notice of the Settlement to the Settlement
Class and administer the claims of the Class Members as provided in
the Agreement. He further ordered the Settlement Administrator to
implement the notice events identified in the Notice Plan, using
the forms attached as Exhibit 1-A & C to the Order under this
schedule: Settlement Notice emails sent to Class Members no later
than 30 days after thePreliminary Approval Date.
Any Class Member who objects to the Agreement will file a written
objection with the Court, with a copy served on the Class Counsel
and ViSalus' counsel, no later than 75 days after the Preliminary
Approval Date and the Final Fairness Hearing.
Any Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the Settlement
Class will mail written notice of exclusion to the Settlement
Administrator, no later than 75 days after Preliminary Approval
Date.
To effectuate the Settlement and the Notice Plan, the Settlement
Administrator will be responsible for receiving all notices of
exclusion and Election Forms. The Settlement Administrator will
preserve (on paper or transferred into electronic format) all
documents received from Class Members in response to the notices
for three years, or under a further order of the Court.
Each Class Member may submit a Valid Election Form by email or mail
to the Settlement Administrator. Valid Elections Forms may be
submitted no later than 75 days after the Preliminary Approval
Date. Any Class Member who does not submit a Valid Election Form
will receive the Benefits Option.
The Final Fairness Hearing is set for Oct. 1, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
here will be no discovery and other pretrial proceedings for the
Settlement Class, pending Final Approval of the Class Settlement,
except for such proceedings as provided for in the Agreement, or
which may be necessary to implement the Settlement, the Agreement,
or the Order.
Pending Final Approval, no Class Member will commence, continue or
prosecute against any or all Released Persons any action or
proceeding in any court or tribunal asserting any of the matters,
claims or causes of action that are to be released upon Final
Approval under the Agreement, and are enjoined from so proceeding.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ttF83C from Leagle.com.
Timothy Kerrigan, Lori Mikovich & Ryan M. Valli, Plaintiffs,
represented by Brent Caldwell -- bcaldwell@pfalawfirm.com --
Pregeg Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Edward A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace
LLP, Jason J. Thompson , Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Mark R. Miller ,
Wexler Wallace, Matthew J.M. Prebeg -- mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com --
Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Sarah Lindsay Rickard --
SRickard@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz PC & Andrew
Kochanowski -- akochanowski@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz,
P.C.
VISALUS, INC., Visalus Holdings, LLC, Robert Goergen, Sr., Todd
Goergen, Ryan Blair & Blake Mallen, Defendants, represented by
Andrew Clark , Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, LLP, Barry M.
Rosenbaum -- BROSENBAUM@SEYBURN.COM -- Seyburn, Kahn, Brian A.
Howie -- brian.howie@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP, Edward
A. Salanga -- Edward.salanga@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP,
Kevin D. Quigley -- kevin.quigley@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady
LLP, Michael S. Catlett , Quarles & Brady LLP & Nicholas B. Gorga
-- -- ngorga@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller.
Ropart Asset Management Fund, LLC & Ropart Asset Management Fund
II, LLC, Defendants, represented by Barry M. Rosenbaum, Seyburn,
Kahn, Marc L. Newman -- mln@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, E.
Powell Miller -- epm@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm & Kevin F.
O'Shea -- kfo@miller.law -- Miller Law Firm.
Mojos Legacy, LLC, Fragmob, LLC, Freedom Legacy, LLC, Wealth
Builder International, Inc., Residual Marketing, Inc., Jaketrz,
Inc., Insider Corporate and Partnership Defendant Company Does 1-
10, Frank Varon, Kyle Pacetti, Jr., Jake Trzcinski, Michael
Craig, Lavon Craig, Timothy Kirkland, Holley Kirkland, Joshua
Jackson, Aaron Fortner, Rachel Jackson, Tara Wilson, Anthony
Lucero, Rhonda Lucero, Individual Defendant John Does 1-10, Jason
O'Toole, Lori Petrilli, Gary J. Reynolds, Kevin Merriweather, OCD
Marketing, Inc., Power Couple, Inc., ArriveBy 25, Inc., BAM
Ventures, Inc., Jason O'Toole International Holdings, Inc.,
Gooder, LLC, Red Letters, LLC, M-Power Path, Inc., A Berry Good
Life, Inc., Network Dynamics America Corp., Got Heart Global,
Inc., Beachlifestyle Enterprises, LLC, Wealth Builder
International, LLC, Prospex Automated Wealth Systems, Inc. &
9248-2587 Quebec, Inc., Defendants, represented by Barry M.
Rosenbaum, Seyburn, Kahn.
Nick Sarnicola, Defendant, represented by Marc L. Newman, The
Miller Law Firm.
Rock Ridge Asset Management Company, LLC, Ropart Asset
Management, LLC, Living Trust Dated 9/30/1991 F/B/O Robert B.
Goergen & Hashtag One, LLC, Defendants, represented by E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Kevin F. O'Shea, Miller Law Firm &
Marc L. Newman, The Miller Law Firm.
WESTERN STOCK: Rogers Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
SHAWN ROGERS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. WESTERN STOCK SHOW ASSOCIATION; and
PAUL D. ANDREWS, individually, and in his official corporate
capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02068 (D. Colo., July
17, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants have violated the FLSA by engaging in the regular
practice of requiring the Plaintiff and the Collective Members to
perform labor each shift while not clocked in. This practice has
most commonly occurred, though not exclusively, when Plaintiff and
the Collective Members have nearied 40 hours worked in a given
workweek, the lawsuit says.
The Defendants own and operate an organization and venue in Denver
County that holds events such as rodeos, livestock auctions, the
National Western Stock Show, and other similar events.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, Az 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
chris@bendaulaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
6000 Freedom Square Dr.
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
E-mail: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: O'Neill Sues Over Defective Drain Valves
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL O'NEILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-04208 (N.D. Cal., July 22,
2019) is a class action arising under the Class Action Fairness Act
over the Defendant's defective Drain Valves.
In 2015, Whirlpool sold combination refrigerator-freezers featuring
a freezer Drain Valve buried deep within its components, out of
sight of and inaccessible to consumers without disassembling the
refrigerator. Defendant intended for the Drain Valves to channel
defrosted water from the freezer into a drain pan located at the
base of Class Refrigerators. However, the Drain Valves fail to
adequately drain the Class Refrigerators. As a result of their
design and manufacture, components of the Drain Valves--rubber
grommets that taper to a flat slit-opening resembling a duck's bill
("duckbill grommet")--become clogged, damming the flow of defrosted
water from the freezer. The trapped water then freezes, forming a
solid plug of ice. Over time, large amounts of ice and water
accumulate in the freezer, and water eventually leaks out of the
freezer to areas below and surrounding the refrigerator freezer.
Thus, the Drain Valves fail to perform their intended purpose.
The result of the Drain Valve defect is that Plaintiff and Class
Members are exposed to unexpected water leaks that span areas far
larger and with a higher volume of water than what people normally
encounter in kitchens such that the Drain Valves pose substantial
risks of physical injury to Class Members. Such risks include
slipping and falling and injuries to Class Members when they
attempt to make repairs themselves. In addition, the leaks damage
flooring, subflooring, grout, walls, cabinets, and other components
of Class Members' kitchens and homes. Defendant became aware of
these and other risks when they realized that the Drain Valves were
defective.
The Defendant had knowledge that their Drain Valves were defective
long before Plaintiff and other Class Members purchased their Class
Refrigerators. Despite their knowledge of the Drain Valve defects
prior to 2015, Defendant intentionally and continually installed
defective Drain Valves deep into the componentry of the Class
Refrigerators for years while intentionally and continually
concealing from Class Members the Drain Valves' existence, defects
and safety risks. The existence of the Drain Valve defect is a
material fact that reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and
Class Members, would have considered when deciding whether to
purchase a refrigerator-freezer equipped with a Drain Valve. Had
Plaintiff and other Class Members known that the Class
Refrigerators were equipped with defective Drain Valves, they would
not have purchased said refrigerator-freezers or would have paid
less for them, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Michael O'Neill is a resident of the city of Rohnert Park
in Sonoma County, California.
Defendant designed, manufactured and sold combination
refrigerator-freezers equipped with defective drain valves
featuring a rubber grommet component with a "duckbill" shape
("Drain Valves").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
DANIEL L. WARSHAW, ESQ.
MICHAEL H. PEARSON, ESQ.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
mpearson@pswlaw.com
- and -
BENJAMIN E. SHIFTAN, ESQ.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 433-9000
Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
Email: bshiftan@pswlaw.com
WILMINGTON TRUST: Swain, et al. Seek to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SCOTT J. SWAIN and KENNY L.
FIORITO, on behalf of the ISCO Industries Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., as
successor to Wilmington Trust Retirement and Institutional Services
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00071-RGA (D. Del.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:
a. certifying the action as a Class Action pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
b. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel; and
c. appointing Scott J. Swain and Kenny L. Fiorito as Class
Representatives.
On July 10, 2019, the parties met and conferred pursuant to D. Del.
LR 7.1.1 regarding Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The
parties were unable to reach an agreement, and accordingly
Plaintiffs now seek relief through this motion.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
David A. Felice, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
rjenny@baileyglasser.com
pmuench@baileyglasser.com
dfelice@baileyglasser.com
XEROX CORPORATION: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xerox Corporation.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Xerox Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07052 (S.D. N.Y., July 29, 2019).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Xerox Corporation is an American global corporation that sells
print and digital document products and services in more than 160
countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN: Hauser Files Fraud Class Suit in N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ZF Friedrichshafen
AG. The case is styled as William Hauser individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZF Friedrichshafen AG, ZF
TRW Automotive Holldngs Corp., TRW Automotive Inc., TRW Automotive
US LLC, TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc., Hyundai Motor Group,
Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Mobis Co Ltd, Hyundai Motor America
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01194-JEO (N.D. Ala., July 26,
2019).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG, also known as ZF Group, originally
Zahnradfabrik Friedrichshafen, and commonly abbreviated to ZF, is a
German car parts maker headquartered in Friedrichshafen, in the
south-west German region of Baden-Wurttemberg.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam W Pittman, Esq.
Frank Jerome Tapley, Esq.
Hirlye Ray Lutz, III, Esq.
Lauren Sanderson Miller, Esq.
CORY WATSON ATTORNEYS PC
2131 Magnolia Avenue South, Suite 200
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: (205) 328-7000
Fax: (205) 324-7896
Email: apittman@corywatson.com
jtapley@corywatson.com
rlutz@corywatson.com
- and -
Christopher T Hellums, Esq.
Jonathan S Mann, Esq.
PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS PC
2001 Park Place Tower, Suite 1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 322-8880
Fax: (205) 278-2711
Email: PDH-efiling@pittmandutton.com
jonm@pittmandutton.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 ***