/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190815.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 15, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 163 Headlines 8 CHELSEA: Court OKs Arbitration in Balderas FLSA Suit ABM INDUSTRY: Removes Artiga Suit to C.D. California AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Bid to Dismiss McGovney Class Suit Underway AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Faces Extreme Networks Merger-Related Suits ALPHA TEAM: Court Grants Extension to File Answer in Drummer AMAZON.COM: Adamsky et al. Sue over Collection of Children Data APPLE INC: New Calif. Class Suit Launched Over iPhone Throttling ARKEMA INC: Seeks 6th Circuit Review of Decision in Carter Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Castillo Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 9th Cir. BARING BDC: Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Seek to Amend Complaint BAXTER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss IV Solutions Sales Suit Still Pending BROKERS EDGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Candelario Suit Alleges CAMDEN PROPERTY: Court Narrows Claims in Suarez NCDCA Suit CAPITAL ONE: Charney Lawyers Push Class Suit Over Data Breach CAPITAL ONE: Faces Castro Suit over Information Data Breach CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action in Virginia Over Data Breach CAPITAL ONE: Murphy Falcon and Morgan File Class Action CAPITAL ONE: Requests to Approve Class Actions Filed in Canada CARBONITE INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit CARBONITE INC: Kehoe Law Files Securities Class Action CARBONITE INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit CARDINAL HEALTH: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Suit CENTRE COUNTY, PA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Sheffer Suit CLIENT RESOURCE: Gerstenhaber Suit Asserts TCPA Violation CLIENT SERVICES: Ali Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation CONCENTRIX CORP: Class of Call Center Agent Employees Certified DIAMOND RESORTS: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Gonzalez DOMINION ENERGY: Customers to Get Refunds as Part of Settlement DOMINION ENERGY: Some Customers to Receive Refunds in Settlement ECSD MANAGEMENT: Accused by Pilley of Invading Privacy Under TCPA ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Oct. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set FRED'S INC: Pawar Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Faces 3 Class Suits Related to TSYS Merger GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Suit GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cavada Says INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Anemone Suit Alleges FLSA Violations JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss REMICADE(R) Suit Denied JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss TRACLEER(R)-Related Suit Pending JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Summary Judgment in Contact Lens Suit Pending JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Related Class Suit in Virginia Ongoing JUST ENERGY: Faces Goitein Suit over 15% Drop in Share Price KERRY FOODS: Benoskie Suit Alleges FLSA Violation KOHL'S CORPORATION: Court Terminates Ankcorn Case LARIO OIL: Class of Oilfield Workers Conditionally Certified LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Suit Still Awaits Court Approval LONGFIN CORP: Court Dismisses Claims Against Network 1 MARKEL CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in New York MASTERCARD INC: Canadian Suit over Point-of-Sale Acceptance Ongoing MASTERCARD INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set in November MASTERCARD INC: Shift Fraud Liability Suit Still Ongoing MASTERCARD INC: Suits over ATM Surcharge Fees Still Ongoing MASTERCARD INC: TCPA Class Suit in Florida Remains Stayed MDL 2492: Adams Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Belcha Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Goins Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Grant Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Jones Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Kubik Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2492: Simmons Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated MDL 2818: Court OKs Leave to File Supplemental Authority MERIWETHER COUNTY, GA: Barbee Suit Alleges FLSA Violation METLIFE INC: Sept. 16 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Baten Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Garafola Suit Moved to E.D. New York NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Court Extends Page Limit of Dismissal Bid OASMIA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Mikhlin Suit Over Share Price Drop OASMIA PHARMACEUTICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action OOMA INC: Oct. 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set PANASONIC CORP: Dec. 12 Resistor Settlement Approval Hearing Set PETMED EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Fischler Class Suit in NY PETMED EXPRESS: Reid ADA Class Action Underway in New York PFIZER: Insurance Exclusions Did Not Preclude Settlement Coverage RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Davies, et al Suit Moved to D. Massachusetts REALOGY HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit RESTORATION HARDWARE: Oct. 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Court Consolidates Securities Suits RITE AID: Howell Suit Moved to District of Connecticut RUBY RECEPTIONISTS: Law Firms Lose Bid for Summary Ruling RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Birmingham Funds' Suit Underway SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Hadin, et al. Seek Class Certification SUPERIOR ENERGY: Underpays Equipment Operators, Algeribiya Says TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Oct. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set TOYOTA MOTOR: Australia's Top Selling Hilux Hit in Class Suit TOYOTA MOTOR: Australian Law Firms File Filter Class Action UNITED PARCEL: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Granted in Hughes UNITED STATES: Auningputri Appeals Ruling in Probodanu Suit v. DOJ VARIETY WHOLESALERS: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Miles Suit Says VOORTMAN COOKIES: Court Compels Arbitration in Cervantes WAITR HOLDINGS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Halley Suit WAITR HOLDINGS: Montgomery Bid to Certify Class Denied WAWA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Employee Stock Ownership Program WE CARE HOMES: Migues Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA WELLCARE HEALTH: Stein and Kent Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed WELLS FARGO: Oct. 9 Auto Insurance Settlement Fairness Hearing WELLS FARGO: Oct. 9 Derivative Settlement Fairness Hearing Set WEST SHORE: Bader Suit Alleges FLSA Violation [*] Class Action Mulled Over Bike Helmets Lacking MIPS or WaveCel [*] Securities Fraud Case Filings Up in First Half of 2019 ********* 8 CHELSEA: Court OKs Arbitration in Balderas FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned VIDAL BALDERAS, Plaintiff, v. 8 CHELSEA CORP. d/b/a RIKO PERUVIAN CUISINE, JAMAICA 153 CORP. d/b/a RIKO PERUVIAN CUISINE, APU FOODS CORPORATION d/b/a RIKO PERUVIAN CUISINE, JACKSON 79 CORP. d/b/a RIKO PERUVIAN CUISINE, 44 SUNNYSIDE CORP. d/b/a RIKO EXPRESS CAFE, WALTER BURGOS, and JESSICA BURGOS, Defendants. No. 18-CV-11149 (VEC). (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Vidal Balderas has sued his former employer for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiff alleges that he worked as a dishwasher for Defendants, a chain of restaurants and its owners. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide him with the proper minimum wage, overtime wages, wage statements, and wage notices, as required by the FLSA and NYLL. The Arbitration Agreement Is Enforceable Regardless of whether the cost-sharing provision in the Arbitration Agreement is valid, the balance of the Agreement is enforceable. In light of the severance provision the proper remedy for an invalid cost-sharing provision would be to strike or modify that provision, not to invalidate the entire Agreement. Plaintiff does not explain why invalidation of the cost provisions of the arbitration agreement would require invalidation of the entire Agreement, perhaps because that position is not supported either by the law of this Circuit or by the better considered authorities elsewhere. The Cost-Sharing Provision Is Modified The Arbitration Agreement provides two options for dividing the costs and fees of arbitration. If required by law, the Defendants must bear all costs that the Plaintiff would not otherwise be required to bear if the Plaintiff's claims proceeded in court. In all other circumstances, the Plaintiff and the Defendant must each pay 50 percent of the arbitration's costs and fees. The parties have identified no provision of New York law that would require the Defendant to bear all costs of arbitration that Plaintiff would not otherwise be required to bear accordingly, absent an order from this Court, the Arbitration Agreement obligates the Plaintiff to pay half of the fees and costs of the arbitration forum. Arbitration would be prohibitively expensive for the Plaintiff were he required to pay 50 percent of the arbitration's costs and fees. The Plaintiff has submitted a sworn declaration stating that he lives paycheck-to-paycheck: he makes approximately $635 per week, has no savings, and is the primary source of income for his family. One of Plaintiff's attorneys also submitted a sworn declaration, stating that, based on a review of the fee schedule of the arbitration organization designated in the Agreement, the total costs of the arbitration are estimated to be between $8,000 and $10,000. The Defendants do not dispute that estimate. Crediting those assertions, even at the low end of the estimated cost, half ($4,000) would be far more than Plaintiff could afford. In contrast, bringing the claims in this Court would cost Plaintiff only $400, the filing fee for civil actions which he has already spent. Because a requirement to split the costs of the arbitration would prevent Plaintiff from effectively vindicating his statutory rights, the Court will require Defendants to bear all reasonable and necessary costs of the arbitration. The Defendants argue that the expense of arbitration is speculative because, under the Agreement, the arbitrator has the authority to award attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing party in accordance with the substantive law governing the Claims. The Court disagrees. This provision entitles the arbitrator to award attorneys' fees and costs; it does not address the arbitrator's ability to shift the costs of the arbitration forum (such as the arbitration's filing fee and the arbitrator's hourly fee. This Action Is Stayed A court must stay proceedings when all of the claims in an action have been referred to arbitration and a stay [has been] requested. Here, Defendants have requested a stay although they also request dismissal as an alternative remedy. Accordingly, a stay of this Court's proceedings pending arbitration is warranted. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, subject to the modifications to the Agreement's cost-sharing provision discussed above. This action is stayed pending arbitration. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3z5f385 from Leagle.com. Vidal Balderas, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee , Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 8 Chelsea Corp., doing business as Riko Peruvian Cuisine, Jamaica 153 Corp., doing business as Riko Peruvian Cuisine, APU Foods Corporation, doing business as Riko Peruvian Cuisine, Jackson 79 Corp., doing business as Riko Peruvian Cuisine, 44 Sunnyside Corp., doing business as Riko Peruvian Cuisine, Walter Burgos & Jessenia Burgos, Defendants, represented by Argilio Rodriguez , Rodriguez Law, P.C., Empire State Building, 350 5th Ave #5909, New York, NY 10118. ABM INDUSTRY: Removes Artiga Suit to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of I. ARTIGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC; and DOE ONE through and including DOE TEN, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 19STCV19268) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 2, 2019. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06735. The case is assigned to George H Wu and referred to Magistrate Rozella A Oliver. ABM Industry Groups, LLC provides facility services. The Company offers electical lighting, HVAC installation, landscape maintenance, and janitorial services. ABM Industry Groups serves clients worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel F. Fears, Esq., Laura Fleming, Esq., Robert T. Matsuishi, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 851-1100 Facsimile: (949) 851-1212 E-mail: dff@paynefears.com lf@paynefears.com rtm@paynefears.com AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Bid to Dismiss McGovney Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Aerohive Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss in McGovney v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., is currently scheduled to be heard by the Court in the second half of 2019. In January 2018, three purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and two of its officers. Those actions were subsequently consolidated into a single action titled as McGovney v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00435. The consolidated complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements, in particular regarding the Company’s financial outlook for the fourth quarter of 2017. In February 2019, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, finding that the Complaint failed to state a claim against any defendant. In March 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint (the "Complaint"). Like the prior complaint, the Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements, in particular regarding the Company's financial outlook for the fourth quarter of 2017. The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock between November 1, 2017 and January 16, 2018, inclusive. The Complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants have filed a further motion to dismiss the Complaint, which is currently scheduled to be heard by the Court in the second half of 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Aerohive Networks, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs and develops cloud networking and enterprise Wi-Fi solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the Asia Pacific. Aerohive Networks, Inc. was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Milpitas, California. AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Faces Extreme Networks Merger-Related Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Aerohive Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in five class action suits related to its merger with Extreme Networks, Inc. On June 26, 2019, Extreme Networks, Inc. and the company 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. In July 2019, five actions relating to the Merger were filed by purported Company shareholders against the Company and the Company's board of directors. Two actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. These cases are titled Silverberg v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-04089 (brought as a putative class action on behalf off all shareholders of the Company) and Naik v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-04160. One action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, titled Shirley v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06742. Shirley v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al. also names as a defendant the Company's co-founder Changming Liu. Two actions were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. These cases are titled Plumley v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01322 (brought as a putative class action on behalf of all shareholders of the Company) and Smith v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01359. Plumley v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al. also names as defendants Extreme and the Purchaser. The complaints generally allege that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by the Company omits material information necessary for Company stockholders to make an informed decision regarding the Offer, and assert claims for violation of Sections 14 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the Offer or, should it be consummated, to rescind it or award damages, as well as an award of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs in the actions. Aerohive Networks, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs and develops cloud networking and enterprise Wi-Fi solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the Asia Pacific. Aerohive Networks, Inc. was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Milpitas, California. ALPHA TEAM: Court Grants Extension to File Answer in Drummer ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order extending Time to File an Answer in the case captioned QUINTON DRUMMER, STEFFAN WEBB, and DEMONTRAY STALLWORTH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALPHA TEAM CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, BG CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, HECTOR BELTRAN, and J.C.M. INDUSTRIES, INC., doing business as ADVANCE STORAGE PRODUCTS, jointly and severally, Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-01251-RFB-NJK. (D. Nev.). The Defendant and the Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, stipulate and agree to extend the time for JCM to answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs' First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs served their First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint on JCM on July 5, 2019, and JCM's response is due on July 26, 2019. The Plaintiffs and JCM have agreed to a brief extension of time for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint as JCM's counsel was only recently retained and needs additional time to investigate Plaintiffs' claims. JCM shall, therefore, have a 30-day extension, up to and including August 26, 2019, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5p2ez9g from Leagle.com. Quinton Drummer, Steffan Webb & Demontray Stallworth, Plaintiffs, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager -bschrager@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Charles Robert Ash, IV -- crash@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Daniel Bravo -- DBravo@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman, & Rabkin, LLP, Kevin J. Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz PC, pro hac vice & Don Springmeyer -- dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP. BG Construction Services, LLC, Defendant, pro se. Hector Beltran, Defendant, pro se. J.C.M. Industries, Inc., doing business as Advance Storage Products, Defendant, represented by Daniel Aquino -- Daniel.Aquino@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Kirsten Ann Milton -- Kirsten.Milton@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC. AMAZON.COM: Adamsky et al. Sue over Collection of Children Data --------------------------------------------------------------- JERRY ADAMSKY, on behalf of her minor child; LESLIE BERRY, on behalf of her minor child; VALERIE BERTHELOT, on behalf of her minor child; DESIREE BLACKBURN, on behalf of her minor child; JENNIFER BOIT, on behalf of her minor child; JULIE BROWN, on behalf of her minor child; SARAH CHARACTER, on behalf of her minor child; LINDSAY COLON, on behalf of her minor child; KRISTI FINLEY, on behalf of her minor child; CHRISTINA GARDNER, on behalf of her minor child; TARA GRAY, on behalf of her minor child; SHANE HOWARD, on behalf of his minor child; JENNIFER LEFLORE, on behalf of her minor child; ANDRA LOGAN, on behalf of her minor child; JENNIFER MAURER, on behalf of her minor child; MONICA MENDEZ, on behalf of her minor child; ERICA MOORE, on behalf of her minor child; BRANDIE MORGAN, on behalf of her minor child; SAYUJ PAUDEL, on behalf of her minor child; TARA PITTMAN, on behalf of her minor child; LYNDI REICHENBACH, on behalf of her minor child; CRYSTAL SEGURA, on behalf of her minor child; TIFFANY SEVCIK, on behalf of her minor child; BREANNA SIMPSON, on behalf of her minor child; GARY STANGO, JR., on behalf of his minor child; NYKITA STEEN, on behalf of her minor child; MEGAN TAYLOR, on behalf of her minor child; MARQUITA TUCKER, on behalf of her minor child; MARK WADE, on behalf of his minor child; ALLISON WINSKE, on behalf of her minor child; JESSICA XAGORARIS, on behalf of her minor child; PATRICK YOCKEY, on behalf of his minor child; and ROBERT YOUNG, on behalf of his minor child, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; and A2Z DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01214 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 2, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for collecting personal identifying information, including voiceprints, without the consent of the Plaintiff and the class. According to the complaint, Amazon Alexa ("Alexa") is a cloud-based voice service available on over 100 million devices from both Amazon and third-party device manufacturers. Amazon makes portable smart speakers of multiple generations that, by connecting to the Internet, offer Alexa's voice service in a consumer's home using a range of speaker technology and options, such as the Amazon Echo and Amazon Echo Dot. In order to connect the Echo Dot or other Amazon product to Alexa, a user must first download the Alexa App. In 2018, Amazon launched the Echo Dot Kids Edition. The Echo Dot Kids Edition collects persistent identifiers associated with a child such as MAC (media access control) addresses of devices, serial numbers, and IP addresses which are all transmitted to the Amazon Cloud and stored in association with the child's profile and the accumulating cache of audio voice recordings. Additionally, the Echo Dot Kids Edition collects other information about a child in connection with the persistent identifiers, such as information about the books, music, and skills a child uses, so that it can make recommendations to and for the child – all for commercial gain, of course. Further, the Echo Dot Kids Edition is specifically designed to collect information from a child with its "Remember This" feature which allows Alexa to store information conveyed by the child by saying either "remember" or "make a note". This feature enables Alexa to develop a relationship with a child, which results in the child confiding to Alexa whereby Alexa eerily becomes a personal online "diary," held by Amazon. Alexa's "Answer Update" function, if activated, calls for Alexa to respond to questions at a later date if she learns new information pertaining to the question. In order to have the option to answer the question at a later date, Alexa's programming must be such that she collects and stores the question, indefinitely. In all, Amazon collects at least four types of personal information about children through the Echo Dot Kids Edition: 1) voice recordings, 2) persistent identifiers associated with Defendant's purported "Parental Consent" mechanism is legally inadequate in that it is generic, general, and vague in nature. In particular, it gives examples of information rather than specifics. What's more, it fails to identify how information is to be used and fails to inform whether information will be disclosed to a third party. Amazon.com, Inc. engages in the retail sale of consumer products and subscriptions in North America and internationally. The company was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Ide, Esq. IDE LAW OFFICE 7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Telephone: (206) 625-1326 Facsimile: (206) 622-0909 E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 640-1160 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (312) 283-3814 Facsimile: (773) 496-8617 E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com APPLE INC: New Calif. Class Suit Launched Over iPhone Throttling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Fingas, writing for Apple Insider, reports that lawyers with Levi & Korsinksky LLP have charged Apple with violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as California's Unfair Competition Law, Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and "trespass to chattels" rules. According to the report, the plaintiffs in this latest case are from diverse parts of the U.S. such as Alaska, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania, and in a few instances the U.K. and Japan, according to court documents. The lawfirm is requesting a jury trial and compensation including punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. "After years of customer frustration and attrition, on December 20, 2017, Apple admitted to one of the largest consumer frauds in history, affecting hundreds of millions of mobile devices across the globe," the suit asserts. In April 2018, a judicial panel order the consolidation of 61 similar lawsuits. It isn't clear if this one will be grouped with others as well, as the consolidated case hasn't made significant headway in the courts. The iPhone slowdown issue began in late 2017 when a Reddit user discovered CPU throttling after running impromptu benchmarking tests. Subsequent claims led to conspiracy theorists postulating that Apple intentionally built the feature as part of a planned obsolescence scheme, and a series of class actions and government inquiries followed. Apple's fix was implemented in iOS 10.2.1 as a way of preventing sudden shutdowns when a chemically depleted battery wouldn't provide enough power to keep a device running —but specifically what Apple chose to do about the problem wasn't disclosed. Apple ultimately apologized to iPhone owners in December 2017 for a lack of transparency and cut prices on out-of-warranty battery replacements, later delivering software updates that expanded data and let people reduce -- though not eliminate -- instances of throttling. [GN] ARKEMA INC: Seeks 6th Circuit Review of Decision in Carter Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Arkema Inc. Retirement Benefits Plan and Arkema, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Roger Carter, et al. v. Arkema, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01241, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class action asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The case involves the pension rights of former employees, who worked at M&T Chemical Inc.'s facility in Carrolton, Kentucky. Plaintiffs Roger Carter, Eddie Hewitt, David Warren, and Ricky Woods are all former hourly employees of M&T, who began their employment at M&T between 1976 and 1979 and participated in the M&T Chemicals, Inc. General Pension Plan for Hourly Employees. The appellate case is captioned as Roger Carter, et al. v. Arkema, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-5820, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant brief is due on September 9, 2019; -- Appellee brief is due on October 7, 2019; and -- A Telephone Mediation conference has been scheduled for August 20, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. (ET) with Paul Calico.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ROGER D. CARTER, and a class of others similarly situated; EDDIE DEAN HEWITT, and a class of others similarly situated; DAVID WAYNE WARREN, and a class of others similarly situated; and RICKY LYNN WOODS, and a class of others similarly situated, are represented by: David Leightty, Esq. Alison Messex, Esq. PRIDDY, CUTLER, NAAKE & MEADE, PLLC 2303 River Road, Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40206 Telephone: (502) 632-5292 Facsimile: (502) 632-5293 E-mail: dleightty@earthlink.net amessex@pcnmlaw.com Defendants-Appellants ARKEMA, INC. and ARKEMA INC. RETIREMENT BENEFITS PLAN are represented by: Bart Loveman Greenwald, Esq. DUNCAN GALLOWAY EGAN GREENWALD PLLC 9625 Ormsby Station Road Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 614-6974 E-mail: bgreenwald@dgeglaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Castillo Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Cindy R. Castillo filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Cindy Castillo v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00580-DOC-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 31, 2019, the District Court entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion to certify a class consisting of: California Class: "All hourly-paid, non-managerial call center workers of Bank of America, National Association, in the State of California within four years prior to the filing of the complaint in this action until resolution of this lawsuit"; and and a subclass consisting of: Sub-Class 1: "All Class Members who are or were employed by Defendants and subject to Defendant's Unfair Business Practices." The District Court held that BofA has provided numerous declarations demonstrating that call center workers received compliant meal breaks pursuant to the Bank's policy. The District Court further noted that the Plaintiff has admitted that no one at BofA ever told her that if she had a lunch that was starting late she could not then come back late to get the full 30 minutes. The Plaintiff further testified that it was her understanding that if she worked more than 10 hours she was entitled to a second meal period. Again, the Plaintiff has simply not provided the District Court with enough evidence of a common question to warrant certification of this claim. Accordingly, the motion for class certification is denied. The appellate case is captioned as Cindy Castillo v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 19-80098, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner CINDY R. CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Defendant-Respondent BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a North Carolina Corporation, is represented by: Matthew Kane, Esq. Michael D. Mandel, Esq. Sean Sullivan, Esq. John Arthur Van Hook, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com mmandel@mcguirewoods.com ssullivan@mcguirewoods.com jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com - and - Sylvia Kim, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 844-9944 E-mail: skim@mcguirewoods.com BARING BDC: Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Seek to Amend Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barings BDC, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that plaintiff's motion seeking leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint in the class action suit entitled, In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, is still pending. The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been named as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (and then transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina) on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017. The first lawsuit was filed on November 21, 2017, and was captioned Elias Dagher, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00015-FL (the "Dagher Action"). The second lawsuit was filed on November 28, 2017, and was captioned Gary W. Holden, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL (the "Holden Action"). The Dagher Action and the Holden Action were consolidated and are currently captioned In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL. On April 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed its First Consolidated Amended Complaint. The complaint, as currently amended, alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but did not specify the amount of damages being sought. On May 25, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 7, 2019 the court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On April 18, 2019, the defendants filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for leave. On May 2, 2019, the plaintiff filed a reply in support of its motion for leave. The motion for leave is currently pending before the court. Barings BDC, Inc. is a business development company specializing in private equity and mezzanine investments. Triangle Capital Corporation was incorporated on October 10, 2006 and is based in Raleigh, North Carolina. BAXTER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss IV Solutions Sales Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Baxter International Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit related to IV solutions sales is still pending. In November 2016, a purported antitrust class action complaint seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with a shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently were filed. In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in February 2017. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint without prejudice in July 2018. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 6, 2018. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 9, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa; and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in 1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. BROKERS EDGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Candelario Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAY CANDELARIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BROKERS EDGE ANNUITY & LIFE MARKETING, INC.; ABC CORPORATIONS; ZYZ, LLC'S; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01458-L-JLB (S.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Brokers Edge Annuity & Life Marketing, Inc. is a Delaware corporation offering annuity and life insurance solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex S. Madar, Esq. Madar Law Corporation 14410 Via Venezia #1404 San Diego, CA 92129 Telephone: (858) 299-5879 Facsimile: (619) 354-7281 E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net CAMDEN PROPERTY: Court Narrows Claims in Suarez NCDCA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned JORGE SUAREZ, Plaintiff, v. CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST, CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT, INC., and CSP COMMUNITY OWNER, LP, Defendants. No. 5:18-CV-455-D. (E.D.N.C.). Jorge Suarez on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a complaint in Wake County Superior Court against Camden Property Trust (Camden Property Trust), Camden Development, Inc. (Camden Development) and CSP Community Owner, LP, f/k/a CSP Community Owner, LLC, d/b/a/ Camden Westwood (Camden Westwood), alleging violations of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act (NCDCA). The Defendants first contend that Suarez lacks Article III standing. To invoke the power of a federal court, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he has standing under Article III of the Constitution. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the complaint's legal and factual sufficiency. To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a pleading must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. In considering the motion, the court must construe the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. When evaluating a motion to dismiss, a court considers the pleadings and any materials attached or incorporated into the complaint. A court also may consider a document submitted by a moving party if it is integral to the complaint and there is no dispute about the document's authenticity without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Additionally, a court may take judicial notice of public records when evaluating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The NCDCA prohibits debt collectors from engaging in unfair debt collection practices, including the use of threats, coercion, harassment, unreasonable publications of the consumer's debt, deceptive representations to the consumer, or other unconscionable means. An NCDCA claim has three threshold requirements. First, the obligation owed must be a debt; second, the one owing the obligation must be a consumer and third, the one trying to collect the obligation must be a debt collector. A plaintiff also must establish the elements of a UDTPA claim: (1) an unfair or deceptive act (2) in or affecting commerce (3) proximately causing injury. An act is unfair when it offends public policy and when it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers. To state a claim under section 75-54, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the act complained of possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead, or created the likelihood of deception. As for Suarez's section 75-54 claim, Suarez alleges that defendants stated that any unpaid balance would be referred to a third-party collections agency within 30 days but that defendants did not intend to refer unpaid balances less than $100 or less than 60-days old. Suarez alleges that the Statement had the tendency or capacity to mislead or deceive Suarez as to defendants' intentions in referring unpaid balances to collection agencies. Thus, Suarez has plausibly alleged a section 75-54 claim. As for causation, for claims arising from an alleged misrepresentation, actual reliance requires that the plaintiff have affirmatively incorporated the alleged misrepresentation into his or her decision-making process: if it were not for the misrepresentation, the plaintiff would likely have avoided the injury altogether. Non-economic harm, such as emotional distress, can be cognizable injuries under the NCDCA. Suarez alleges that, but for defendants' misrepresentations, he would not have suffered emotional distress because of his mistaken belief that defendants would refer his unpaid balance to a third-party collection agency. Accordingly, Suarez has plausibly alleged proximate causation, and the claim ekes across the line from possibility to plausibility. Whether this claim will survive a motion for summary judgment is an issue for another day. As for Suarez's section 75-51 claim, section 75-51 forbids debt collectors from using any unfair threat, coercion, or attempt to coerce to collect a debt, including by threatening to take any action not in fact taken in the usual course of business, unless it can be shown that such threatened action was actually intended to be taken in the particular case in which the threat was made. The parallel FDCPA provision forbids debt collectors from threatening to take any action that is not intended to be taken. The FDCPA provision applies to false threats of litigation. Suarez alleges that the Statement said that defendants would refer his unpaid balance to a third-party collection agency when, in reality, defendants do not do so in the usual course of business for unpaid debts as small as his. Suarez's section 75-51 claim ekes across the line from possibility to plausibility. Whether this claim will survive a motion for summary judgment is an issue for another day. As for Suarez's section 75-55 claim, section 75-55 forbids debt collectors from collecting or attempting to collect any debt by the use of any unconscionable means. Suarez's allegations do not plausibly allege that defendants engaged in any conduct that section 75-55 lists as an unconscionable means. Although section 75-55's list is not exhaustive, Suarez's allegations merely repackage defendants' allegedly deceptive conduct. Accordingly, Suarez has not plausibly alleged a section 75-55 claim. Thus, the court grants defendants' motion to dismiss the claim. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss Suarez's original complaint, denies in part and grants in part the defendants' motion to dismiss Suarez's amended complaint and denies as moot Suarez's motion to remand. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3zbktrd from Leagle.com. Mr. Jorge Suarez, Plaintiff, represented by Karl Stephen Gwaltney, Maginnis Law, PLLC, 4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310, Raleigh, NC, 28403-2710, Scott C. Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP & Patrick M. Wallace -- pat@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP. Camden Property Trust, Camden Development, Inc. & CSP Community Owner, LP, f/k/a CSP Community Owner, LLC, d/b/a Camden Westwood, Defendants, represented by Kearns Davis -- kdavis@brookspierce.com -- Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard LLP, Craig Daniel Schauer -- cschauer@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, D. J. O'Brien, III -- dobrien@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Jennifer K. Van Zant -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P. & Jessica Thaller-Moran -- jthaller-moran@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, LLP. CAPITAL ONE: Charney Lawyers Push Class Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Global News Canada reports that a Vancouver law firm says a class action lawsuit has been launched on behalf of six million Canadians whose personal information was compromised by a data breach at Capital One Financial Corp. Ted Charney, Esq. lead counsel of Charney Lawyers, says the breach may turn out to be "extremely serious." In addition to credit card application data such as phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth and self-reported income, the hacker was also able to access credit scores, credit limits and balances, as well as fragments of transaction information from a total of 23 days in 2016, 2017 and 2018. Charney says the account information is highly sensitive and in the wrong hands could be used to commit identity fraud or to cause damage to credit reputations. The hacker is alleged to have been in possession of the data since March, but it remains unclear to what extent the hacker sold or distributed the data online. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada says it is investigating the hack, which included one million social insurance numbers that had been accessed without authorization. [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Faces Castro Suit over Information Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- RICHY CASTRO; LENORA GLOVER; PATRICK INSCHO; ANDREW JOHNSON; TIFFANI MYERS; STEVEN PIKE; HERBERT WHITE; HAMDI ESLAQUIT; and JOANNE ELENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CAPITAL ONE, N.A.; AND CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), Defendants, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01008 (E.D. Va., Aug. 2, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for their failure to exercise basic, reasonable care in securing and safeguarding the Plaintiffs and the class's sensitive personal information. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that through the Defendants' failure to secure, monitor, and protect information that consumers provided to the Defendants at their insistence when they applied for credit, the Defendants permitted an individual to commit one of the largest data breaches on record. The Defendants' lackadaisical approach to data security permitted an individual to obtain and post on the Internet reams of data with which consumers like the Plaintiffs entrusted to the Defendants, including their full names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, credit scores, credit limits, account information, account balances, payment histories, Social Security Numbers, and bank account numbers. Capital One Financial Corporation provides commercial banking services. The Bank accepts deposits and offers personal credit cards, investment products, loans, and online banking services. Capital One serves customers in the State of Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com - and - Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com elizabeth@clalegal.com - and - Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq. Tara B. Keller, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1800 Diagonal Road, Ste. 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 273-7770 Facsimile: (888) 892-3512 E-mail: matt@clalegal.com tara@clalegal.com - and - Charles B. Molster, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES B. MOLSTER, III, PLLC 2141 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: (202) 787-1312 E-mail: cmolster@molsterlaw.com CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action in Virginia Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Catherine Hawley, writing for FOX 13 News, reports that it's only been a few days since Capital One disclosed a massive data breach that compromised the personal information of more than 100 million people. The banking giant is now being hit with a class-action lawsuit. Morgan & Morgan filed the class-action suit on July 30 in Virginia where Capital One is based. The legal challenge alleges the company failed to secure its customers' sensitive information. Capital One announced July 29 that personal information dating back as far as 2005 was stolen by a hacker earlier this year. The compromised data includes names, addresses, social security numbers and bank account details. "If you have a Capital One account or you've been denied credit but submitted an application, your information may have been impacted," said Attorney John Yanchunis with the Morgan & Morgan Class Action Department. Capital One says it will notify all those affected by the breach. However, the law firm isn't waiting. Attorneys have already filed the class-action lawsuit seeking to represent every impacted consumer, and hold Capital One accountable. "Why did the company keep that kind of information? Once you extend credit to someone, then your obligation is defined by that contract with Capital One. Why it kept that information, why it didn't try to better secure it is a question we'll be raising in the lawsuit," Yanchunis said. Three experts are now investigating the breach for Morgan & Morgan. Yanchunis said other defendants could be added to the suit along with Capital One. "Those experts are now monitoring activity on the dark web as well as collecting information from other sources to ascertain who is responsible in what way," said Yanchunis. A former Amazon employee, identified by authorities as Paige Thompson of Seattle, was arrested for the breach. She's accused of breaking into a Capital One server on Amazon's cloud system to swipe the customer information. Investigators think the 33-year-old may have hacked customer data from other companies as well. The concern now is if Thompson gave away or sold any of that personal information. "While some information may be perceived to be non-sensitive, cobbled together with other information it can be very damaging to consumers," explained Yanchunis. This lawsuit is one of several that have been filed against Capital One for the data breach. [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Murphy Falcon and Morgan File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Murphy, Falcon & Murphy and Morgan & Morgan's Complex Litigation Group filed a class action lawsuit against Capital One on behalf of hundreds of thousands of consumers whose personal information, including social security numbers, birth dates, and addresses, were compromised for unauthorized use. The Capital One data breach occurred in March and April, 2019, and was allegedly discovered in July, 2019. The FBI investigation of the data breach at Capital One has revealed the unauthorized acquisition of personal identifying information involving massive numbers of Capital One customers. For many customers it appears that their names, social security numbers, addresses, and dates of birth have been accessed without the authority or consent of those customers. The massive data breach has caused those customers considerable worry and anxiety, as well as risk of imminent financial loss, and long-term harm to their credit ratings. It is apparent that Capital One's commitment to its customers' privacy and security of privileged customer information was inadequate. The pervasiveness of the breach of customer data could only have occurred without competent, thorough, and routinized testing by Capital One of its policies and cyber security mechanisms to ensure the privacy of its millions of customers. Financial institutions such as Capital One are the favored targets of a broad array of cyber threats ranging from professional cyber criminals to amateur hackers. It was well known by Capital One that it could be a target of a cybercrime which would expose millions of its customers confidential information in the process. Even as numerous other financial institutions, health care systems, and various other private and public agencies have been targeted and attacked by cyber criminals Capital One failed to honor its commitment and obligation to its customers to ensure that their confidential personal information was protected from being compromised. John Harnishfeger of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy said today, "The failure of Capital One to ensure its customers' privacy is appalling. Capital One's customers had the absolute right to expect that Capital One would fulfill its legal obligation and its promise to safeguard and protect its customers' most sensitive personal financial information which did not happen. Instead, Capital One customers have now been exposed to financial harm because of this data breach," Harnishfeger said. "Consumers must be able to rely on the safety of their sensitive personal data and that the financial institutions that they choose to serve them will commit the necessary resources to protect them. Capital One not only breached its obligation to protect the information of its customers but it has also breached their trust at tremendous cost. The breadth of Capital One's failure which may reach hundreds of thousands of consumers is particularly stunning and demonstrates a lack of concern about its customers' privacy, while failing to appreciate the security requirements of any business that manages sensitive personal electronic data. Thousands of Capital One customers relied on Capital One to safeguard their personal information as Capital One had promised to do. Regrettably, it appears that Capital One betrayed the confidence of its customers and failed woefully to ensure their customers' privacy," John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan added. About Hassan Murphy & Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, P.A. Hassan Murphy is currently a member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in In Re: Equifax, Inc., which is responsible for prosecuting the nationwide consumer data breach litigation against Equifax, Inc. Recently, Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, P.A. filed the first class action lawsuit against Marriott International, Inc., for its data breach, which affects 500 million consumers. Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, P.A. is a Baltimore based law firm which specializes in complex civil litigation. The firm has a history of unrelenting dedication to its clients in Baltimore and across the country. The firm's seasoned trial lawyers have extensive experience in a wide variety of cases with success rates that far surpass national averages and are known for formulating creative approaches to complex litigation. The firm's dedication to its clients and their cases has resulted in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars by verdicts and settlements for the firm's clients. The firm's attorneys have won some of the largest verdicts in high profile, high stakes cases in some of the toughest jurisdictions around the country. Learn more at www.murphyfalcon.com Contact: Zach McDaniels, Esq. Tel.No.: (410) 539-6500 Email: Zach.mcdaniels@murphyfalcon.com [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Requests to Approve Class Actions Filed in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Mia Anhoury, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that Ile-Bizard resident Susanna Vincze was upset when she heard about the Desjardins Group data breach in June, but when she heard about the Capital One breach she says she couldn't believe it. Vincze has a Desjardins bank account and a Hudson's Bay credit card, which is issued by Capital One. Although Desjardins offered the Equifax insurance service to her and others for the next five years, Vincze says that when it comes to data breaches "our hands are tied at the moment. We're sort of powerless against banks." Not one but two requests to approve class actions against the American bank in Quebec were filed at the Superior Court of Quebec on July 30, only 24 hours after Capital One announced there had been a personal-data breach. The requests have to be approved by a judge before a class action can go any further. This latest massive security breach, which was confirmed on July 19, was announced on July 29 by Capital One. It affects 106 million members, six million of them Canadian. The stolen personal information includes names, addresses, postal codes, phone numbers, emails, birthdays and average incomes. The MasterCard credit-card provider said approximately 1 million social insurance numbers were stolen. Quebec City resident Simon Goulet is the lead plaintiff in the class action filed by Siskinds Law Firm, which has an office in Quebec City. The request states that Goulet is "greatly troubled and worried about the use that will be made of his personal information." The Siskinds class-action request alleges Capital One failed in its responsibility and obligation to protect any private, confidential information given to them by its members. Siskinds lawyer Karim Diallo charged that financial institutions have significant gaps in their information protection storage. The class-action request filed by the Montreal office of Consumer Law Group alleges Capital One was negligent and failed to appropriately safeguard its clients' information. The request also cites the delayed notice to clients, since the breach happened on March 22 and 23, 2019 but was only announced on on July 29. Anibal Jodorcovsky, a Dollard-des-Ormeaux resident with a Costco credit card, says this breach shows companies are not giving cybersecurity enough attention. "It's just a matter of time until indirect financial losses or worse occur, and there'll be nobody to go complain to," he said. Requests to approve class-action lawsuits against Desjardins were also filed in July by Montreal-based LPC Avocat and Kugler Kandestin as well as Siskinds Law firm. The data breach by a Desjardins employee, who has since been fired, compromised the personal information of 2.7 million customers. Both requests are still pending judge's approval. The LPC Avocat and Kugler Kandestin class-action request is asking for a $300 monetary compensation for each client affected by the breach. Both of Siskinds Law Firm class-action requests accuse Desjardins and Capital One of unlawful disclosure of private and privileged information. Although these class-action requests are a start, McGill assistant professor of law and privacy expert Ignacio Cofone says they may face certain challenges. Most recently, Quebec Superior Court Judge Chantal Tremblay did not authorize a class-action lawsuit against Yahoo! for cyberattacks that compromised the confidentiality of users' data. The judge explained there were no compensable damages, which have to be "serious and prolonged." Cofone explained judges are accustomed to recognizing objective harm, like financial damage, however, privacy harm is subjective and more difficult for courts to measure. "Judges have not been very good at identifying privacy harms, which is the harm that you may suffer that could be related to a breach," said Cofone. "It's hard to predict exactly what position judges will take on this. Judges could take the traditional approach and reject the class action by saying, 'We don't know whether you've received financial damages because of this information leak,'" said Cofone. "Or they could take the approach that I think at some point they will start taking, and they will recognize that privacy harm is a distinct type of harm." In a class action, plaintiffs have to prove damage, a breach of duty and a causality between the two. Cofone explained that the challenge in these cases is to prove there were privacy damages in the first place and that they were caused by the breach of duty. For now, Cofone said the question that awaits answering is: "Will they recognize privacy damages? Or will they hinge on objective damages to approve a class action?" [GN] CARBONITE INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Carbonite, Inc. (NASDAQ: CARB) to the securities class action, Luna v. Carbonite, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-11662 filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. If you invested in Carbonite between February 7, 2019 and July 25, 2019 (the "Class Period") and suffered losses you do not need to sign up to be included in the putative class of investors. If you suffered significant losses (in excess of $50,000) you may qualify to be a lead plaintiff -- one who selects and oversees the attorneys prosecuting the case. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later than September 30, 2019 (the "Lead Plaintiff deadline"). Contact Hagens Berman immediately for more information about the case and being a lead plaintiff https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/CA or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing CARB@hbsslaw.com. According to the Complaint, Defendants misled investors about the technological quality of the Company's Server Backup VM Edition and its potential to add "meaningfully" to Carbonite's financial performance for fiscal 2019. In truth, according to the Complaint, the Server Backup VM Edition's functionality was of poor quality and suffered from technological flaws, received poor customer reviews and complaints, and caused disruption within Carbonite's salesforce. On July 25, 2019, the market learned the truth when Carbonite announced that it was withdrawing the Server Backup VM Edition product from the marketplace and consequently dramatically lowered its financial projections for fiscal 2019 and 2020. That same day, Carbonite's CEO Mohamad S. Ali -- the strongest proponent and supporter of Server Backup VM Edition -- abruptly stepped down. On this news, Carbonite stock declined nearly 25%, wiping out over $200 million in market capitalization. "We're focused on are investors' losses and whether Carbonite misled investors about the quality and functionality of its Server Backup VM Edition product," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Carbonite should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email CARB@hbsslaw.com. Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Tel.No.: 510-725-3000 Email: reed@hbsslaw.com [GN] CARBONITE INC: Kehoe Law Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Carbonite, Inc. (NASDAQ:CARB) during the period between February 7, 2019 and July 25, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The class action complaint charges Carbonite and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased the securities of Carbonite during the Class Period February 7, 2019 to July 25, 2019 and suffered financial losses, please contact either Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com info@kehoelawfirm.com or John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com, to learn more about the lawsuit or the securities investigation. Carbonite investors and shareholders have until September 30, 2019 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding the technological quality of the Server Backup VM Edition and its potential to add "meaningfully" to Carbonite's financial performance for fiscal 2019. Specifically, defendants allegedly failed to disclose that: (i) Carbonite's Server Backup VM Edition was of poor quality and technologically flawed; (ii) Carbonite was receiving poor reviews and complaints from customers about the Server Backup VM Edition; and (iii) the poor quality and technological flaws of the Server Backup VM Edition were acting as a "disruptive" factor throughout the Carbonite salesforce and keeping that sales organization from closing opportunistically on several larger deals during fiscal 2019; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Carbonite lacked any reasonable basis for issuing its positive projections and financial forecasts. Subsequently, on July 25, 2019, Carbonite, according to the complaint, announced that it was withdrawing the Server Backup VM Edition from the marketplace and consequently dramatically lowered its financial projections for fiscal 2019 and 2020. On the same day, Carbonite's Chief Executive Officer announced he was leaving the Company. On this news, the price of Carbonite stock, according to the complaint, dropped more than 24%, from a close of $23.90 per share on July 25, 2019 to a close of $18.01 per share on July 26, 2019. The complaint also alleges that the Carbonite Defendants are liable for: (i) making false statements; or (ii) failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about Carbonite. Defendants' fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Carbonite stock was a success, as it: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Carbonite's prospects and business; (ii) artificially inflated the price of Carbonite common stock; (iii) enabled Defendants Mohamad S. Ali and Anthony Folger, as well as other Carbonite insiders, to collectively sell close to $3 million of their personally-held Carbonite stock to the unsuspecting public; and (iv) caused Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Carbonite common stock at artificially inflated prices. Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff-side law firm dedicated to protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases that have recovered more than $10 billion dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors. [GN] CARBONITE INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf purchasers of Carbonite, Inc. (NASDAQ:CARB) common stock during the period between February 7, 2019 and July 25, 2019 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the District of Massachusetts and is captioned Luna v. Carbonite, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-11662. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Carbonite common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, David A. Rosenfeld or Brian E. Cochran of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com or bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/carbonite/ The complaint charges Carbonite and certain of its current and/or former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Carbonite is a software company that provides cloud-based backup services, including the Server Backup VM Edition for managed services providers ("MSPs"), which was designed to allow MSPs to protect their virtual data both locally and in their own cloud. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding the technological quality of the Server Backup VM Edition and its potential to add "meaningfully" to Carbonite's financial performance for fiscal 2019. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Carbonite's Server Backup VM Edition was of poor quality and technologically flawed; (ii) Carbonite was receiving poor reviews and complaints from customers about the Server Backup VM Edition; and (iii) the poor quality and technological flaws of the Server Backup VM Edition were acting as a "disruptive" factor throughout the Carbonite salesforce and keeping that sales organization from closing opportunistically on several larger deals during fiscal 2019. As a result of this information being withheld from the market, the price of Carbonite common stock was artificially inflated to more than $29 per share during the Class Period. Then, on July 25, 2019, Carbonite announced that it was withdrawing the Server Backup VM Edition from the marketplace and consequently lowering its financial projections for fiscal 2019 and 2020. The same day, Carbonite's Chief Executive Officer announced he was leaving the Company. On this news, the price of Carbonite stock declined more than 24%, from a close of $23.90 per share on July 25, 2019 to a close of $18.01 per share on July 26, 2019. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Carbonite common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Contacts: David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Tel.No.: 800-449-4900 E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN] CARDINAL HEALTH: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP announced that it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund ("Louisiana Sheriffs") against Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal" or the "Company") (NYSE: CAH), and certain of the Company's senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The action, which is captioned Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund v. Cardinal Health, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-03347-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all purchasers of Cardinal common stock between March 2, 2015 and May 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Cardinal is a global, integrated healthcare services and products company. This action arises from Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions relating to Cardinal's integration of Cordis Corp. ("Cordis"), a medical device manufacturer Cardinal purchased from Johnson & Johnson in March 2015, and the inventory and supply chain problems at Cordis. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by stating that Cordis would benefit from Cardinal's advanced inventory management and supply chain information technology solutions. Defendants also falsely represented that the Company properly "reserve[d] for inventory obsolescence" and that "[i]nventories presented in the consolidated balance sheets [were] net of reserves for excess and obsolete inventory." As a result of these misrepresentations, Cardinal shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. The truth began to emerge on August 2, 2017, when Cardinal reported weak earnings for its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2017 and lowered its earnings guidance for fiscal year 2018 due in part to "higher-than-planned write-offs for excess inventory" at Cordis. Defendants, however, falsely assured Cardinal's investors that Cordis's operational deficiencies had been addressed, that the Company had built the necessary infrastructure and IT systems for Cordis such that it now had "visibility" of Cordis's inventory, and that the Cordis business was "going into a phase of a lot more stability." Despite Defendants' attempt to soften Cordis's poor performance, the price of Cardinal stock declined from a closing price of $77.33 per share on August 1, 2017, to a closing price of $70.99 per share on August 2, 2017. Then, on May 3, 2018, Cardinal announced disappointing results for its third quarter fiscal year 2018 and cut its fiscal year 2018 earnings guidance. The Company explained that the "biggest variable driving these results" was the "disappointing performance" of the Cordis business. Contrary to the Company's prior statements that it had visibility into Cordis's inventory and that the Company properly reserved for obsolete inventory, the Company revealed that after launching a new global supply chain IT platform over the last quarter at Cordis, it discovered millions of dollars of unsellable and expired heart stents and catheters stationed overseas that had to be written off. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Cardinal's stock declined from a closing price of $64.65 per share on May 2, 2018, to a closing price of $50.80 per share on May 3, 3018. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available on BLB&G's website at www.blbglaw.com If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than September 30, 2019, which is the first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio is open that is 60 days after the publication date of August 1, 2019. Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice. Members may also choose to do nothing and remain part of the proposed Class. Louisiana Sheriffs is represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 100 attorneys with offices in New York, California, Louisiana, Illinois, and Delaware. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at avi@blbglaw.com. Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has built an international reputation for excellence and integrity. Specializing in securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide. Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest and most significant securities recoveries in history, recovering billions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors. More information about BLB&G can be found online at www.blbglaw.com. CONTACT: Avi Josefson, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, New York 10020 Tel.No.: (212) 554-1493 Email: avi@blbglaw.com [GN] CENTRE COUNTY, PA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Sheffer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Matthew John Sheffer filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Matthew Sheffer v. Centre County, et al., Case No. 4-18-cv-02080, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was filed in the Centre County Court of the State of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2018-cv-2276) and was removed to the District Court on October 24, 2018. The case is assigned to Honorable Matthew W. Brann and referred to Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick. The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Sheffer v. Centre County, et al., Case No. 19-2726, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant MATTHEW JOHN SHEFFER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, of Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, appears pro se.[BN] Defendants-Appellees CENTRE COUNTY and CRYSTAL L. HUNDT, Assistant District Attorney, are represented by: Robert Allen Mix, Esq. LEE GREEN & REITER, INC. 115 E. High Street Lock Drawer 179 Bellefonte, PA 16823 Telephone: (814) 355-4769 Facsimile: (814) 355-5024 E-mail: bmix@lmgrlaw.com Defendants-Appellees KATHERINE V. OLIVER, Common Pleas Judge; BRIAN K. MARSHALL, Common Pleas Judge; PAMELA RUEST, Common Pleas Judge; THOMAS KING KISTLER, Common Pleas Judge; CARMINE W. PRESTIA, Magisterial District Judge; and THOMAS JORDAN, Magisterial District Judge, are represented by: Robert J. Krandel, Esq. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 758-6022 Defendant-Appellee JEFFERY EBECK, PA State Trooper, is represented by: Keli M. Neary, Esq. Office of Attorney General 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Telephone: (717) 787-1180 Facsimile: (717) 772-4526 E-mail: kneary@attorneygeneral.gov CLIENT RESOURCE: Gerstenhaber Suit Asserts TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL GERSTENHABER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLIENT RESOURCE GROUP, INC. Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61958-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 5, 2019) is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), arising from Defendant's knowing and willful violations of the TCPA. As part of its marketing strategy, Defendant utilizes prerecorded messages to place calls to unsuspecting consumers on their cellular telephones for the purpose of selling its goods and services. The Defendant caused thousands of prerecorded message calls to be placed to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and Class Members and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants. Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Broward County, Florida. Defendant offers student loan debt consolidation to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 786.496.4469 Email: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, Fl 33301 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com Phone: 954.533.4092 CLIENT SERVICES: Ali Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------- Asim Ali, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-02756 (E.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendant violated the FDCPA by using false, deceptive and misleading representation in its attempt to collect the subject debt. The Plaintiff is a resident of Kings County, New York and is natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt. The Defendant is a Missouri Corporation with a principal place of business in Saint Charles County, Missouri. The Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers and uses mails in its debt collection business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com CONCENTRIX CORP: Class of Call Center Agent Employees Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JACQLYN KNIGHT, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. CONCENTRIX CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-07101-KAW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kandis A. Westmore entered an order on Aug. 1, 2019: 1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify collective action; 2. directing Defendant to produce a contact list for the narrowed, putative collective within 21 days of this order; and 3. directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the proposed notice, which shall be consistent with the order; and 4. directing the parties, within 21 days of the order, to either submit a stipulated, proposed notice or a joint letter consistent with the order. Accordingly, the Court conditionally certifies a more narrow collective consisting of: "all current and former Call Center Agent employees, Customer Service Representative employees, or other job titles performing the same or similar job duties, who worked off- the-clock before their shift for Concentrix, in preparation for their shift, resulting in working more than forty hours per week at any time in the last three years, and were not paid overtime for the pre- shift time worked. "At Home" Call Center Agents are excluded from the Class."[CC] DIAMOND RESORTS: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Gonzalez ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification as a Collective Action in the case captioned DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DIAMOND RESORTS INTERNATIONAL MARKETING, INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:18-cv-00979-APG-CWH. (D. Nev.). The Plaintiff moves for conditional certification of the putative class. Under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), an employee may bring a collective action on behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. Additionally, no employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought. Section 216(b) does not require the district court to authorize notice to potential plaintiffs, but it is within the court's discretion to issue such authorization. In the first stage, the court applies a fairly lenient standard and typically grants conditional class certification, because the determination is made prior to the close of the discovery and is based on limited evidence. If the court conditionally certifies the class, then putative class members are given notice and the opportunity to opt-in. District courts are also authorized to monitor the preparation and distribution of notice to putative class members upon the certification of the collective action in the notice stage. The second stage occurs following the end of discovery, where the court uses a stricter standard to assess the scope of the class. The court reviews the following factors at this stage: (1) the disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs (2) the various defenses available to the defendants with respect to the individual plaintiffs and (3) fairness and procedural considerations. Here, plaintiff moves for conditional certification, arguing that they are similarly situated to the putative class members because all were classified as non-exempt sales representatives and subjected to defendants' unlawful policies of computing overtime pay on the hourly wage excluding bonuses and commission. The Defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are similarly situated to a well-defined group, as defendants do not employ anyone in the sales representative position. The Defendants further contend that plaintiffs offer only mere assertions to support allegations regarding an unlawful pay scheme. In reply to defendants' arguments, plaintiffs contend that sales representatives are technically titled Vacation Counselors, but that defendants have commonly referred to employees serving in this capacity as sales representatives. The court finds that the first-stage analysis governs this case, as the action is in the early stages of litigation. The court notes that although discovery began in November 2018, this motion was filed in February of 2019, and that two months of discovery still remain. It is therefore appropriate for the court to apply the lenient standard that requires a modest showing that the putative class action members were victims of a common policy or plan. Having applied such a standard, the court finds that plaintiffs have made the requisite showing that they are similarly situated to the putative class members for the limited purpose of conditional certification. Plaintiffs provide declarations alleging that they, and other non-exempt sales representatives, were paid on a commission and bonus basis with an hourly minimum wage advance. Plaintiffs also declare that they, and other non-exempt sales representatives, worked more than 40 hours a week and were not paid overtime wages based on the total amount of compensation for the workweek, including any commission or bonus earnings. As support for those declarations, plaintiffs provide pay stubs depicting instances where they worked overtime hours during certain pay periods, but were nevertheless paid overtime based upon the hourly minimum wage rate of pay rather than the total amount of compensation including commissions or bonuses. Plaintiffs then declare that other sales representatives share the same job duties of marketing and selling ownership interests in defendants' properties, and that all defendants' properties share a common structure. Lastly, while plaintiffs refer to the job title for the putative class members as Sales Representatives, rather than the technical term of Vacation Counselors, the court still finds that plaintiff have identified a tenable class because of the duties and responsibilities associated with the position. However, given that plaintiffs concede the technical term of the position, the court finds it necessary for plaintiffs to modify the collective class definition to include Vacation Counselors. Plaintiffs are also ordered to modify their proposed notice and consent form to include Vacation Counselors. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS The Plaintiffs next request an order requiring defendants to provide contact information for the putative class members employed from May 29, 2015 through the present within 10 days, in order to effectuate notice. The Defendants do not oppose plaintiffs' request for a list of contact information for putative class members, but request that the contact information be submitted to a third-party administrator. The Defendants' failure to contest the request for the contact information constitutes consent to granting plaintiffs' motion on this issue. As for the issue of the third-party administrator, defendants argue that a third-party administrator is better equipped to handle the sensitive information. Having reviewed the docket, it appears that the parties have stipulated to a protective order. The protective order should suffice in ensuring the protection of the information. Therefore, the court grants the request for the production of the contact information for putative class members. CONSENT FORM Because the court has granted conditional certification, the court must now evaluate plaintiffs' proposed notice and consent form. Once a collective action is conditionally certified, the court may authorize plaintiffs' request to send notice to potential plaintiffs, and the court may set a deadline for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to the lawsuit. In issuing notices to putative class members, the court must take care to avoid even the appearance of judicial. The Plaintiffs have provided the court with a proposed notice and consent form. The Defendants request that the court reject the proposed notice and consent form, arguing that the form lacks judicial neutrality and that the language referencing plaintiffs' counsel's contingency fee should be omitted. Defendants further request that the court order plaintiff to include information regarding the contingency fee percentage agreed upon by plaintiffs and their counsel. Plaintiff replies that that the notice is sufficiently neutral because it provides language that the court has taken no position in this case. As for the issue of the contingency fee stated in section 5 of the proposed notice, the court finds that plaintiffs must amend the notice to include the percentage of the fee that plaintiffs agreed to pay their counsel and how that fee will be calculated. Lastly, the court does have one concern regarding the proposed notice form as it pertains to those that are subject to an arbitration agreement and those who have potentially released the claims at issue in this dispute. Defendants raise this issue and argue that certain putative members are not entitled to notice. Specifically, defendants argue that the following groups should not receive notice: employees subject to an arbitration agreement, employees who have released claims in the California Wage and Hour case and those employed more than two-years before the notice issue date. The Plaintiffs argue that defendants' arguments fail at this stage, as they require an assessment of the validity of the arbitration agreement and the release of claims. Plaintiffs also argue that any factual determinations of the scope of the collective action is appropriate for the second stage, and that the jury decides which statute of limitations period applies. The court finds plaintiffs' arguments persuasive for the following reasons. In support of their argument regarding the arbitration agreement, defendants cite to a recently issued Fifth Circuit case where the court concludes that district courts do not have discretion to require notice of a pending FLSA collective action to an employee subject to a binding arbitration agreement. While the court declines to evaluate the enforceability of the arbitration agreement or to evaluate the alleged release of claims, the court finds it reasonable for plaintiffs to include language that discusses how the arbitration agreement and a release of claims may potentially affect opt-in plaintiffs. As for the statute of limitations argument raised by defendants, that determination is also one that is better left for the second stage and, if necessary, the jury. The Plaintiffs are instructed to make all necessary changes consistent with this order, and to meet and confer with defendants' counsel prior to resubmitting an amended proposed notice and consent form. An amended prosed notice and consent form must be submitted to the court within 30 days from the date of this order. NOTICE PERIOD Next, plaintiffs request the court to approve a 90-day opt-in period. Defendants object to the period, arguing that courts in this district have routinely approved 60 days for plaintiffs to respond. The court finds that a 90-day period is reasonable, as it provided recipients of the notice sufficient time to consider their options and to determine whether they may opt-in, given the issues regarding the arbitration agreement and a potential release of claims. The 90-day period is also consistent with the notice time routinely granted in this circuit. The 90 days will begin on the date that the notice is mailed. MANNER OF SERVICE The Plaintiffs next contend that the notice and consent form should 1) be sent by plaintiffs' counsel via mail and email, 2) be posted by defendants on-site at all locations, and 3) be enclosed with the next-regularly scheduled paycheck for currently employed potential opt-in plaintiffs. Lastly, plaintiffs request that they be permitted to send a mail and email reminder. Defendants object to plaintiffs' request for multiple delivery methods, arguing that plaintiffs have failed to present a need or a compelling reason to justify a reminder notice. The court grants plaintiffs' request to contact putative class members by mail and by email. Mail is permitted, as it is the preferred method for class certification notice. The court finds it reasonable to permit electronic notice, as it is an efficient and inexpensive method for providing notice where the intended recipients have reasonably accessible email addresses. The court declines to order defendants to post the notice on-site at all locations, as plaintiffs have not demonstrated a need for this manner of service. Plaintiffs must submit an amended proposed postcard and email reminder that is consistent with this order, no later than 30 days from the date of this order. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs Daniel Gonzalez and Jeffrey Hughes' motion for conditional certification as a collective action is granted in part and denied in part as stated in this order. The Plaintiffs must modify the collective class definition to include Vacation Counselors. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2g2uhpt from Leagle.com. Daniel Gonzalez & Jeffrey Hughes, Plaintiffs, represented by Martin Douglas Holmes -- mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, pro hac vice, Michael N. Feder -- MFeder@dickinson-wright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC & Peter F. Klett, III -- pklett@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, pro hac vice. Diamond Resorts International Marketing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alison Megan Hamer -ahamer@HKemploymentlaw.com -- Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin Joseph Treger -- btreger@hkemploymentlaw.com -- Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, pro hac vice, Howard E. Cole -- hcole@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Kirstin Elisabeth Muller -- kmuller@HKemploymentlaw.com -- Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, pro hac vice & Jennifer K. Hostetler -- jhostetler@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP. West Maui Resorts Partners, L.P., Defendant, represented by Alison Megan Hamer, Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin Joseph Treger, Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, pro hac vice,Kirstin Elisabeth Muller, Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, pro hac vice & Jennifer K. Hostetler, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP. DOMINION ENERGY: Customers to Get Refunds as Part of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Emery Glover and Laurel Mallory, writing for WIS, report that some Dominion Energy customers will receive refunds following the settlement of a class-action lawsuit, according to company officials. The utility company agreed to a settlement in the lawsuit against SCE&G, regarding the failed V.C. summer nuclear project back in 2017. Customers who were charged for the construction of that nuclear project may be eligible for a refund. While the company denied the allegations brought forth in the suit, a settlement was reached in November. In June, a judge decided more than 1 million customers will split $146 million, which is the largest private class-action settlement in state history. Dominion took over SCE&G in January. All former SCE&G customers affected by the failed nuclear plant should have received notification about their rights under the settlement. The refund will come either in the form of a bill credit or cash. Officials with Dominion said bill credits will begin to apply to the next billing cycle after the company gets the information they need from a claims administrator. The timing on that is not yet clear. Customers who want more information should contact that administrator at 877-432-3808 or email info@scegratepayersettlement.com. A website was set also up for customers' questions, go to http://www.scegratepayersettlement.com/ to access it. [GN] DOMINION ENERGY: Some Customers to Receive Refunds in Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emery Glover and Laurel Mallory, writing for Live 5 News, reports that some Dominion Energy customers will receive refunds following the settlement of a class-action lawsuit, according to company officials. Some Dominion Energy customers will receive refunds following the settlement of a class-action lawsuit, according to company officials. Customers who want more information should contact that administrator at 877-432-3808 or email info@scegratepayersettlement.com A website was set also up for customers' questions. [GN] ECSD MANAGEMENT: Accused by Pilley of Invading Privacy Under TCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- G. AUSTIN PILLEY, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. ECSD MANAGEMENT, LLC dba Apothekare, Case No. 3:19-cv-01414-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal., July 29, 2019), arises from the Defendant's illegal actions in negligently contacting the Plaintiff through telephone calls on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy. Apothekare is a California limited liability company headquartered in San Diego, California. Apothekare touts itself as San Diego's largest cannabis shop selling medical and recreational marijuana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com - and - James E. Pilley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES E. PILLEY, APC PO Box 2612 Lakeside, CA 92040 Telephone: (619) 602-0076 Facsimile: (619) 272-0371 E-mail: james@jpilley.com ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Oct. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION Case No. 2017-02081-MJ SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All individuals and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Endo International plc ("Endo" or the "Company") issued in or traceable to Endo's June 5, 2015 offering of 27,627,628 shares. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania, that Plaintiff Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, on behalf of itself and the proposed Settlement Class,1 and the Company and the other defendants in the Action, have reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of $50,000,000 that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its entirety (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Edward Griffith at the Court of Common Pleas of the Chester County Justice Center, Pennsylvania, Courtroom 11, 201 W. Market Street, West Chester, PA 19380, at 1:30 p.m. on October 21 2019 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 27, 2019; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the Settlement, www.EndoInternationalSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Mississippi PERS v. Endo International c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173043 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class Counsel: Serena Hallowell, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than November 14, 2019. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than September 30, 2019. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are filed and received no later than September 30, 2019. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: July 31, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA All terms not defined herein shall have the definition assigned to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 27, 2019. FRED'S INC: Pawar Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Fred's Inc. (NASDAQ: FRED) between December 20, 2016 and June 28, 2017 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Fred's investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Fred's class action, go to http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/freds-inc/or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the FTC had informed Defendants that the merger between Rite Aid Corp. and Walgreens was unlikely to garner regulatory approval as then constituted because of the significant market overlap between Rite Aid and Walgreens stores; (2) Defendants did not possess "clarity" from their non-public discussions with FTC regulators that the deal would be approved, but, rather, FTC officials had expressed concern that the planned divestitures did not go far enough to preserve competition in the pharmaceutical marketplace; (3) delay in the regulatory review process and FTC requests for additional information were not simply routine and inconsequential as Defendants had represented; (4) FTC Staff indicated to Defendants that Fred's did not have the financial capability and incentives to acquire and operate the assets, nor the competitive ability to maintain or restore competition in the market; (5) Fred's wouldn't purchase the Rite Aid stores and certain assets related to store operations located across the eastern and western United States pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Fred's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 27, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world. Contact: Vik Pawar, Esq. Pawar Law Group 20 Vesey Street, Suite 1210 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (917) 261-2277 Fax: (212) 571-0938 Email: info@pawarlawgroup.com vik@pawarlawgroup.com [GN] GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Faces 3 Class Suits Related to TSYS Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Global Payments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in three putative class action suits related to the company's merger with Total System Services, Inc. ("TSYS"). On May 27, 2019, Global Payments and Total System Services, Inc. ("TSYS") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") providing for the merger of TSYS with and into Global Payments, with Global Payments as the surviving entity (the "Merger"). TSYS is a leading global payments provider, offering seamless, secure and innovative solutions across the payments spectrum - for issuers, merchants and consumers. Three putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger have been filed. Two of these lawsuits, captioned Peters v. Total System Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00114) and Wolf v. Total System Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00115), were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on July 18, 2019. The third lawsuit, captioned Drulias v. Global Payments Inc., et. al (Case No. 60774/2019) was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester on July 19, 2019. The Peters lawsuit names as defendants TSYS, the current members of the TSYS board of directors and certain former members of the TSYS board of directors. The Wolf lawsuit names as defendants TSYS, members of the TSYS board of directors and Global Payments. The Drulias lawsuit names as defendants Global Payments and members of its board. The complaints filed in the lawsuits assert, among other things, claims against the members of the TSYS board of directors (and in the case of the Wolf action and the Drulias action, against Global Payments) for filing a materially incomplete registration statement with the SEC. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits seek, among other things, an injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages to the extent they have already been implemented, and an award of damages and attorney's fees. Global Payments said, "We believe that the claims asserted in the lawsuits are without merit." Global Payments Inc., incorporated in September, 2000, is a provider of payment technology services. The Company provides payment and digital commerce solutions. The Company operates through three segments: North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia. GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all investors that purchased GTT Communications, Inc. (NYSE: GTT) securities between February 26, 2018 and July 1, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 30, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The complaint, filed on July 30, 2019, alleges that throughout the Class Period GTT assured investors that it had conducted extensive due diligence on Interoute, and the acquisition was a natural strategic fit for GTT. GTT stated that the two companies "fit together almost hand in glove." After the deal closed, GTT assured investors that Interoute's integration into the Company was "on track" and "not as complex" as many of the Company's previous integrations. Investors began to learn the truth on May 8, 2019, when GTT disclosed a larger than expected loss for the first quarter of 2019, including a sequential decline in revenues. GTT blamed its poor performance on a host of issues with the Interoute integration, including migrating legacy systems into GTT's management database, discrepancies with Interoute's billing systems, and a poor salesforce. GTT further disclosed that shortly before the acquisition, Interoute had made a strategic shift to sell cloud services that deviated from GTT's core cloud networking business. In response to these disclosures, GTT's stock price plummeted 17.5% on May 8, 2019, and continued to fall the following day, for a two-day decline of over 25%. The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against GTT and certain of its senior executives ("Defendants"). The action alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants issued a series of false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about GTT's business, operations, and prospects, and the Interoute acquisition specifically. Among other things, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) there were delays in migrating Interoute's legacy systems and processes into GTT's client management database system; (2) Interoute had made a strategic shift to focus on providing cloud services that deviated from GTT's core cloud networking business; (3) Interoute's sales force was underperforming and ineffective at selling GTT's core cloud networking services; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased GTT shares during the Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For additional information concerning the GTT class action please go to https://bespc.com/GTT. For additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. Tel.No.: (212) 355-4648 Website: www.bespc.com Email: investigations@bespc.com walker@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com [GN] GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood announces that on July 30, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against GTT Communications, Inc. (GTT). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is February 26, 2018 through July 1, 2019. To learn how to participate in this action, please visit https://tinyurl.com/y5pa5r6b Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all GTT Communications, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, September 30, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: Robin Hester, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Website: www.federmanlaw.com E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN] GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. on July 30 disclosed that it has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against GTT Communications, Inc. ("GTT" or the "Company") (NYSE: GTT) on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GTT common stock between February 26, 2018 and July 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased GTT common stock during the Class Period and wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court by no later than September 30, 2019. You may contact David Kaplan (dkaplan@saxenawhite.com), an attorney and Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the class action. You may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member. GTT provides cloud networking services to multinational companies. Since 2015, the Company pursued growth through a roll-up strategy in which it would acquire relatively small companies through "tuck-in" acquisitions. However, in February 2018, in sharp contrast to its historical strategy of acquiring smaller companies, GTT announced that it was purchasing Interoute Communications Holdings S.A. ("Interoute"), a telecommunications company that operated Europe's largest cloud services platform in a transformational $2.3 billion acquisition that essentially doubled GTT's size. Throughout the Class Period, GTT assured investors that it had conducted extensive due diligence on Interoute, and the acquisition was a natural strategic fit for GTT -- that the two companies "fit together almost hand in glove." After the deal closed, GTT assured investors that Interoute's integration into the Company was "on track" and "not as complex" as many of the Company's previous integrations. Investors began to learn the truth on May 8, 2019, when GTT disclosed a larger than expected loss for the first quarter of 2019, including a sequential decline in revenues. GTT blamed its poor performance on a host of issues with the Interoute integration, including migrating legacy systems into GTT's management database, discrepancies with Interoute's billing systems, and a poor salesforce. GTT further disclosed that shortly before the acquisition, Interoute had made a strategic shift to sell cloud services that deviated from GTT's core cloud networking business. In response to these disclosures, GTT's stock price plummeted 17.5% on May 8, 2019, and continued to fall the following day, for a two-day decline of over 25%. The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against GTT and certain of its senior executives ("Defendants"). The action alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants issued a series of false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about GTT's business, operations, and prospects, and the Interoute acquisition specifically. Among other things, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) there were delays in migrating Interoute's legacy systems and processes into GTT's client management database system; (2) Interoute had made a strategic shift to focus on providing cloud services that deviated from GTT's core cloud networking business; (3) Interoute's sales force was underperforming and ineffective at selling GTT's core cloud networking services; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the class action at www.saxenawhite.com With offices in Florida, New York, and California, Saxena White P.A -- https://saxenawhite.com -- concentrates its practice on prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. [GN] INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors that approximately five weeks remain to make a motion for lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders that acquired shares of Intelligent Systems Corporation ("INS" or the "Company") (NYSE: INS) between January 23, 2019, and May 29, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and seeks to recover damages for INS investors under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased INS securities during the Class Period, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit INS Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. According to the lawsuit, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors:(1) Defendant Petit, the "financial expert" on Intelligent Systems' Audit Committee engaged in accounting fraud as the CEO of MiMedx Group, Inc.; (2) Intelligent Systems' CEO, Defendant Strange, engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions with Defendant Petit and others and had an undisclosed personal relationship with the Company's auditor; (3) Intelligent Systems had its employees set up or take control of shell companies in Asia so they could partake in undisclosed related-party transactions for the purpose of either fabricating revenue for the Company and/or siphoning money out of the Company; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Intelligent Systems' business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On May 24, 2019, before market hours, Aurelius Value published a report "INS: A Wolf in Pete's Clothing." The report discussed MiMedx Group's disclosures concerning Defendant Petit and also accused the Company's CEO, Defendant Strange, inter alia, of engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions with Defendant Petit and others and of an undisclosed personal relationship with INS's auditor, Nicolas Cauley. On this news, shares of INS fell $4.18 per share, or more than 10% to close at $34.93 per share on May 24, 2019, damaging investors. On May 30, 2019, before the market opened, Grizzly Research LLC issued a report entitled "Intelligent Systems Corp: Material Undisclosed Related Party Transactions Cast Doubt on the Integrity of Financial Statements." The report presented evidence that "Intelligent Systems Corp. (INS) has its employees set up or take control of undisclosed shell companies in Asia, who then partake in undisclosed related party transactions with INS intended to either round-trip revenue back to INS or siphon money out of the company." It further stated that "there is a possibility that all revenue growth since January 2018 has been a result of undisclosed round-trip transactions with Indian related parties." On this news, shares of INS fell $6.82 from the prior day's closing price of $33.81 or over 20%, to close at $26.99 per share on May 30, 2019. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court no later than September 9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased INS securities during the Class Period, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit https://tinyurl.com/yxstsqy9 or contact Matthew Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact: Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Website: https://www.bernlieb.com Tel.No.: (877) 779-1414 Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cavada Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MALLORY CAVADA, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP, INC., a Corporation; IHG MANAGEMENT MARYLAND LLC, a Limited Liability Company; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, INC., a Corporation; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2019-00039279-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., July 29, 2019), accuses the Defendants of not paying minimum and overtime wages under the California Labor Code. Inter-Continental Hotels Group, Inc. is a corporation that conducts substantial business in California. IHG Management Maryland LLC is a limited liability company that conducts substantial business in California. Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. is a corporation that conducts substantial business in California. Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, LLC is a limited liability company that conducts substantial business in California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the Plaintiff. The Defendants own and operate hotels in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com Kyle@bamlawca.com aj@bamlawca.com INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Anemone Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Helen Anemone, Carlos Perez, Veronica Aguirre, Evangelina Martinez, Melisa Magana, Gabriele Mendoza, Maria de San Juan Cajigas, Maria Ruiz, Divine Igiraneza, Sivia Martinez, and Ruth Ali, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Interstate Management Company, LLC dba HyattCentric Chicago, Case No. 1:19-cv-03205 (N.D. Ill., May 12, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, and failed to provide break periods and lunch or discounting excessive time for lunch breaks and failed to pay all earned wages for all time worked when due. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in their business performing mostly housekeeping duties. The Defendant is a Limited Liability Corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, which runs the Hyatt Centric hotel at 100 W. Monroe in Chicago.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jorge Sanchez, Esq. Baldemar Lopez, Esq. LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 420-6784 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss REMICADE(R) Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that motions to dismiss have been denied in both the direct and indirect purchaser cases related to Janssen Biotech, Inc.'s REMICADE(R). Beginning in September 2017, multiple purported class actions of direct and indirect purchasers were filed against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) alleging that Janssen's REMICADE(R) contracting strategies violated federal and state antitrust and consumer laws and seeking damages and injunctive relief. In November 2017, the cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation. A motion to compel arbitration of the direct purchaser case was denied and is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss were denied in both the direct and indirect purchaser cases. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss TRACLEER(R)-Related Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd. is seeking to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action suit related to sales of TRACLEER(R). In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc., and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. (collectively "Actelion") in United States District Court for the District of Maryland and United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of TRACLEER(R). TRACLEER(R) is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, which imposes restrictions on distribution of the product. In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In February 2019, Actelion filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Summary Judgment in Contact Lens Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that defendants' motions for summary judgment in the contact lens-related class action suit, are pending in the District Court. In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November 2015. In December 2018, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants filed two motions for interlocutory appeal of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Both motions were denied. Defendants' motions for summary judgment are pending in the District Court. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Related Class Suit in Virginia Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that in April 2019, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc. launched a class action complaint against Janssen Biotech, Inc, Janssen Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research & Development, LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Sherman Act and the antitrust and consumer protections laws of several states by pursuing patent litigation relating to ZYTIGA(R) in order to delay generic entry. The case has been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JUST ENERGY: Faces Goitein Suit over 15% Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ ELI GOITEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUST ENERGY GROUP INC.; DEBORAH MERRIL; JAMES LEWIS; PATRICK MCCULLOUGH; and JIM BROWN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07181 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that acquired Just Energy securities between November 9, 2017 and July 23, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Company Just Energy purports to be a consumer company focused on essential needs, including electricity and natural gas commodities; on health and well-being, through products such as water quality and filtration devices; and on utility conservation, including renewable energy options. On July 23, 2019, the Company disclosed that it had "identified customer enrolment and non-payment issues, primarily in Texas, over the past 12 months" and that, as a result, it expected an impairment charge of CAD $45 to $50 million to its Texas residential accounts receivable. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.66 per share, more than 15%, to close at $3.72 per share on July 23, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company experienced customer enrollment and nonpayment issues; (2) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur an impairment charge to its accounts receivable; (3) that, as a result, the Company lacked adequate internal control over its financial reporting; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Just Energy Group, Inc. sells natural gas and electricity to residential and commercial customers under long-term fixed-price and price-protected contracts. The Company also offers its customers the option to receive all or part of their electricity and natural gas from renewable sources. Just Energy operates in Canada and the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com -and- Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com KERRY FOODS: Benoskie Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------- Kathy Benoskie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kerry Foods Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00684 (E.D. Wis., May 10, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Defendant manufactures products for the food and beverage industry. The Plaintiff performed compensable work as an hourly-paid, non-exempt manufacturing employee at the Defendant's manufacturing facility located at N168 W21455 Main Street, Jackson, Wisconsin 53037. The Defendant's deliberate failure to compensate its hourly-paid, non-exempt manufacturing employees for hours worked at the proper and legal rates of pay and failure to provide overtime rates, violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, asserts the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott S. Luzi, Esq. James A. Walcheske, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Tel: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com KOHL'S CORPORATION: Court Terminates Ankcorn Case ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Mark Ankcorn, the Plaintiff, v. Kohl's Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-01303 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order on Aug. 1, 2019 terminating the civil case. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 1, 2019, the Plaintiff has dismissed his individual claims with prejudice and the putative class claims without prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs incurred. Any pending deadline(s) and motion(s) are stricken as moot.[CC] LARIO OIL: Class of Oilfield Workers Conditionally Certified ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as NATHAN HANCOCK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LARIO OIL & GAS CO., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02140-JAR-KGG (D. Kan), the Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson entered an order on August 1, 2019: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification; 2. conditionally certifying Plaintiff's collective action under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for the following class of persons: "all oilfield workers who were or are employed by Defendant as a Wellsite/Drill Site Manager or "company man," and who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day rate at any time within the three years preceding the present date"; 3. designating Nathan Hancock as the class representative; 4. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; 5. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to approve Plaintiff's form of notice to be reasserted after the parties have conferred and modified the notice; 6. directing parties to submit a joint amended proposed notice and consent-to-join form, as well as a brief statement summarizing the notice distribution plan, to the Court for approval within 14 days of the Court's order; and 7. directing Defendant, within 14 days of the Court's Order, to provide Plaintiff a list in electronic and importable format, of the first and last names, last-known home addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, employee ID numbers, and dates of employment for all members of the putative class.[CC] LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Suit Still Awaits Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that the settlement in the case entitled, In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation, still awaits court approval. Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three putative securities class actions against the Company and several former executives relating to the Company's contract to develop and implement an automated time and attendance and workforce management system for certain agencies of the City of New York ("CityTime"). One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants made misleading statements or omissions about the Company's revenues, operating income and internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued an opinion affirming in part, and vacating in part, the District Court's ruling. The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted on March 27, 2017. The District Court granted the Company's request to stay all proceedings, including discovery, pending the outcome at the Supreme Court. In September 2017, the parties engaged in mediation resulting in an agreement to settle all remaining claims for an immaterial amount to be paid by the Company. The amounts payable by the Company are covered by an insurance policy. The terms of the proposed settlement remain subject to court approval. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Leidos Holdings, Inc. provides services and solutions in the defense, intelligence, civil, and health markets in the United States and internationally. It operates through three segments: Defense Solutions, Civil, and Health. The company was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia. LONGFIN CORP: Court Dismisses Claims Against Network 1 ------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration in the casa captioned IN RE LONGFIN CORP. SECURITIES CLASS ACTION LITIGATION. No. 18cv2933(DLC). (S.D.N.Y.). Defendant Network 1 Financial Securities Inc., a broker-dealer, filed a motion for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order denying in part Network 1's motion to dismiss this securities fraud action. This federal securities class action is brought against defendants Longfin Corp., Network 1, Andy Altahawi and other Longfin executives and insiders on behalf of investors who purchased Longfin's stock. This class action is one of several shareholder suits filed in the wake of an SEC investigation of Longfin. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed suit against Longfin and its executives and insiders and shortly thereafter acquired a court order freezing $27 million in proceeds from sales of Longfin Class A stock. The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict. Reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked. A motion for reconsideration should be granted only when the defendant identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Network 1 seeks reconsideration of the April 11 Opinion's determination that the FAC adequately plead Network 1's scienter with regard to its Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 claim. Section 10(b) makes it unlawful to use or employ any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in violation of any Commission rules and regulations. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 actions brought by private plaintiffs cannot assert a cause of action for aiding and abetting. Rather, the conduct of a secondary actor must satisfy each of the elements or preconditions for liability. But, even a bit participant in the securities markets may be liable as a primary violator under Rule 10b-5 so long as all of the requirements for primary liability are met. Where a defendant is alleged not to have simply facilitated manipulative conduct, but rather to be a co-participant in the manipulative scheme and profited by that scheme, a defendant may be liable as a primary violator. Because a claim for market manipulation is a claim for fraud, it must be pled with particularity under Rule 9(b). In order for a securities fraud claim to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff's complaint must also state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind. Upon reconsideration, the SAC does not adequately plead Network 1's scienter. The April 11 Opinion found that, while a close question, the allegations in the FAC gave rise to a strong inference that Network 1 knew the December 6 Shares were not validly issued. In reaching this conclusion, the April 11 Opinion relied upon the allegations in the FAC that the bank statements provided to Network 1 by Altahawi did not contain proof of purchase of the December 6 Shares and that Network 1 would have recognized insiders, such as Ratakonda, in the list of 24 individual purchasers of the December 6 Shares. Upon re-examination of these allegations, combined with the additional allegations contained in the SAC, the plaintiffs have not adequately alleged scienter. The allegations are not as cogent or compelling as the inference that Network 1 was lied to by Longfin. Network 1 asked for confirmation that the December 6 Shares had been paid for on three separate occasions and each time was assured that they had been validly purchased. Twice, Network 1 received bank statements purporting to show payment and the third time was falsely told by Meenavalli that the December 6 Shares had been paid for. These allegations give rise to an inference that Network 1 did not know that the December 6 Shares were issued for no consideration. The plaintiffs emphasize the SAC's assertions that three accounts contained no evidence of payments for the December 6 Shares. These assertions do not change the calculus. The SAC does not contain allegations linking these three accounts to the bank statements provided to Network 1. Similarly, while the SAC asserts that Network 1 "must have known that individuals on the list of 24 December 6 Shareholders" were Longfin insiders, it provides no particularized allegations that support this assertion. Although Ratakonda, one of the 24 December 6 Shareholders, was a high-level Longfin executive, Network 1 is not alleged to have had any communications with him or to have known of his role. Taken together, the allegations in the SAC lead to a stronger inference that Network 1 was not aware of its role in Longfin's scheme to defraud investors than the inference that it was a knowing participant. There is no doubt that Longfin's Reg A+ offering was an essential part of its scheme to defraud investors. It was through this offering that Longfin was able to reach the 1,000,000-share minimum necessary to be listed on the NASDAQ market. And, Longfin's fraudulent issuance of the December 6 Shares was critical to its reaching that 1,000,000 share minimum. While it would not be difficult to imagine the various ways in which a lead underwriter in the Reg A+ offering could have acted to knowingly further this manipulative scheme, the plaintiffs must plausibly and adequately plead such knowing participation. The SAC does not do so. Accordingly, Network 1's motion for reconsideration of the April 11 Opinion is granted and the claims against Network 1 are dismissed in their entirety. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy92v5oh from Leagle.com. Mohammad A Malik, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Enright -- denright@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Christopher James Kupka -- ckupka@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. Karthik Reddy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rhiana Lauren Swartz -- RSWARTZ@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott + Scott, L.L.P., Christopher James Kupka , Levi & Korsinsky, LLP & Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV -- TLAUGHLIN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott Scott, L.L.P. LongFin Corp., Defendant, pro se. Venkat S. Meenavalli, Defendant, pro se. Vivek Kumar Ratakonda, Defendant, pro se. Andy Altahawi, Defendant, represented by Robert Gerard Heim -- rheim@tarterkrinsky.com -- Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP. Dorababu Penumarthi, Defendant, pro se. MARKEL CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------- Markel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit in New York related to the Markel CATCo Inquiries. Between January 11, 2019 and March 7, 2019, several related putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Markel Corporation and certain present or former officers and directors alleging violations of the federal securities laws relating to the matters that are the subject of the Markel CATCo Inquiries. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons or entities that purchased Markel securities between July 26, 2017 and December 6, 2018. The actions have been consolidated. Markel said "We believe that the claims are without merit." Markel Corporation, a diverse financial holding company, markets and underwrites specialty insurance products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and internationally. Markel Corporation was founded in 1930 and is headquartered in Glen Allen, Virginia. MASTERCARD INC: Canadian Suit over Point-of-Sale Acceptance Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend class action suits in Canada related to its rules related to point-of-sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge" rules. In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. The suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's favor) concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge" rules. The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against Mastercard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The British Columbia suit sought compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit sought compensatory damages of $5 billion on the basis of alleged conspiracy and various alleged breaches of the Canadian Competition Act. Additional purported class action complaints were commenced in Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in the other suits. In June 2017, Mastercard entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve all of the Canadian class action litigation. The settlement, which requires Mastercard to make a cash payment and modify its "no surcharge" rule, has received court approval in each Canadian province. Objectors to the settlement have sought to appeal the approval orders. In 2017, Mastercard recorded a provision for litigation of $15 million related to this matter. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MASTERCARD INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set in November ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court has scheduled a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement of the "Damage Class" in November 2019. In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state law. The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard, Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint that seeks treble damages. In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard’s initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between Mastercard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release, without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to assess them for Mastercard's litigation liabilities. The class plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association and a number of financial institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing agreement with a number of financial institutions. The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant litigations. Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial institutions with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards, Mastercard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement. In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above. Mastercard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its business practices, including its "no surcharge" rule. The court granted final approval of the settlement in December 2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In June 2016, the court of appeals vacated the class action certification, reversed the settlement approval and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings. The court of appeals' ruling was based primarily on whether the merchants were adequately represented by counsel in the settlement. As a result of the appellate court ruling, the district court divided the merchants' claims into two separate classes - monetary damages claims (the "Damages Class") and claims seeking changes to business practices (the "Rules Relief Class"). The court appointed separate counsel for each class. Prior to the reversal of the settlement approval, merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the Mastercard and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the class settlement. Mastercard had anticipated that most of the larger merchants who opted out of the settlement would initiate separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in various jurisdictions. Mastercard has executed settlement agreements with a number of opt-out merchants. Mastercard believes these settlement agreements are not impacted by the ruling of the court of appeals. The defendants have consolidated all of these matters in front of the same federal district court that approved the merchant class settlement. In July 2014, the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the opt-out merchant complaints for failure to state a claim. In September 2018, the parties to the Damages Class litigation entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve the Damages Class claims. Mastercard increased its reserve by $237 million during 2018 to reflect both its expected financial obligation under the Damages Class settlement agreement and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases. In January 2019, the district court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and authorized notice of the settlement to class members. Damages Class members will now have the opportunity to opt out of the class settlement agreement. If more than 25% of the merchant purchase volume opts out of the settlement, the defendants would have the option to terminate the settlement agreement. The court has scheduled a final approval hearing in November 2019. The settlement agreement does not relate to the Rules Relief Class claims. Separate settlement negotiations with the Rules Relief Class are ongoing. As of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, Mastercard had accrued a liability of $916 million and $915 million, respectively, as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases. As of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, Mastercard had $662 million and $553 million, respectively, in a qualified cash settlement fund related to the merchant class litigation and classified as restricted cash on its consolidated balance sheet. During the first quarter of 2019, Mastercard increased its qualified cash settlement fund by $108 million in accordance with the January 2019 preliminary approval of the settlement. Mastercard believes the reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchants represents its best estimate of its probable liabilities in these matters. The portion of the accrued liability relating to both the opt-out merchants and the merchant class litigation settlement does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the matters were litigated to a final outcome. Mastercard cannot estimate the potential liability if that were to occur. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MASTERCARD INC: Shift Fraud Liability Suit Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself against a merchant class action suit involving conspiracy to shift fraud liability. In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"), EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants") engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the "EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and California law. Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against future violations of governing law, and the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. In September 2016, the court denied the Network Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the court transferred the case to New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S. merchant class interchange litigation. The plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion for class certification, following the district court's denial of their initial motion. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MASTERCARD INC: Suits over ATM Surcharge Fees Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company expects briefing on class certification in the class action lawsuits related to ATM Surcharge Fees to be completed before the end of 2019 in both actions. In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint"). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed over Mastercard's and Visa's respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM Consumer Complaints"). The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants’ ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and sent the case back for further proceedings. Mastercard expects briefing on class certification to be completed before the end of 2019 in both actions. Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MASTERCARD INC: TCPA Class Suit in Florida Remains Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class action suit in Florida is still stayed. Mastercard is a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class action pending in Florida. The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege that approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas Bank ("FAB"). The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax. Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has disputed). In June 2018, the court granted Mastercard's motion to stay the proceedings until the Federal Communications Commission makes a decision on the application of the TCPA to online fax services. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction processing and other payment-related products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. MDL 2492: Adams Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Ricky Adams, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02567 (Filed June 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 2, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05132 the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. The Adams case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Belcha Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Daniel Belcha and Johnny Johnson, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01883 (Filed May 9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 2, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05125 the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. The Belcha case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Goins Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Harvey Goins, Jr., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02565 (Filed June 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 2, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05131 the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. The Goins case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Grant Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Andrew Grant, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02208 (Filed June 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 2, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05128 the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. The Grant case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Jones Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Erik Jones, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02564 (Filed June 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 2, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05130 the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. The Jones case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Kubik Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Brad Kubik, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01884 (Filed May 9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 2, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05126 the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. The Kubik case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2492: Simmons Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Christopher Simmons, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02209 (Filed June 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 2, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05129 the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of student-athletes. The Simmons case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents' arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the litigation, the Panel said. Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope. Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of concussions in football players and its policies governing the protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members. In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER S LANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 554 9099 Facsimile: 713 554 9098 E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com MDL 2818: Court OKs Leave to File Supplemental Authority -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Notice of Supplemental Authority in the case captioned IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS AIR CONDITIONING MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION This Document Relates to ALL CASES. Case No. 18-md-2818, MDL No. 2818. The Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File a Notice of Supplemental Authority in support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Mas Class Action Complaint. After considering the Motion, accompanying papers, and any response thereto, A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4gyn7rb from Leagle.com. Mohamed Tangara, Thomas L Brennan, Lauren Heiser & Christopher Humpherys, Plaintiffs, represented by Bryan L. Clobes, CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP, 205 N Monroe St., Media, PA 19063, Christopher Phillip Taylor Tourek, Bock & Hatch LLC, 134 N. LaSalle. Suite 1000. Chicago, IL 60602, E. Powell Miller -- epm@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, Joseph G. Sauder, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, 555 Lancaster Ave. Berwyn, PA 19312, Patrick E. Cafferty, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, 205 N Monroe St., Media, PA 19063, Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@millaw.law -The Miller Law Firm, P.C. & William Kalas WK@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C. General Motors LLC & General Motors Company, Defendants, represented by Daniel J. LaCombe – dlacombe@bsdd.com -- Barris, Sott, Mark S. Cheffo -- mark.cheffo@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, Amisha Patel -- amisha.patel@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, Hayden A. Coleman -- hayden.coleman@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP & Michelle Yeary -- michelle.yeary@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP. General Motors Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert LLP, Amisha Patel, Dechert LLP, Hayden A. Coleman, Dechert LLP & Michelle Yeary, Dechert LLP. MERIWETHER COUNTY, GA: Barbee Suit Alleges FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- David Barbee, on behalf of himself and other non-exempt Emergency Medical Technicians and former employees similarly situated v. Meriwether County Georgia, Case No. 3:19-cv-00045 (N.D. Ga., May 10, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff overtime pay at the statutory rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate for those hours worked in excess of forty hours per work week and has failed to maintain proper time records mandated by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt Emergency Medical Technician and performed related activities for Defendant in Meriwether County, Georgia from at least May 2016 and continuing through June 2017. Meriwether County is a county located in the west central portion of the U.S. state of Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Tel: (954) 967-5377 Fax: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com METLIFE INC: Sept. 16 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the MetLife Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CITY OF WESTLAND POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. METLIFE, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00256-LAK CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED METLIFE, INC. COMMON STOCK IN THE AUGUST 3, 2010 OFFERING OR THE MARCH 4, 2011 OFFERING AND ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED METLIFE, INC. COMMON STOCK BETWEEN FEBRUARY 9, 2011, AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF METLIFE, INC.'S FOURTH QUARTER AND FULL YEAR 2010 RESULTS, AND OCTOBER 6, 2011,INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the above-captioned securities class action lawsuit (the "Litigation") is currently pending against the Defendants before the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, United States District Judge, Southern District of New York. Two plaintiff classes (the "Classes") were certified by the Court. One class, the Securities Act of 1933 class (the "1933 Act Class"), includes all persons who purchased or acquired MetLife common stock in the Company's August 3, 2010 Offering or the Company's March 4, 2011 Offering (the "Offerings"). Excluded from the 1933 Act Class are: (i) Defendants and their families; (ii) the officers and directors of MetLife at all relevant times; (iii) members of their immediate families; (iv) their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and (v) any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Another class, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 class (the "1934 Act Class"), includes all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired MetLife common stock between February 9, 2011, after the publication of MetLife's fourth quarter and full year 2010 results, and October 6, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged by Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Excluded from the 1934 Act Class are: (i) MetLife; (ii) the Individual Defendants; (iii) the Underwriter Defendants; (iv) the members of the immediate families of each Individual Defendant; (v) any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; (vi) the officers and directors of MetLife; and (vii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any such excluded party. The Court has directed that notice of the Court's certification of the Litigation as a class action on behalf of the Classes be provided to such persons and entities. No resolution of the Litigation has yet been reached. There is no money available now and no guarantee that there will be. If you purchased or acquired MetLife common stock in the August 3, 2010 Offering, the March 4, 2011 Offering, or during the Class Period, you may be a "Class Member" and your rights may be affected by this Litigation. If you have not received a copy of the detailed "Notice of Pendency of Class Action," you may obtain a copy by contacting the Notice Administrator at: MetLife Securities Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 404152, Louisville, KY, 40233-4152, or by calling 1-888-300-1049, or by downloading a copy at www.MetLifeSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member and did not receive the Notice by mail, please send your name and address to the Notice Administrator so that if any future notices are disseminated in connection with the Litigation, you will receive them. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Court-appointed Class Counsel: Shawn A. Williams ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 800/449-4900 www.rgrdlaw.com If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to remain a member of the Classes. If you choose to remain a member of the Classes, you do not need to do anything at this time other than retain your documentation reflecting your transactions in MetLife common stock. You will automatically be included in the applicable Class, and you will be bound by the proceedings in this Litigation, including all past, present and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class Member and do not wish to remain a member of the Classes, you must take steps to exclude yourself from the Classes. To exclude yourself from the Classes, you must submit a written request for exclusion to the Notice Administrator postmarked no later than September 16, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the mailed Notice. If you choose to exclude yourself, you cannot get money or benefits recovered if any are awarded at a later date. This Notice is only a summary. For more information visit www.MetLifeSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-800-449-4900. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: June 17, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 1 "Defendants" include MetLife, Inc. ("MetLife" or the "Company"), C. Robert Henrikson, William J. Wheeler, Peter M. Carlson, Steven A. Kandarian, William J. Mullaney, Sylvia Matthews Burwell, Eduardo Castro-Wright, Cheryl W. Grise, R. Glenn Hubbard, John M. Keane, Alfred F. Kelly, Jr., James M. Kilts, Catherine R. Kinney, Hugh B. Price, David Satcher, Kenton J. Sicchitano and Lulu C. Wang (the "Individual Defendants"). For purposes of this Notice, the term "MetLife" includes MetLife, Inc., its subsidiaries and/or affiliates, or any of them. Defendants also include Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (the "Underwriter Defendants"). 2 The allegations under the Securities Exchange Act are asserted only against MetLife, Inc. and the Individual Defendants. MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Baten Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Michigan Logistics, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Randy Baten v. Michigan Logistics, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-10229-GW-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The nature of suit is stated as other labor litigation. The appellate case is captioned as Randy Baten v. Michigan Logistics, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-55865, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by August 26, 2019; -- Transcript is due on September 23, 2019; -- Appellants Larry Browne, California Logistics, Inc., Michigan Logistics, Inc. and Western Delivery and Logistics, LLC's opening brief is due on November 4, 2019; -- Appellee Randy Baten's answering brief is due on December 4, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee RANDY BATEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Rachel Bien, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (323) 673-9000 E-mail: rmb@outtengolden.com Defendants-Appellants MICHIGAN LOGISTICS, INC., DBA Diligent Delivery Systems; CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS, INC., DBA Diligent Delivery Systems; WESTERN DELIVERY AND LOGISTICS, LLC, DBA Diligent Delivery Systems; and LARRY BROWNE are represented by: Steven A. Groode, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 E-mail: sgroode@littler.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Garafola Suit Moved to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- The case, Lynnann Garafola on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 604554/2019, was removed from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) on Aug. 2, 2019. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-04446 to the proceeding. The suit demands $501,000 in damages. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Midland Credit was founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short periods.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for Midland Credit Management, Inc. are: Dana Brett Briganti, Esq. Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471-6200 Facsimile: (212) 935-1166 E-mail: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com esilverman@hinshawlaw.com NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Court Extends Page Limit of Dismissal Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, issued an Order extending the Page Limit for Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Lead Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the case captioned IN RE NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS SECURITIES LITIGATION. Case No. 4:18-cv-06607-HSG. (N.D. Cal.). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, Lead Plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and El Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws against Defendants. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation extending Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint, Defendants' motion to dismiss is due by August 2, 2019. Because of the length and nature of the Complaint which spans 74 pages and 203 paragraphs, concerns dozens of challenged statements, and asserts claims against seven defendants with potentially differing bases for dismissal, efendants request an additional 10 pages for their memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss in order to allow for a more complete discussion of numerous complicated issues related to Lead Plaintiffs' claims. The Lead Plaintiffs do not oppose an extension of the page limit for the Defendants' memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss to 35 pages. The Defendants do not oppose a corresponding extension of the page limit for Lead Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss to 35 pages. The Defendants' memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss will not exceed 35 pages. Lead Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss will not exceed 35 pages and Defendants' reply in support of its motion to dismiss will not exceed 15 pages. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Memorandum Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4sycfgd from Leagle.com. John Mulquin, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Nektar Therapeutics, Howard W. Robin & Gil Labrucherie, Defendants, represented by Sara B. Brody -- SBRODY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Alison Fiona Dame-Boyle -- adameboyle@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, Matthew James Dolan -- MDOLAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Robin Eve Wechkin -- RWECHKIN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice. John Nicholson, Stephen K Doberstein, Mary Tagliaferri, Jonathan Zalevsky & Ivan P Gergel, Defendants, represented by Sara B. Brody -- SBRODY@SIDLEY.COM- Sidley Austin LLP & Robin Eve Wechkin, Sidley Austin LLP. Lynn Ronnebaum, Movant, represented by Adam Marc Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi Korsinsky, LLP. OASMIA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Mikhlin Suit Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- MARK MIKHLIN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OASMIA PHARMACEUTICAL AB, JULIAN ALEKSOV, MIKAEL ASP, ANDERS LUNDIN, FREDRIK GYNNERSTEDT, and ANDERS BLOM, Case No. 1:19-cv-04349 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June 28, 2019, Oasmia issued a press release that stated it was reporting suspicious transactions made between Oasmia and Alceco International S.A. and Ardenia Investment LTD to the Swedish Economic Crime Authority and appointing a special examiner to review them. On this news, shares of Oasmia fell $0.319 per share, or almost 24%, to close at $1.021 per share on June 28, 2019, damaging investors, including the Plaintiff. Alceco, a company controlled by Defendant Julian Aleksov and Aleksov's former father-in-law, Bo Cederstrand ("Cederstrand"), who was a Board member of the Company at that time. Ardenia Investment LTD ("Ardenia") is another company controlled by Aleksov and Cederstrand. Mr. Aleksov is the the founder and former Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Oasmia is incorporated in Sweden and its principal executive offices are located in Uppsala, Sweden. The Company's American Depository Shares ("ADSs") have traded on the NASDAQ Capital Market ("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "OASM" since October 23, 2015. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Oasmia purports to be a pharmaceutical company focused on innovative treatments within human and animal oncology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com OASMIA PHARMACEUTICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 31 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Oasmia Pharmaceutical AB (NASDAQ: OASM) from October 23, 2015 through July 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Oasmia investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Oasmia class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1620.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Oasmia engaged in improper related-party transactions with Alceco International S.A. and Ardenia Investment LTD, which were controlled by Defendant Aleksov and his former father-in-law; (2) due to those transactions, millions of Swedish kronor were not accounted for in Oasmia's books; (3) transactions concerning Oasmia's patents were also "carried out in a doubtful way;" and (4) as a result of the aforementioned misconduct, defendants' statements about Oasmia's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 27, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1620.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. [GN] OOMA INC: Oct. 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the Ooma Securities Litigation: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO In re OOMA, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Lead Case No. CIV536959 CLASS ACTION Complex Case Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Gerald J. Buchwald, Dept. 10 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED OOMA, INC. ("OOMA" OR THE TO: "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH OOMA'S JULY 17, 2015 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ("IPO" OR "JULY 2015 IPO") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on October 18, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Gerald J. Buchwald at the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Department 10, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")^2 for $8,650,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amount; (4) to pay Plaintiffs for representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate. This Action is a consolidated securities class action brought on behalf of those persons who purchased or acquired Ooma common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus for Ooma's IPO, against Ooma and certain of its officers and directors and the IPO's underwriters (collectively, "Defendants") for, among other things, allegedly misstating and omitting material facts from the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the IPO. Plaintiffs allege that these purportedly false and misleading statements inflated the price of the Company's stock, resulting in damage to Class Members when the truth was revealed. Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED OOMA COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JULY 17, 2015 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JANUARY 14, 2016, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than October 14, 2019) or electronically (no later than October 14, 2019). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by October 14, 2019, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you are a member of the Class and do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents, online at www.OomaSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by writing to: Ooma Securities Litigation Settlement c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 404146 Louisville, KY 40233-4146 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Class Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 800/449-4900 IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY SEPTEMBER 13, 2019, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFFS FOR REPRESENTING THE CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY SEPTEMBER 13, 2019, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO THE HONORABLE GERALD J. BUCHWALD DATED: June 24, 2019 For purposes of this Settlement only, the Class includes all persons or 1 entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Ooma common stock on or before January 14, 2016. 2 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.OomaSecuritiesLitigation.com. PANASONIC CORP: Dec. 12 Resistor Settlement Approval Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Settlements totaling approximately $33.4 million have been reached with Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, KOA Corporation, KOA Speer Electronics, Inc., ROHM Co., Ltd., ROHM Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Hokuriku Electric Industry Co., HDK America, Inc., Kamaya Electric Co., Ltd., and Kamaya Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). Am I Included? The Settlement Class, for all Settlement Agreements, is defined as: All persons and entities in the United States who purchased one or more Linear Resistor(s), from a resistor distributor not for resale which a Defendant, its current or former subsidiary, or any of its co-conspirators manufactured and/or sold, between January 1, 2003, and August 20, 2015. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries and Affiliates, any co-conspirators, Defendants' attorneys in this case, federal government entities and instrumentalities, states and their subdivisions, all judges assigned to this case, all jurors in this case and all persons and entities who directly purchased Linear Resistors from Defendants. What do the Settlements provide? The combined Settlement Fund from these Settlements is $33,400,000. After deduction of attorneys' fees, notice and administration costs, and litigation expenses, as approved by the Court, the remaining Settlement Fund will be available for distribution to eligible Class Members that file timely, valid claims. How can I get a payment? In order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlements you must submit a valid Claim Form no later than November 12, 2019. You may submit a Claim Form either online or by mail. Both options are available at the website www.linearresistorsindirectcase.com. When will I get a payment? Payments from the Settlements will not be distributed until the Court grants final approval of the Settlements, any objections or appeals are resolved, and all claims have been processed and verified. Updates will be provided on the Settlements' website at www.linearresistorsindirectcase.com. What are my rights? In order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlements you must submit a timely, valid Claim Form. Even if you do nothing, you will be bound by the Court's decisions concerning these Settlements. If you want to keep your right to sue one or more of the Settling Defendants regarding Linear Resistor purchases, you must exclude yourself in writing from the Settlement Class by September 17, 2019. If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object in writing to the Settlements by September 17, 2019. The Settlement Agreements, along with details on how to exclude yourself or object, are available at www.linearresistorsindirectcase.com. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a hearing on December 12, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102, to consider whether to finally approve the Settlements. Class Counsel may also request attorneys' fees of up to 30% of the Settlement Funds, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses not to exceed $2,165,820.00 for investigating the facts, litigating the case, negotiating the Settlements, providing notice to the Classes, and/or settlement administration. You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense, but you don't have to. The hearing may be moved to a different date or time without additional notice, so it is a good idea to check the above-noted website for additional information. The Court has appointed the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP to represent Indirect Purchaser Class members. Please do not contact the Court about this case. For More Information: 888-209-5181 / www.linearresistorsindirectcase.com PETMED EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Fischler Class Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------- PetMed Express, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit in New York entitled, Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. PetMed Express, Inc.; Case No. 19-cv-02391. In January 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed by a different individual in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that company's website, www.1800petmeds.com, does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law, and discriminates against visually impaired individuals. The Plaintiff named a New York corporation named Pet Meds Inc., which is not related or affiliated with the Company, as the defendant. However, the Plaintiff has sought to remedy that error by requesting leave to file an amended complaint naming the Company, which request the Court granted on April 9, 2019. On April 18, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiff's request to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where it is currently pending. The matter is styled Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. PetMed Express, Inc.; Case No. 19-cv-02391. The Company denies any wrongdoing and it intends to vigorously defend itself against such allegations. PetMed said, "At this early juncture, the Company can neither accurately predict the likelihood of an unfavorable or adverse outcome nor provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss, if any." PetMed Express, Inc. and its subsidiaries, doing business as 1-800-PetMeds, operates as a pet pharmacy in the United States. The company markets prescription and non-prescription pet medications, and other health products for dogs and cats directly to the consumers. PetMed Express, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Delray Beach, Florida. PETMED EXPRESS: Reid ADA Class Action Underway in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- PetMed Express, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PetMed Express, Inc. The Company is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit, filed in May 2019, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking injunctive and monetary relief styled Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PetMed Express, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-4169, alleging that the Company's website, www.1800petmeds.com, does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law, and discriminates against visually impaired individuals. The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself against such allegations. At this stage, the company can neither accurately predict the likelihood of an unfavorable or adverse outcome nor provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss, if any. PetMed Express, Inc. and its subsidiaries, doing business as 1-800-PetMeds, operates as a pet pharmacy in the United States. The company markets prescription and non-prescription pet medications, and other health products for dogs and cats directly to the consumers. PetMed Express, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Delray Beach, Florida. PFIZER: Insurance Exclusions Did Not Preclude Settlement Coverage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steven A. Meyerowitz, writing for Law.com, reports that a Delaware court has ruled that exclusions in insurance policies issued to Pfizer Inc. did not preclude coverage for the $568 million it agreed to pay to settle a securities fraud class action. The case In December 2004, Philip Morabito sued Pfizer and Henry A. McKinnell, then Pfizer's board chair and chief executive officer, on behalf of those who purchased Pfizer's common stock between November 1, 2000 and December 16, 2004 (class period). The suit alleged two claims under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934: violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act and the rules promulgated thereunder. On or about March 27, 2012, an amended complaint was filed that revised the causes of action, named four additional individual defendants (who were directors, officers, and employees of Pfizer), and amended the class period to October 31, 2000 through October 19, 2005. The amended complaint alleged that Pfizer and the individual defendants had made false representations and omissions regarding the cardiovascular risks associated with two of Pfizer's drugs: Celebrex and Bextra. On December 21, 2016, the district court granted final approval of a settlement of the class action pursuant to which Pfizer agreed to pay $486 million on behalf of itself and the individual defendants. In addition to the settlement award, Pfizer, on behalf of all defendants, incurred more than $82 million in defense costs. Arch Insurance Company and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, which had issued excess directors and officers ("D&O") insurance policies to Pfizer, denied coverage for the class action, claiming that coverage was barred by exclusions in the insurance policy issued to Pfizer by its primary carrier, National Union Fire Insurance Co., to which their policies generally "followed form." That was so, the insurers argued, that the D&O policies' exclusions precluded coverage because the class action was either a claim "arising out of…" or shared "as a common nexus any fact, circumstance…" with Garber v. Pharmacia Corp., a securities fraud class action lawsuit brought by shareholders of Pharmacia Corporation (which Pfizer acquired in April 2003) who purportedly incurred financial losses as a result of false and misleading statements regarding Celebrex's gastrointestinal health risks. Pfizer asked a Delaware court to declare that the insurers were obligated to pay for the costs it incurred in connection with the defense and settlement of the Morabito class action. The parties moved for summary judgment. The insurers posited that because the Morabito action and the Garber action contained overlapping and common allegations regarding Pfizer's and Pharmacia's allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions concerning the safety of Celebrex, the two actions were unquestionably related. For its part, Pfizer contended that although the two actions involved securities claims concerning the drug Celebrex, they were unrelated for purposes of the D&O policies because they implicated "different plaintiffs, different defendants, different alleged harms, and different alleged wrongful conduct committed by different people." The exclusions The "specific litigation exclusion" in the National Union policy, which was similar to the specific litigation exclusions in the insurers' policies, provided that the insurers were not liable for any: Loss in connection with any claim(s) alleging, arising out of, based upon, attributable to or in any way related directly or indirectly . . . to a related Breach of Fiduciary Duty or a related Wrongful Action alleged in a lawsuit entitled Robert L. Garber v. Pharmacia. The "related wrongful acts exclusion" precluded coverage for loss in connection with claims made against an insured: alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to the facts alleged, or to the same or related Wrongful Acts alleged or contained in any Claim which has been reported, or any circumstances of which notice has been given, under any policy of which this policy is a renewal or replacement or which it may succeed in time. The decision The district court, applying Delaware law, granted Pfizer's motion, ruling that the Morabito action and the Garber action were "not fundamentally identical." In its decision, the district court reasoned that although both were class action lawsuits alleging securities violations, the two actions did not cover the "same subject" and the exclusions, therefore, did not preclude coverage. The district court pointed out that the Garber case was brought by Pharmacia's shareholders seeking redress for allegedly fraudulent and misleading statements Pharmacia and its co-marketer Pfizer made regarding the gastrointestinal health risks of Celebrex. Specifically, the district court continued, the Garber plaintiffs alleged that Pharmacia and Pfizer publicly misrepresented the results of a study to create the impression that Celebrex users "had fewer upper-GI toxic effects than those who took other traditional NSAIDs" all-the-while knowing that the study as originally designed did not demonstrate a superior GI safety profile for Celebrex over traditional NSAIDs. On the other hand, the district court observed, the Morabito plaintiffs brought suit against Pfizer and some of its executives for false representations and omissions regarding the cardiovascular risks associated with Celebrex and another drug, Bextra. Despite including the same study among the list of material information the defendants in the Morabito action had access to, the alleged market harm in the Morabito action stemmed specifically from the defendants "repeatedly touting internal safety data which they claimed demonstrated cardiovascular safety" while they "were in possession of completed drug safety studies and other data and information which documented the serious cardiovascular risks of Celebrex and/or Bextra." In short, the district court found, although there may be some thematic similarities, the two actions were "truly, in all relevant respects, different." It concluded that the wrongs alleged in the Garber and Morabito actions involved "entirely distinct misrepresentations of very different health risks associated with Celebrex" and were "not fundamentally identical." Therefore, the exclusions in the D&O policies did not excuse the insurers' coverage obligations. The case is Pfizer Inc. v. Arch Ins. Co. [GN] RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Davies, et al Suit Moved to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Denise Davies and Colleen Shaw, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc.; Neil Goldberg; and Steven Goldberg, the Defendants, Case No. 1973cv00635, was removed from the Bristol Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on Aug. 2, 2019. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-11669 to the proceeding. The suit demands $25,000 in damages. Raymours Furniture retails home furnishing products. The Company provides furniture for the living room, bedroom, dining room, youth bedroom, and home office.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com Attorneys for the Defendants are: Christopher Kaczmarek, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON One International Place, Suite 2700 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 378-6016 Facsimile: (617) 507-8046 E-mail: ckaczmarek@littler.com REALOGY HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to make a motion for lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors who purchased shares of Realogy Holdings Corp. ("Realogy" or the "Company") (NYSE: RLGY) between February 24, 2017 and May 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case alleges that Realogy and/or its executives issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. If you purchased Realogy securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Realogy RLGY Shareholder Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) Realogy was engaged in anticompetitive behavior by requiring property sellers to pay the commissions of a buyer's broker at an inflated rate; (2) Realogy's anticompetitive actions would prompt the U.S. Department of Justice to open an antitrust investigation into the real estate industry's practices regarding brokers' commissions; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about the Realogy's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On this news, shares of Realogy fell by 9% or $0.71, to close at $7.13 on May 23, 2019. If you purchased RLGY securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://tinyurl.com/y6574dg6 or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action, you must move the court no later than September 9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no action, you may remain an absent class member. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact: Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Website: http://www.bernlieb.com Tel.No.: (877) 779-1414 Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] RESTORATION HARDWARE: Oct. 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who, during the period from March 26, 2015 through June 8, 2016, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of RH (formerly Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc.) (the "Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $50,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on October 22, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers at Courtroom 1 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, to determine whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated May 6, 2019 (and in the Notice), should be granted; (3) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of 15% of the Settlement Fund (or $7,500,000 plus interest) and payment of litigation expenses of up to $950,000 from the Settlement Fund, which may include the expenses of Lead Plaintiffs directly related to their representation of the Class, should be approved. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at RH Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173074, Milwaukee, WI 53217, 1-866-217-4456. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, RHSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than October 8, 2019. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than October 1, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than October 1, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, RH, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq., 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575, Los Angeles, CA 90067, (800) 380-8496, settlements@blbglaw.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: In re RH, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173074, Milwaukee, WI 53217, (866) 217-4456 (toll free), RHSecuritiesLitigation.com. By Order of the Court REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Court Consolidates Securities Suits -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting Fred Remer's Motion to Consolidate the Cases, be Appointed Lead Plaintiff, and have Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Approved as Lead Counsel in the cases captioned JAMES GLAVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REVOLUTION LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. CHRIS HUBNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REVOLUTION LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. BOB BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REVOLUTION LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. Nos. 19-CV-980 (JPO), 19-CV-2308 (JPO), 19-CV-2722 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff James Glavan filed a complaint on behalf of a class of investors who acquired Revolution securities. The complaint alleges that Revolution and three of its officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the officers are also liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Consolidation All three pending motions seek the consolidation of the Glavan, Hubner, and Bishop actions. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) permits consolidation where actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact. In determining whether to exercise its broad discretion3 to consolidate actions that satisfy that baseline criterion, a court must ask whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion that could arise from consolidation are overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses, and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense to all concerned. The Court easily concludes that consolidation is warranted here. No party has opposed consolidation, and all three actions assert identical claims against identical defendants on behalf of an identical plaintiff class on the basis of almost identical factual allegations. Nothing would be gained by litigating these cases separately, and indeed, taking such a course would be inefficient and would raise the risk of inconsistent outcomes. The Court therefore orders the consolidation of these three actions. Lead Plaintiff The PSLRA tasks the court overseeing a private securities class action with appointing as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interest of class members. Here, all three contenders for lead plaintiff have filed timely motions, and no class member has suggested that any of the movants are incapable of representing the class or are subject to unique defenses. The Court will therefore appoint as lead plaintiff the movant with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. While the PSLRA does not provide any explicit guidance about how to calculate the size of a given plaintiff's financial interest, courts in this Circuit have traditionally examined four factors: (1) the number of shares purchased during the class period (2) the number of net shares purchased during the class period (3) the total net funds expended during the class period and (4) the approximate loss suffered during the class period. Based on these factors, Detroit P&F is out of the running from the get-go. In its own account, Detroit P&F's maximum damages are $393,624.84. But both the Grahams and Remer have claimed losses that well exceed this figure and Detroit P&F has offered no rebuttal. The Court therefore concludes that Detroit P&F does not have the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class and so is ineligible to serve as lead plaintiff here. This leaves the Grahams and Remer. As for the Grahams, between the two of them, they acquired 301,286 Revolution shares from July 26, 2018, to September 28, 2018, for a sum total of $1,008,289.69. Because those shares were worth only $177,860.87 as of the end of the class period on November 14, 2018, the Grahams claim losses of $830,428.82. Remer's story is more complicated. At the time the class period began, Remer already held 11,940 Revolution shares, which he had purchased for a total of $497,737.11. Then, during the class period, Remer acquired 511,517 more shares, for a total cost of $3,157,547.63, and sold a total of 423,457 shares, thereby recouping a total of $2,287,618.82. (See Dkt. No. 24-3 at 11.) When the dust had settled by the end of the class period, Remer was left holding 100,000 shares, which were worth $622,248.66 less than he had paid for them. In comparing the Grahams and Remer, the Court observes that two of the first three factors used to assess the size of a would-be lead plaintiff's financial stake in the litigation favor the Grahams. Although Remer purchased more total shares during the class period 511,517 shares, to the Grahams' 301,286 the Grahams acquired a greater net total 301,286 shares, to Remer's 88,060.4 And by forking out a total of $1,008,289.69 during the class period, the Grahams spent more than the net $869,928.81 that Remer went out of pocket. But because these factors favor the Grahams only marginally, the Court focuses its attention on the final factor, i.e., the parties' respective losses. As noted above, the Grahams' claimed losses are easily calculated. The Grahams spent $1,008,289.69 on Revolution shares from July 26, 2018, to September 28, 2018, but after a subsequent series of corrective disclosures alleged to have occurred from October 17, 2018, to November 14, 2018, the value of those shares had dropped to $177,860.87. Accordingly, the Grahams' claimed losses are $830,428.82. Remer's calculations are trickier. In particular, because Remer both bought and sold Revolution shares during the class period, he not only suffered losses as a result of the hit Revolution's share prices took after the alleged fraud was revealed to the investing public, but also potentially enjoyed gains as a result of sales he made during the time that Revolution's stock was artificially overvalued. Remer's total losses, then, must be offset by any such gains. The Court has evaluated Remer's submissions and determined that he has, within a trivial margin of error, correctly calculated the losses associated with the identified sales when those losses are assessed on a LIFO basis. The remaining question, then, is whether those sales, and their corresponding losses, can plausibly be tied to the alleged fraud. And the answer to that question, in turn, depends on whether the September 22, 2017, and August 2, 2018 disclosures to which Remer seeks to tie the $623,687.34 in losses derived from these sales were sufficiently revelatory of the alleged fraud to establish a causal link between the fraud and the losses. Critically, though, the Grahams themselves accept the September 22, 2017, and August 2, 2018 disclosures as corrective disclosures for purposes of loss calculation. And even though it may turn out, upon development of the facts, that not all of Remer's claimed share-sale losses were indeed causally linked to the alleged fraud, the record at this early stage in the litigation offers the Court no reason to believe any portion of the claimed $623,687.34 figure is clearly not recoverable. The Court therefore accepts Remer's claimed figure of $1,245,936 ($622,248.66 from shares Remer bought during the class period and held through the end of the class period, plus $623,687.34 from shares Remer bought and sold during the class period) as the measure of Remer's total potentially recoverable financial loss. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Remer is the movant with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. Because the Court has no reason to doubt that he otherwise satisfies the PSLRA's requirements, the Court appoints him as lead plaintiff in this action. Lead Counsel Under the PSLRA, the lead plaintiff is entitled, subject to the approval of the court, to select and retain counsel to represent the class. Remer, whom the Court has now appointed lead plaintiff, has chosen Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (Faruqi) to serve as lead counsel. Faruqi has extensive experience in securities fraud litigation and no class member has offered any reason why Faruqi would be ill-equipped to act as lead counsel in this consolidated action. This Court therefore concludes, as have other courts in this District, that Faruqi has the requisite experience necessary to serve as lead counsel, and thus will be able to effectively prosecute the consolidated action. Fred Remer's motion to consolidate these three related cases, to be appointed as lead plaintiff, and to have Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP approved as lead counsel is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyxndn3q from Leagle.com. James Glavan, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Bob Bishop, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Xinying Gong, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Patrick Graham & Wendy Graham, Movants, represented by Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A. Russell Hopewell & Craig Holman, Movants, represented by Thomas James McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston. Chris Hubner, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Movant, represented by Peter S. Linden -- plinden@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP. Fred Remer, Movant, represented by Richard William Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Megan Marie Sullivan -- msullivan@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP & Sherief Morsy -- smorsy@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP. RITE AID: Howell Suit Moved to District of Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------ The case, John Howell, Individually and on Behlaf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Rite Aid of Connecticut, Inc. and Maxi Drug Inc., the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-19-6114418-S, was removed from Connecticut Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven) on Aug. 2, 2019. The District of Connecticut Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01196 to the proceeding. Rite Aid of Connecticut, Inc. provides healthcare services. The Company offers pharmacy services, wellness programs, and other related services, as well as renders retail sale of prescription and proprietary drugs, beauty and personal care products, and vitamins and supplements.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Cody Nolan Guarnieri, Esq. BROWN PAINDIRIS & SCOTT LLP - HTFD 100 Pearl Street, Suite 1100 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-3343 Facsimile: (860) 533-2490 E-mail: cguarnieri@bpslawyers.com Attorneys for the Defendants are: Elizabeth R. McKenna, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.- NH, CT One Century Tower, Suite 300 265 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone: (203) 974-8714 Facsimile: (203) 974-8799 E-mail: Emckenna@littler.com RUBY RECEPTIONISTS: Law Firms Lose Bid for Summary Ruling --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Oregon issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the case captioned MCKENZIE LAW FIRM, P.A., and OLIVER LAW OFFICES, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RUBY RECEPTIONISTS, INC., Defendant. Case No. 3:18-cv-01921-SI. (D. Or.). The Plaintiffs are two relatively small law firms. They bring this putative class action lawsuit against Ruby Receptionists, Inc. (Ruby), a company that provides virtual receptionist services to small businesses, including law firms. The Plaintiffs are former clients of Ruby. They assert claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and money had and received accounting. The Plaintiffs move for summary judgment only on the issue of liability on their claim of breach of contract. They argue that the standard form integration agreements, here, the Service Agreement and the Terms and Conditions, are plain and unambiguous about Ruby's obligation to provide a fixed amount of monthly receptionist time at a fixed price. They also argue that there is no genuine dispute of fact that Ruby's practices involve rounding up to the nearest 30-second increment when billing. This practice, the Plaintiffs argue, breaches the contract and shortchanges the Plaintiffs for the amount of receptionist time for which they contracted. So too, the Plaintiffs argue, does the Defendant's practice of billing for time that a receptionist has placed a call on hold. The Defendant responds that the contract is ambiguous about how receptionist minutes are calculated and billed, and points to extrinsic evidence and prevailing industry standards as evidence that its method of calculating minutes and billing clients is not a breach of the contract terms. In a diversity case, although federal law governs the procedures followed, including the summary judgment standard, state law provides the relevant substantive law. The Terms and Conditions of the contract provides: The laws and jurisdiction of the state of Oregon shall govern any and all matters of dispute between Ruby and Client. Accordingly, the Court looks to Oregon law for guidance in interpreting the relevant contract provisions. Contract Interpretation Under Oregon Law Under Oregon law, the primary objective for any Court interpreting a contract is to give effect to the parties' agreed-upon intentions. Oregon courts have established a three-step process for interpreting contracts. First, a court must determine whether the relevant contract provision is ambiguous.In considering whether a contractual provision is ambiguous, a court is limited to considering only the plain meaning of the words used by the parties in their contract and any extrinsic evidence showing the circumstances under which the contract was made. If the wording of a contractual provision can, in context, reasonably be given more than one plausible interpretation," it is ambiguous as a matter of law. When a contractual provision is ambiguous, however, the court proceeds to the second step in the Yogman (Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or. 358, 361 (1997)) analysis. At the second step, the trier of fact must look beyond the four corners of the agreement to determine the parties' mutual intention, if a mutual and common intention in fact existed. At the second step, the trier of fact examines extrinsic evidence of the contracting parties' intent and construes the disputed contractual provision consistent with that intent, if such a resolution can be determined. Absent evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to aid the trier of fact in determining the parties' intent, or if the contract remains ambiguous even after considering that evidence, the third step is to apply any relevant maxims of construction.When a contractual provision is ambiguous, determining its meaning at steps two and three of the Yogman analysis is generally a question of fact not appropriate for resolution at summary judgment. Oregon courts have emphasized that it is not the ambiguity of a contract per se that makes summary judgment inappropriate, but that the ambiguity represents a dispute over a genuine issue of material fact. The Service Agreement Based on the text of the Service Agreement and the Terms and Conditions, the Court finds that the contract is ambiguous. The parties agree that receptionist minute is a term of art but nowhere is that term explicitly defined in the contract. Although the parties contracted for a certain number of receptionist minutes every month, most telephone calls do not last an exact number of minutes, and the contract is silent on what happens when a telephone call lasts, for example, for ten seconds, thirty seconds, or one minute and fifteen seconds. Similarly, the per-minute fee for additional receptionist minutes does not specify how that additional time is calculated or billed when a call lasts more or less than exactly 60.00 seconds. The Plaintiffs contend that by only rounding up, and never rounding down, Ruby has breached the contract and artificially inflated the time a receptionist spends on each call and this practice makes it impossible for customers to receive the exact number of receptionist minutes each month for which they contracted and paid. Plaintiffs also argue that only rounding upnecessarily means that Ruby overcharges customers for minutes beyond the monthly package of receptionist minutes because a receptionist minute for Ruby's billing purposes can last fewer than 60 seconds. As stated previously, the contract is silent on Ruby's rounding practices, and nothing in the contract expressly prohibits or authorizes rounding up in 30-second increments. The Plaintiffs argue that Ruby should have simply charged for the actual time a receptionist is involved in a call. In doing so, the Plaintiffs appear to argue that Ruby should have counted to at least the hundredth of a second level of measurement. But the contract speaks only in broad terms of "receptionist minutes" and there is no unambiguous reading of the contract that would make clear exactly to what level of specificity Ruby must bill. For example, it is unclear whether the Plaintiffs would still argue that Ruby had breached the contract if Ruby rounded up to the nearest second, nearest tenth of a second, or nearest millisecond. Because the contract does not specify a level of exactitude, rounding up to the nearest 30-second interval is no more expressly prohibited by the contract than rounding up to the nearest tenth or hundredth of a second. Further, Ruby's customers likely would have noticed that every call on their monthly bill ended in a unit of exactly 30 seconds and thus could not reasonably have believed that they were being billed only for the actual time that each call lasted. Even if Ruby's clients would have noticed that every call was being billed in 30-second increments, however, the clients would not have been able to determine from any given billing entry whether call duration was being regularly rounded up, rounded down, or rounded to the nearest 30-second increment. Because the contract is ambiguous on how to calculate both hold time and partial minute increments, its final interpretation is not appropriate for summary judgment. Genuine issues of fact remain about the parties' intent and mutual understanding, if any. Thus, the analyses under steps two and three of Yogman should be conducted by the trier of fact at trial. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5ydbjsc from Leagle.com. McKenzie Law Firm, P.A., on Behalf of Themselves and All others Similarly Situated & Oliver Law Offices, Inc., on Behalf of Themselves and All others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented b yCody O. Berne -- cberne@stollberne.com -- Stoll Berne, Gregory J. Brod -- greg@willbrod.com -- Brod Law Firm, PC, pro hac vice, Jon M. Herskowitz , Baron & Herskowitz, 9100 S Dadeland Blvd #1704, Miami, FL 33156, pro hac vice, Keith S. Dubanevich -- kdubanevich@stollberne.com -- Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C., Laurence D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, pro hac vice, Mario M. Choi -- MChoi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew B. George -- mgeorge@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, pro hac vice & Robert I. Lax -- rgrand@laxneville.com -- Lax LLP, pro hac vice. Ruby Receptionists, Inc., Defendant, represented by Austin Rainwater -- austin.rainwater@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Andrew R. Escobar -- andrew.escobar@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper, LLP. RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Birmingham Funds' Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ryanair Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company has sought dismissal of a class action suit headed by the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System and City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension System (the "Birmingham Funds"). In November 2018, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against Ryanair and Michael O'Leary in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court"). The District Court appointed the Birmingham Funds as lead plaintiffs in January 2019. The Birmingham Funds filed an amended complaint in April 2019 that purports to be on behalf of purchasers of Ryanair American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between May 30, 2017 and September 28, 2018. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that in filings with the SEC, investor calls, interviews, and other communications, Ryanair and/or Mr. O'Leary made materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding employment and financial data, employee negotiation processes, the September 2017 pilot rostering management issue, and the likelihood and financial impact of unionization, which allegedly artificially inflated the market value of Ryanair's securities. In June 2019, Ryanair and Mr. O'Leary filed a motion to dismiss. Ryanair Holdings plc (Ryanair Holdings) is a holding company for Ryanair Limited (Ryanair). Ryanair operates an ultra-low fare, scheduled-passenger airline serving short-haul, point-to-point routes between Ireland, the United Kingdom, Continental Europe, Morocco and Israel. The company is based in Dublin, Ireland. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Hadin, et al. Seek Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ALEXIS BRONSON AND CRYSTAL HADIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., the Defendants, Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of the putative class to ensure Samsung's compliance with Cal. Civ. Code section 1793.03(b). The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the proposed class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and appoint the Plaintiff as class representative and their lead counsel as class counsel. Crystal Hardin and the class she seeks to represent purchased and own a Samsung plasma television manufactured since 2013. Samsung is under a current obligation to comply with Cal. Civ. Code section 1793.03(b) for its plasma televisions manufactured since 2013. The Plaintiff was unable to repair her television by an Authorized Service Center (ASC) in California within the seven years from the date the product was last manufactured: a direct violation of Section 1793.03(b). The Court already ruled that Samsung violated this statutory section in the instant case regarding named class member Alexis Bronson. Samsung has inadequate business practices in place to ensure compliance with California law.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Paul S. Rothstein, Esq. Kyla V. Alexander, Esq. 626 N.E. First Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 376-7650 Facsimile: (352) 374-7133 E-mail: PSR@Rothsteinforjustice.com Kyla.tm@rothsteinforjustice.com - and - Alan J. Sherwood, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALAN J. SHERWOOD 26755 Contessa Street Hayward, CA 94545 E-mail: alansherwood@earthlink.net Telephone: (510) 409-6199 SUPERIOR ENERGY: Underpays Equipment Operators, Algeribiya Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIAN ALGERIBIYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; and PUMPCO ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02863 (S.D. Tex., August 2, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Algeribiya was employed by the Defendants as equipment operator. Superior Energy Services, Inc. provides the drilling, completion and production related needs of oil and gas companies. The Company plans and designs solutions specialized in oilfield services and equipment that are used throughout the life cycle of oil and gas wells. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Oct. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IN RE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK SECURITIES LITIGATION 1:17-cv-01665 (NLH/JS) Class Action NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE U.S.-TRADED COMMON STOCK OF THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK ("TD") (TD) BETWEEN DECEMBER 3, 2015 AND MARCH 9, 2017, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing will be held on October 3, 2019, at 3:30 p.m. before the Honorable Noel L. Hillman, United States District Judge, at the courthouse for the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Mitchell H. Cohen Building & United States Courthouse, 4th & Cooper Streets, Court Room 3A, Camden, New Jersey 08101 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration in the amount of thirteen million two hundred fifty thousand dollars U.S. (USD $13,250,000.00) should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable, and should be approved; (3) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to thirty-three and 1/3 percent (33.3%), and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses of not more than two hundred seventy-five thousand U.S. dollars (USD $275,000.00) plus interest on such fees and expenses, and a compensatory award for Plaintiffs of not more than fifteen thousand U.S. dollars (USD $15,000.00) each, all to be paid from the Settlement Fund, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated June 20, 2019 (the "Stipulation") filed with the Court. The Court has certified a class of investors for settlement purposes only ("Settlement Class") and you may be a member of the Settlement Class ("Settlement Class Member"). The proposed Settlement Class will consist of all persons or entities who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the U.S.-traded common stock of TD (TD) between December 3, 2015 and March 9, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"). Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants; members of their immediate families and their affiliates; any executive officer or director of TD during the Settlement Class Period; any entity in which any Defendants had a controlling or partnership interest during the Settlement Class Period; the judges presiding over the Action and their immediate family members; counsel of record in this Action; and the successors, heirs, and assigns of any excluded persons and/or entities referenced above. If you purchased U.S.-traded TD common stock during the Settlement Class Period, your rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in U.S.-traded TD common stock. If you have not received a more-detailed, long-form Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies of these documents and the Stipulation by downloading them at the Claims Administrator's website at: www.TorontoDominionSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are unable to do so, you may contact the Claims Administrator to obtain copies: Toronto-Dominion Securities Litigation Settlement c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. PO Box 3207 Portland, OR 97208-3207 info@TorontoDominionSecuritiesSettlement.com www.TorontoDominionSecuritiesSettlement.com 877-830-7922 The case has been litigated since March 12, 2017. Plaintiffs allege that, in violation of the U.S. federal securities laws, Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions, with scienter, concerning TD's risk management and internal controls, business operations, and reported results, causing TD's stock price to be inflated during the Settlement Class Period. Plaintiffs further allege that revelation of Defendants' fraud and caused a statistically significant stock decline, thereby injuring Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class of investors. Defendants have denied and continue to deny these allegations and that they committed any act or omission giving rise to any liability or violation of the law. The Settlement will resolve the lawsuit and the Released Claims as to the Defendants and other Released Parties. Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class are represented by Lead Counsel who may be reached by contacting: Matthew L. Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10016, (212) 661-1100. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form received no later than September 19, 2019, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any Judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you want to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the long-form Notice, so that it is received no later than September 12, 2019. If you decide to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, and wish to file your own individual lawsuit based on the Released Settlement Class Claims, Defendants may argue that you face a time bar under applicable statutes of limitation or repose, risks that you should discuss with an appropriate legal advisor. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any Judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude yourself, you can object to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and compensatory award to Plaintiffs in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than September 12, 2019. Any questions regarding the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: August 1, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Australia's Top Selling Hilux Hit in Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! News Australia reports that the makers of Australia's top-selling car are facing a class action lawsuit over claims their vehicles were fitted with defective parts. Toyota Motor Corp's Hilux, Prado and Fortuner are alleged as the models with faulty parts in a suit filed by Banister Law, together with Gilbert + Tobin, in the Federal Court. It's alleged the defective parts are diesel particulate filters, which are meant to trap and burn soot from the engine. "The affected vehicles... require time consuming and costly repairs, including repeated vehicle servicing and repeated replacement of the (diesel filters) in its entirety," Bannister Law said in the statement. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of customers who purchased the cars between October 1, 2015 and July 26, 2019, seeks compensation for the alleged loss and damage suffered by the group, the statement said, without giving any details on the amount. The lawsuit also alleges Toyota made misleading statements because the vehicles "could not, and did not deliver the advertised combination of durability, reliability, quality, comfort and convenience, and the (diesel filter) in the affected vehicles was not durable, reliable and of good quality". Toyota's Hilux is Australia's top selling car, according to comparison website Canstar. In June, Toyota Motor Corporation Australia posted a 50 per cent increase in after-tax profit to $206 million for the year ended March 31, 2019, according to its website. The company sold 223,096 vehicles in the country over period. Toyota, Japan's biggest automaker, sold 10.6 million vehicles globally in the same period. Representatives from Toyota's Australian unit did not return Reuters' attempts for comment. Yahoo News Australia has contacted the manufacturer. [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Australian Law Firms File Filter Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Paulina Duran, writing for Reuters, reports that Australian lawyers filed a class action lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corp's local unit on Aug. 1, claiming some models of the carmaker's top-selling vehicles Hilux, Prado and Fortuner were fitted with defective parts. According to a statement on its website, Banister Law, together with Gilbert + Tobin, filed the suit in the Federal Court alleging some vehicles were fitted with defective diesel particulate filters meant to trap and burn soot from the engine. "The affected vehicles . . . require time consuming and costly repairs, including repeated vehicle servicing and repeated replacement of the (diesel filters) in its entirety," Bannister Law said in the statement. Representatives from Toyota's Australian unit did not immediately return emails seeking comment. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of customers who purchased the cars between Oct. 1, 2015 and July 26 2019, seeks compensation for the alleged loss and damage suffered by the group, the statement said, without giving any details on the amount. The lawsuit also alleges Toyota made misleading statements because the vehicles "could not, and did not, deliver the advertised combination of durability, reliability, quality, comfort and convenience, and the (diesel filter) in the affected vehicles was not durable, reliable and of good quality". Toyota's Hilux is Australia's top selling car, according to comparison website Canstar. In June, Toyota Motor Corporation Australia posted a 50% increase in after-tax profit to A$206 million ($141.21 million) for the year ended March 31, 2019, according to its website. The company sold 223,096 vehicles in the country over period. Toyota, Japan's biggest automaker, sold 10.6 million vehicles globally in the same period. [GN] UNITED PARCEL: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Granted in Hughes -------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court in Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc., granted the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various class action allegations under state wage-and-hour laws. At this time, the company does not believe that any loss associated with any matter would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc. had previously been certified as a class action in Kentucky state court. In this action, plaintiffs alleged that they were not properly compensated for time entering and exiting security checkpoints and getting to their work areas at UPS's facilities. Plaintiffs were seeking compensatory damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and interest. In the second quarter of 2019, the court granted the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings. United Parcel Service, Inc. provides letter and package delivery, specialized transportation, logistics, and financial services. It operates through three segments: U.S. Domestic Package, International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. United Parcel Service, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. UNITED STATES: Auningputri Appeals Ruling in Probodanu Suit v. DOJ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Daniella Auningputri, Adelena Palar and Albert Palar filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Jeremiah Michael Probodanu, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-00888-CJC-KS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. The nature of suit is stated as other immigration actions. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought on May 22, 2018, and assigned to Judge Cormac J. Carney and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. The appellate case is captioned as Daniella Auningputri, et al. v. USDOJ, et al., Case No. 19-55869, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by August 27, 2019; -- Transcript is due on September 26, 2019; -- Appellants Daniella Auningputri, Adelena Palar and Albert Palar's opening brief is due on November 5, 2019; -- Appellees William P. Barr, Attorney General, Thomas P. Giles, Thomas D. Homan, David A. Marin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and United States Department of Justice's answering brief is due on December 5, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DANIELLA AUNINGPUTRI, ADELENA PALAR and ALBERT PALAR, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals are represented by: Nicolette Glazer, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R GLAZER 1875 Century Park East Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 407-5353 E-mail: nicolette@glazerandglazer.com Defendants-Appellees UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., are represented by: Victor Matthew Lawrence, I, Esq. Papu Sandhu, Esq. Steven Kiyoto Uejio, Esq. DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878, Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 616-9357 E-mail: victor.lawrence@usdoj.gov papu.sandhu@usdoj.gov VARIETY WHOLESALERS: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Miles Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LATANYA MILES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. VARIETY WHOLESALERS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01714-PAB (N.D. Ohio, July 29, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff and other Retail Employees were not paid for all the overtime compensation they earned pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as Ohio wage and hour law. Variety Wholesalers is a foreign corporation that conducts business in this district and division. The Defendant is "one of the largest privately-owned companies in the United States," and "is based in Henderson, North Carolina," according to the Roses Web site. The Defendant "operates nearly 400 retail stores throughout the Southeast [United States], primarily under the Roses and Roses Express banners." The Defendant also advertises the business names of "Maxway," "Super 10," "Bargain Town," "Bill's dollar store," and "Super Dollar."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER, LLC 34 N. High St., Suite 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 824-5770 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER, LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com VOORTMAN COOKIES: Court Compels Arbitration in Cervantes -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned ANTONIA CERVANTES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VOORTMAN COOKIES LTD., Defendant. Case No. 3:19-cv-00700-H-BGS. (S.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs are California residents who work as distributors for the Defendant. The Plaintiffs allege that they should be categorized as employees rather than independent contractors due to the extent of control Defendant exerts over its distributors. The Plaintiffs allege that numerous California law violations arise out of this miscategorization. Arbitration Agreement The Defendant argues that the parties agreed to a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, and that agreement encompasses the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court must first determine whether the Defendant has met its burden of showing a valid, written agreement to arbitrate. Each Plaintiff agreed to be bound by the arbitration provision, Cervantes and Flores by agreeing to the 2012 Agreement, and Virissimo by agreeing to 2014 Agreement. The Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration provision is invalid because it is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Under California law, the party attacking the arbitration agreement as unconscionable bears the burden of proof. To succeed, a party must show that the arbitration agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration provision is procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion, and the provision was on the last page of the Agreement, did not explicitly state that it waived right to a jury trial, is not referenced on the acknowledgment page. The Court concludes that the arbitration provision is not procedurally unconscionable because it was neither oppressive or surprising. Plaintiffs had a meaningful choice as to whether they entered into the Agreement with Defendant, choosing to sign and become distributors for Defendant. The Plaintiffs also were given the opportunity to enter the 2018 Agreement, but refused, continuing to operate as independent contractors under the prior Agreements. Even assuming some level of oppressiveness, any procedural unconscionability is minimal because there was no surprise. The arbitration provision was in the same size text as the rest of the document, in a separate paragraph that is clearly labeled in bold Dispute Resolution Clause. The arbitration provision was not surprising because it was not buried in fine print, but instead was in its own section, with a bolded, clear label. The Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration provision is substantively unconscionable because it is vague and ambiguous in that it does not state which rules apply to the arbitration and does not provide the details necessary for an employment take-it-or-leave-it arbitration agreement. A contract is substantively unconscionable when it is unjustifiably one-sided to such an extent that it 'shocks the conscience.' A mandatory employment arbitration agreement is not unconscionable if it (1) provides for neutral arbitrators (2) provides for more than minimal discovery (3) requires a written award, (4) provides for all of the types of relief that would otherwise be available in court and (5) does not require employees to pay either unreasonable costs or any arbitrators' fees or expenses as a condition of access to the arbitration forum. Here, the Agreement states that the arbitration must be conducted with an American Arbitration Association Office in a city nearest the territory of the Voortman Consignee/Distributor, which indicates that the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules apply. Under California law, parties to an agreement may incorporate by reference into their contract the terms of some other document. The parties' Agreement incorporates by reference the AAA rules. The Plaintiffs argue that the AAA Commercial and Labor Rules are substantively unconscionable because the initial filing fees are unreasonable. However, the Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently show that the applicable initial filing fee is unreasonable. The Plaintiffs state that the initial filing fee is $7,700, which is based on the claims being worth between $1,000,000 and $10,000,000. The Plaintiffs fail to show how they arrived at this range. The Plaintiffs' complaint does not allege the amount of damages. Plaintiffs may be including in this number the class claims from the complaint, not just the individual Plaintiffs' claims. The Defendants show that an arguably more reasonable estimate of Plaintiffs' damages corresponds to an initial filing fee that approximates filing fees in this Court and San Diego Superior Court. The arbitration provision is not substantively unconscionable because it indicates that the AAA rules apply and such rules are sufficient under Armendariz. Therefore, the Court concludes the arbitration provision is valid and enforceable because Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing procedural and substantive unconscionability. Next, the Court turns to whether Plaintiffs' claims are subject to the parties' agreements. Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendant for violations of California Labor Code Sections 201-204, 221-223, 226, 226.2, 226.7, 510, 2802, and violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. The claims arise from Defendant's categorization of Plaintiffs as independent contractors rather than as employees. The arbitration provision from the 2012 and 2014 Agreements states that All disputes between Voortman Cookies Limited and the Voortman Consignee/Distributor will be settled by arbitration including any and all disputes relating to this agreement and the enforceability of any or all of its provisions. Therefore, Plaintiffs' claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provision agreed to by Plaintiffs. Thus, the Court orders the parties to proceed to arbitration because Defendant has met its burden of showing that each Plaintiff is subject to a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, and that Plaintiffs' claims are subject to that agreement. California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act Claims In addition to other claims, Plaintiffs bring claims for enforcement of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Plaintiffs argue that their PAGA claims are non-arbitrable and therefore should be stayed pending arbitration. Defendant does not specifically address Plaintiffs' PAGA claims in either its motion or reply in support of its motion. PAGA authorizes an employee to bring an action for civil penalties on behalf of the state against his or her employer for Labor Code violations committed against the employee and fellow employees, with most of the proceeds of that litigation going to the state. Here, the arbitration provision does not entirely waive the right to bring representative PAGA claims rather, it requires that such claims be arbitrated. Because PAGA claims are eligible for arbitration, the Court must only decide whether Plaintiffs' PAGA claims fall within the scope of the valid and enforceable arbitration provision from the 2012 and 2014 Agreements. The parties mutually agreed that All disputes between Voortman Cookies Limited and the Voortman. Consignee/Distributor will be settled by arbitration including any and all disputes relating to this agreement and the enforceability of any or all of its provisions. Thus, like Plaintiffs' other claims, Plaintiffs' PAGA claims are covered by the arbitration provision and must proceed to arbitration. Class Claims The Plaintiffs not only bring California law claims on their own behalf, but also on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all California distributors who were not classified as employees. Defendant argues that the class claims should be dismissed pursuant to Lamps Plus because the Agreement does not permit class-wide arbitration. Plaintiffs argue that whether an arbitration agreement permits class-wide arbitration is a question for the arbitrator, not the Court. Unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitrator. Clear and unmistakable evidence of an agreement to arbitrate arbitrability might include a course of conduct demonstrating assent or an express agreement to do so. Therefore, the Court here concludes that availability of class arbitration is a gateway question of arbitrability presumptively for the Court to decide. There is no evidence here that the parties have clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability of class claims to the arbitrator rather than the Court. The arbitration provision of the 2012 and 2014 Agreements contains no specific language delegating any question of arbitrability to the arbitrator and does not contain any reference to arbitration rules that do so. The parties' conduct does not demonstrate assent to arbitrate whether class arbitration is permitted. Accordingly, it is up to the Court to determine whether the Agreement permits class arbitration. Here, the 2012 and 2014 Agreements are silent on whether class-wide arbitration is permitted. Thus, there is no affirmative contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to class-wide arbitration. The 2018 Agreement goes so far as to prohibit class-wide arbitration and arbitration agreements must be enforced as written. Therefore, class-wide arbitration is not permitted under any version of the Agreement, and the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' class claims. The Court grants Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss Plaintiffs' class claims. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3jwet4k from Leagle.com. Antonia Cervantes, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Raquel Flores, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Ronnie Virissimo, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic -- atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org --, Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, Craig McKenzie Nicholas -- cnicholas@nblaw.org -- Nicholas and Tomasevic & Jake W. Schulte -- JSchulte@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP. Voortman Cookies LTD., a Canadian Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ashley Rene Wedding, Fabozzi & Miller, APC, 8975 Sky Canyon Dr Ste 104, Murrieta, CA 92563-2676, Joel Leroy Lennen -- jlennen@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin and Mellot, pro hac vice, Sarah Morrissey -- smorrissey@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, pro hac vice & Timothy P. Coon -- tpcoon@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. WAITR HOLDINGS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Halley Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as HALLEY, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, vs. WAITR HOLDINGS INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01800-EEF-JCW (E.D. La.), the Court entered an order July 31, 2019, denying without prejudice as premature -- reserving the rights of the parties to re-file, if necessary, at a later date -- the two motions: 1. Defendants' motion to compel arbitration; and 2. Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class.[CC] WAITR HOLDINGS: Montgomery Bid to Certify Class Denied ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as AUTUMN MONTGOMERY, the Plaintiff, vs. WAITR HOLDINGS INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02208-EEF-DMD (E.D. La.), the Court entered an order July 31, 2019, denying without prejudice as premature -- reserving the rights of the parties to re-file, if necessary, at a later date -- the two motions: 1. Defendants' motion to compel arbitration; and 2. Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class.[CC] WAWA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Employee Stock Ownership Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- Convenience Store News reports that less than a year after settling a lawsuit related to its employee stock ownership program, Wawa Inc. may be in for another legal challenge around the program. With a recent judicial ruling, Wawa is now facing a class action lawsuit by more than 1,000 former employees who say they were forced to trade the Wawa stock in their retirement plan at an unfair price. In early July, Judge Paul S. Diamond of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted class status after the convenience store agreed that portions of the case were appropriate for class treatment, according to Bloomberg Law. Diamond also granted class status on the employees' claim of fiduciary breach based on misrepresentation, which accused Wawa of wrongly telling them they could continue to hold company stock until age 68, the news outlet reported. The new challenge comes on the heels of Wawa's September agreement to pay $25 million to settle a similar lawsuit accusing the c-store chain of forcing employees to sell their company stock at an unfair price. In that case, former Wawa employees forced to sell their company stock in 2015 split the settlement, minus $5 million in fees for lawyers, as Convenience Store News previously reported. Pennsylvania-based Wawa operates more than 840 c-stores in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Florida and Washington, D.C. Wawa ranks No. 15 on the 2019 Convenience Store News Top 100 list. [GN] WE CARE HOMES: Migues Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- NELLIE MIGUES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WE CARE HOMES, INCORPORATED, And KYLE JONES, Case No. 6:19-cv-00976 (W.D. La., July 29, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation. We Care Homes, Incorporated is a Louisiana corporation with its principal place of business located in Lafayette, Louisiana. The Individual Defendant is an officer, manager or employee of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com WELLCARE HEALTH: Stein and Kent Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- WellCare Health Plans, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in Stein v. WellCare and Kent v. WellCare filed notices of voluntary dismissal. On March 26, 2019, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Centene Corporation ("Centene") under which Centene will acquire the company for a combination of cash and stock (the "Centene Transaction"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, the company's shareholders will receive $120.00 in cash and 3.38 shares of Centene common stock for each share of 'the company's common stock. On June 24, 2019, stockholders of both companies approved all proposals regarding the Centene Transaction. Between May 7 and May 9, 2019, three putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of WellCare against WellCare and members of the WellCare Board in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Stein v. WellCare Health Plans, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00855-LPS ("Stein v. WellCare"); Kent v. WellCare Health Plans, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00865-LPS ("Kent v. WellCare"); and Clarke v. WellCare Health Plans, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00873-LPS "Clark v. WellCare"). The complaint in Kent v. WellCare also names Centene, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II as defendants. The complaints in Stein v. WellCare, Kent v. WellCare and Clark v. WellCare purport to assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allege that the Joint Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on May 23, 2019 contained certain material omissions. In addition, on May 10, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder of WellCare against WellCare, members of the WellCare Board, Centene, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 in the Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida (Seabaugh v. WellCare Health Plans, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019CA004942 ("Seabaugh v. WellCare" and, together with Stein v. WellCare, Kent v. WellCare and Clark v. WellCare, the "Lawsuits"). The complaint in Seabaugh v. WellCare alleges that members of the WellCare Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to an allegedly unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices that allegedly impede their ability to investigate or obtain higher offers, allegedly failing to protect against certain purported conflicts of interest, and allegedly failing to disclose material information in the Joint Proxy Statement. The complaint further alleges that WellCare, Centene, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to enjoin or rescind the mergers and requests an award of attorneys' fees and damages in an unspecified amount. On July 1, 2019, the plaintiffs in Stein v. WellCare and Kent v. WellCare filed notices of voluntary dismissal. WellCare Health Plans, Inc., incorporated on February 5, 2004, is a managed care company. The Company focuses on government-sponsored managed care services, primarily through Medicaid, Medicare Advantage (MA) and Medicare Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs), to families, children, seniors and individuals with medical needs. The Company operates in three segments: Medicaid Health Plans, Medicare Health Plans and Medicare PDPs. The company is based in Tampa, Florida. WELLS FARGO: Oct. 9 Auto Insurance Settlement Fairness Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------- IN RE WELLS FARGO & COMPANY AUTO INSURANCE DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, LEAD CASE NO. CGC-17-561118 (S.F. SUPER. CT.) TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF WELLS FARGO & COMPANY COMMON STOCK AS OF JUNE 21, 2019 (THE "RECORD DATE"), WHO CONTINUE TO OWN SUCH SHARES ("WELLS FARGO SHAREHOLDERS") A proposed settlement (the "Settlement") has been reached in the above-titled shareholder derivative action pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco (the "Court"). The Action has been brought derivatively on behalf of Wells Fargo to remedy the harm allegedly caused to the Company by the defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and violations of law concerning, among other things, the placement of automobile collateral protection insurance ("CPI"). A hearing on approval of the Settlement will be held on October 9, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, before the Honorable Teri L. Jackson at the San Francisco Superior Courthouse, Department 613, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California 94102 (the "Settlement Hearing"), to determine whether (i) the Settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to Wells Fargo and its shareholders and should be approved by the Court; (ii) Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee Applications and Plaintiffs' Reimbursement Awards should be granted; and (iii) a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal should be entered herein. Because this is a shareholder derivative action brought for the benefit of Wells Fargo, no individual Wells Fargo shareholder has the right to receive any individual compensation as a result of the settlement of this action. The benefits to the Company of the proposed Settlement, which is subject to Court approval, include certain corporate governance changes by Wells Fargo (the "Corporate Governance Reforms") (see Stipulation Ex. A). The Plaintiffs and Wells Fargo agree that the Corporate Governance Reforms set forth in Exhibit A to the Stipulation have significant value to Wells Fargo. IF YOU ARE AN OWNER OF WELLS FARGOCOMMON STOCK, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT. A more detailed form of notice describing the Settlement has been published as a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, has been published on Wells Fargo's company website at www.wellsfargo.com, and is also available at www.wellsfargoautoderivativesettlement.com. More information is also available by calling (888) 952-9086. Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed form of notice, may be made to a representative of Plaintiffs' Counsel. Should you have any other questions regarding the proposed Settlement or the Action, please contact Plaintiffs' Counsel: In re Wells Fargo & Co. Auto Insurance Derivative Action Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, California 94010 Berman Tabacco 1 Liberty Square, Suite 800 Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10016 Wells Fargo shareholders who have no objection to the Settlement do not need to appear at the final approval hearing or take any action. If you wish to object to any aspect of the Settlement, the Fee Application, the Reimbursement Awards, or the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal, you must provide in writing your full name, appropriate proof of your Wells Fargo stock ownership as of the Record Date, the basis for your objection, and your signature or your attorney's signature. You may not ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the Settlement. You may also appear at the Settlement Hearing, either in person or through your own attorney. If you appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney. All objections to the Settlement, the Fee Applications and the Reimbursement Awards must be either (1) submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Clerk of the Court, or by filing them in person at any location of the Court, OR (2) mailed to CPI Plaintiffs' Counsel, c/o In re Wells Fargo & Co. Auto Insurance Derivative Action, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200, Burlingame, California 94010 (in which case, Plaintiffs' Counsel shall then file the objections with the Court on your behalf). The deadline to submit objection is September 17, 2019 and any objections must be filed or postmarked no later than that date. All written objections and supporting papers must clearly identify the case name and number (In re Wells Fargo & Company Auto Insurance Derivative Litigation, CGC-17-516118 (S.F. Super.)). PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: July 12, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO WELLS FARGO: Oct. 9 Derivative Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- IN RE WELLS FARGO & COMPANY DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, LEAD CASE NO. CGC-16-554407 (S.F. SUPER CT.) TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF WELLS FARGO & COMPANY COMMON STOCK AS OF JUNE 14, 2019 (THE "RECORD DATE"), WHO CONTINUE TO OWN SUCH SHARES ("WELLS FARGO SHAREHOLDERS") A proposed settlement (the "Settlement") has been reached in the above-titled shareholder derivative action (the "Action") that is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco (the "Court"). The Action has been brought derivatively on behalf of Wells Fargo by certain Wells Fargo shareholders to remedy the harm allegedly caused to the Company by the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and violations of law by certain Wells Fargo current or former officers and directors concerning, among other things, the alleged opening of accounts without customer knowledge or authorization at Wells Fargo as well as other related fraudulent, improper, or unethical acts or practices alleged in the complaints in the Action ("Improper Sales Practices"). A hearing on the Settlement will be held on October 9, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, before the Honorable Teri L. Jackson, at the San Francisco Superior Courthouse, Department 613, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California 94102 (the "Settlement Hearing"), to determine whether (i) the Settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to Wells Fargo and its shareholders and should be approved by the Court; (ii) Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel's and Plaintiff Joan Herron's Counsel's Fee Applications and Plaintiffs' and Herron's Reimbursement Awards should be granted; and (iii) a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal should be entered herein. Because this is a shareholder derivative action brought for the benefit of Wells Fargo, no individual Wells Fargo shareholder has the right to receive any individual compensation as a result of the settlement of this action. The benefits to the Company of the proposed Settlement, which is subject to Court approval, include stock grant forfeitures ("Clawbacks") realized by Wells Fargo and certain corporate governance changes by Wells Fargo (the "Corporate Governance Reforms") (see Stipulation Ex. A). Plaintiffs and Wells Fargo agree that the Clawbacks set forth in the Stipulation and the Corporate Governance Reforms set forth in Exhibit A to the Stipulation have significant value to Wells Fargo. IF YOU ARE AN OWNER OF WELLS FARGOCOMMON STOCK, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT. A more detailed form of notice describing the Settlement has been published as a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, has been published on Wells Fargo's company website at www.wellsfargo.com, and is also available at www.wellsfargosalesderivativesettlement.com. More information is also available by calling (877) 865-5287. Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed form of notice, may be made to a representative of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. Should you have any other questions regarding the proposed Settlement or the Action, please contact Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel: In re Wells Fargo & Co. Derivative Action Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, California 94010 Wells Fargo shareholders who have no objection to the Settlement do not need to appear at the final approval hearing or take any action. If you wish to object to any aspect of the Settlement, the Fee Applications, the Reimbursement Awards, or the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal, you must provide in writing your full name, appropriate proof of your Wells Fargo stock ownership as of the Record Date, the basis of your objection, and your signature or your attorney's signature. You may not ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the Settlement. You may also appear at the Settlement Hearing, either in person or through your own attorney. If you appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney. All objections to the Settlement, the Fee Applications and the Reimbursement Awards must be either (1) submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Clerk of the Court, or by filing them in person at any location of the Court, OR (2) mailed to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel, c/o In re Wells Fargo & Co. Improper Sales Practices Derivative Action, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200, Burlingame, California 94010 (in which case, Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel shall then file the objections with the Court on your behalf). The deadline to submit objections is September 17, 2019 and any objections must be filed or postmarked no later than that date. All written objections and supporting papers must clearly identify the case name and number (In re Wells Fargo & Company Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. CGC-16-554407 (S.F. Super.)). PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: July 12, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO WEST SHORE: Bader Suit Alleges FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------- Jamie Bader and Jeffrey Mikula on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. William BJ Werzyn, and West Shore Window & Door, Inc. dba West Shore Home, Case No. 2:19-cv-00558 (W.D. Pa., May 10, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Wage Payment Collection Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants had a rule, policy, practice, and/or communications applicable to its overtime exempt employees that if they charged an expense to a Company Credit Card but failed to provide a receipt for the expense, the amount of that expense would be deducted from the involved employee's salary. The threatened salary deduction does not comply with the salary basis requirements for exempt employees under FLSA, PMWA and WPCL, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff Bader whose present address in 5705 Glen Hill Drive, Bethel Park, PA 15102, was hired by the Defendants in September 2017, first as trainee and then as Field Sales Manager until her employment ended in April 2018. The Plaintiff Mikula was hired by the Defendant on May 2, 2017, first as trainee, then as Field Sales Manager and then was assigned for a training program for his promotion as In-Home Sales Representative/Design Consultant position on October 10, 2017. Two weeks later, on October 24, 2017, during his training program, the Defendants separated Plaintiff Mikula from its employment. The Defendant West Shore is a home remodeling company specializing in window replacement, bathroom remodeling, and door replacements, with a headquarters at 5024 Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050, and a local office at 140 Pennsylvania Avenue, Building 4, Oakmont, PA 15139. The Defendant Werzyn is the owner and Chief Executive Officer of the Defendant West Shore. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig M. Brooks, Esq. HOUSTON HARBAUGH, P.C. Three Gateway Center, 22nd Floor 401 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 281-5060 [*] Class Action Mulled Over Bike Helmets Lacking MIPS or WaveCel ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Frothingham, writing for BRAIN, reports that a Knoxville lawfirm is investigating a potential class-action lawsuit against companies that sell bike helmets lacking new anti-concussion technology like MIPS. Greg Coleman Law is advertising on TopClassActions.com, trying to find people who have suffered head injuries while using helmets lacking the new technologies. The potential lawsuit was first reported by the Bicycle Helmet Safety Insitute in its Helmet Update email newsletter. MIPS and similar technology promise to reduce the likelihood of brain injury from angular impacts. The legal advertisement notes that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission does not require helmets to use technology like MIPS. The CPSC's standard doesn't specifically measure a helmet's ability to reduce the chance of concussion from low speed and angular impacts. Yet, the ad notes, Virginia Tech has recently conducted independent testing that finds the technology effective. "As newer technologies are developed that have been proven to be safer and provide better protection against head injuries for cyclists, companies should also be updating their products to provide the ultimate safety for their customers," the ad reads. "If you purchased a bike helmet in the last couple of years that you believe did not offer the injury protection you expected, you may qualify to join this bicycle helmet safety class action lawsuit investigation." The ad mentions MIPS, which a Swedish company licenses to a multitude of brands, and WaveCel, Trek Bicycle's exclusive new helmet liner material. Helmets with MIPS and WaveCel have performed well in Virginia Tech's studies. The ad doesn't mention other technologies that make similar claims, like Louis Garneau's Rotexx, POC's Spin, and 6D's ODS. The ad includes a form for members of the public to fill out to see if they could participate in the class action investigation. The BHSI newsletter said, "Whether or not the lawsuit is ever filed, it points the way for plaintiff's attorneys to attack manufacturers in the future when a cyclist is injured in a helmet," the newsletter read. "The defense will try to prove that the manufacturer's product met all applicable safety standards, and there is no consensus in the industry or injury prevention community that the Virginia Tech ratings are valid, so no current standards use the Virginia Tech tests or call out the performance that results in a five star helmet in their ratings," it continued. BHSI's director, Randy Swart, told BRAIN, "I would hate to see the lawyers take advantage of this situation, but it may push ASTM and CPSC to add rotational energy management testing and low impact testing to our standard." MIPS recently reported first half revenues of $13.5 million, a 61% increase over the same period last year. Last year, MIPS was used by 78 helmet brands on 448 helmet models. [GN] [*] Securities Fraud Case Filings Up in First Half of 2019 ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs continued the rapid pace of securities fraud case filings with 198 new federal class actions in the first half of 2019. According to a new report, Securities Class Action Filings—2019 Midyear Assessment, released on July 31 by Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, plaintiffs have filed more than 1,000 securities class actions in the last two and a half years, accounting for more than 20% of the total number of cases filed since 1997. The 126 core filings (those excluding M&A claims) were just one shy of the record set in the first half of 2017. The number of filings involving M&A transactions, however, dropped below 90 for the first time since the second half of 2016. In the first half of 2019, M&A-related filings declined more than 20% to 72 from 91 in the second half of 2018. "We have seen yet another strong half-year of filing activity in 2019," said Sasha Aganin, a vice president at Cornerstone Research and one of the report's authors. "Core filings rose from 108 to 126 between H2 2018 and H1 2019. This increase is largely attributable to a delayed effect of market volatility in the last quarter of 2018 and to an uptick in filings in the consumer non-cyclical sector (which includes biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and healthcare companies) and against internet and high-tech firms." Six mega dollar disclosure loss (DDL) filings (at least $5 billion) and 11 mega maximum dollar loss (MDL) filings (at least $10 billion) propelled aggregate market capitalization losses to the highest and fourth-highest levels on record, respectively. The total $180 billion DDL during the first half of 2019 was the highest on record. Total MDL increased by 17% to $781 billion, a level more than double the historical average. "In addition to large overall litigation volume, plaintiffs continue to shift securities fraud claims against IPOs from federal to state court," observed Joseph A. Grundfest, Stanford Law Professor, former SEC Commissioner, and founder of Stanford's Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. "Other data show that state courts dismiss fewer of these claims than do federal courts, suggesting that plaintiffs can successfully file weaker claims in state rather than federal court." Key Trends Non-U.S. companies: In the first half of 2019, core filings against non-U.S. issuers as a percentage of all core filings remained relatively stable at 23 percent—the third-highest percentage on record. The number of core filings against European firms increased to its second-highest level on record for a semiannual period, with 13 filings. State and federal courts: In March 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund allowing plaintiffs to assert 1933 Act claims in state court. To date, 61 new 1933 Act filings have appeared post-Cyan: 23 parallel filings, 12 filings in federal courts only, and 26 filings in state courts only. Industries: The Consumer Non-Cyclical sector again had the greatest number of filings with 47. Of these, 32 were against biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and healthcare companies. The 19 filings in the Communications sector were all against internet and telecommunications companies. S&P 500 firms: Core filings against S&P 500 firms in the first half of 2019 occurred at an annualized rate of 6.4%. Cryptocurrencies: There were three core filings involving initial coin offerings (ICOs) or cryptocurrencies in the first half of 2019. There was only one such filing in the second half of 2018, after a flurry of ICO and cryptocurrency filings at the end of 2017 and beginning of 2018. About Cornerstone Research Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings. The firm works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis for thirty years. The firm has 700 staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington. About the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (SCAC) is an authoritative source of data and analysis on the financial and economic characteristics of federal securities fraud class action litigation. The SCAC maintains a database of more than 5,300 securities class action lawsuits filed since passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database also contains copies of complaints, briefs, filings, and other litigation-related materials filed in these cases. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***