/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190826.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 26, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 170 Headlines 2U INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action 2U INC: Faces Harper Securities Suit Over Declining Share Prices 2U INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit 2U INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit 2U INC: RM Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit 3M COMPANY: Laborer's Fund Hits Share Price Drop ABBVIE INC: Faces 12 Class Suits by Indirect HUMIRA Buyers ABBVIE INC: Settlement in Rubinstein Suit Wins Initial Approval ABBVIE INC: Still Defends Suit Over AndroGel "Sham Litigation" ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Shaw Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ADVANCED LOAN: Silvera Files Class Suit in Florida ALLIED CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ALLSTATE FIRE: Cody Files Class Suit in Texas ALTA MESA: Plumbers Suit Transferred to Southern District of Texas AMNEAL PHARMA: Appeal in Williams Class Suit Underway AMNEAL PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Digoxin Drug-Related Suit Pending AMNEAL PHARMA: Document Discovery in Generic Pricing Suit Ongoing AMNEAL PHARMA: Opana ER(R) Antitrust Litigation Ongoing AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement Reached in Sergeants Benevolent Suit ANGI HOMESERVICES: Conner Files Class Suit under ADA APPLE INC: Lopez Challenges Illegal Recording of Communications APPLE INC: Siri Recordings Spawn Class-Action Lawsuit APPLE INC: Williams, et al. Sue over iCloud Service Rate ARONESTY AND SANTORO: Buscemi Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads ARROWHEAD PHARMA: 9th Cir. Affirms Order of Dismissal ARROWHEAD PHARMA: Suit over Hepatitis B Drug Research Ongoing BDJ TRUCKING: Yata's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Advisement BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Kakkar Class Suit Pending BIZQUALIFY LLC: Seeks Prelim. OK of $695K Settlement in Hu Suit BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Bid to Dismiss Mishal & Berger Suit Pending CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Justiss Hits Share Price Drop CAPITAL ONE: Fadullon Sues Over Credit Card Data Breach CAPITAL ONE: Harn Sues Over Credit Card Data Breach CAPITAL ONE: Howitt Files Sues Over Data Breach CAPITAL ONE: Miller Files Class Suit in Washington CAPITAL ONE: Tester Files Class Suit in Virginia CAPITALA FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss Paskowitz Suit Still Pending CARIBBEAN CAR: Mirabal Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CASA SYSTEMS: IPO-Related Class Suits Underway in Massachusetts CB RESTAURANTS: Padilla Balks at "House Fees" for Exotic Dancers CHAMBERS FINE: Picon Files Class Suit under ADA CHANEL JOHNSON: El Files Class Suit in New Jersey CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Trejo Seeks Unpaid Wages for Workers CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Reached in Tagalogon Class Suit CINEMARK USA: Brown Settlement Agreement Preliminarily Approved CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $15.7MM Remains to be Paid from Settlement CONTRA COSTA: Violates TCPA by Sending Unsolicited Fax, Katz Say CONTRACT FREIGHTERS: Merrill Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Skibbe Sues over Share Price Drop CURO GROUP: Continues to Defend Yellowdog Partners Class Suit DETROIT EDISON: Court Dismisses With Prejudice Nolan ERISA Suit DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Suit in Arkansas Still Pending E&A PROTECTIVE: Denied Drivers Meal Breaks, Gas Mileage Refunds EATON, OH: Quinn et al. Seek OT Wages for Firefighters EDEN MANAGEMENT: Bayeg Sues Over Biometrics Data Sharing ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Generic Drug Pricing Litigation Ongoing ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Mesh Liability Payments Reaches $3.4 Billion ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Trial in Opioid Related Suit to Begin Oct. 2019 ENDURANCE INT'L: Machado Settlement Fairness Hearing on Sept. 13 ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Still Awaits Court OK on McGee Settlement ENHANCED RECOVERY: Paul Files Class Suit under FDCPA EQUITY BANCSHARES: Suit Alleges Misleading Financial Report EVOLENT HEALTH: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action EVOLENT HEALTH: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss Patel Suit FACEBOOK INC: Loses Appeal, Class Action Over Facial Recognition FISHER PRICE: Wray Suit Transferred to Western Dist. of New York FLYING POINT SPORT: Olsen Suit Alleges Violation under ADA FMH LP: Deleston Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act FORD MOTOR: Agrees to $17MM Settlement Over Infotainment Woes FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Weidman's Brake Defect Suit FORD MOTOR: Pinon Suit Transferred to Eastern District of Michigan FORD MOTOR: Riverside Alleges False Fuel-Economy Ratings GENERAL ELECTRIC: Misled Investors in Baker Hughes Deal, Suit Says GENERAL MILLS: Newman Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois GENERAL MOTORS: Truesdell Sues Over Defective Headlights GERALD PETERS: Picon Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act GERAWAN FARMING: Court OKs $5MM Class Settlement in Amaro Suit GHS INTERACTIVE: Cunningham Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Haut Sues Over Misrepresentation of Vanilla GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Class Suit Over 1MDB Scandal Ongoing GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Suit Over FX Transactions Ongoing GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Securities Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal GREENE NAFTALI: Picon Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act HEADWAY TECH: Faces Suit Over Hard Drive Component Price-fixing HEADWAY TECH: Suit Claims Price-Fixing of HDD Suspension Assemblies HEALTH INSURANCE: Schick Suit Moved to S.D. California HELIUS MEDICAL: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit HELIUS MEDICAL: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline HERON THERAPEUTICS: Wong Securities Class Suit Ongoing HERTZ LOCAL: Denied Workers Pay Slips, Meal Breaks, Says Ramirez HOWARD ZUCKER: Court OKs Class Certification in Guadagna HSBC USA: Faces Ortega Class Action HUCKBERRY INC: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act INEOS STYROLUTION: Foth Suit Dismissed Per Settlement Agreement INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Skrzeczkoski Class Suit Ongoing INTERSECT ENT: Nov. 1 Hearing to Appoint Lead Plaintiff JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Dolan Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida JONES FINANCIAL: 8th Cir. Appeal in McDonald Suit Pending JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Discrimination Class Suit Underway JONES FINANCIAL: Renewed Bid to Dismiss Bland Suit Pending JUUL LABS: R.E. Alleges Deceptive Trade of e-Cigarette Products KC PLUMBING, LLC: Diaz Seeks Overtime Pay, Claims Retaliation KIMPTON HOTEL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Anderson Suit LOZANO INSURANCE: Jointly Move to Notify Class in Mosley Suit LVNV FUNDING: Soussana Files FDCPA Suit in Calif. M&T BANK: Settlement of Suit v. Wilmington Trust Finally Approved MAINSTREET REALTORS: Sued over Unsolicited Calls & Text Messages MAMMOTH ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Zeisset Class Suit Underway MAMMOTH ENERGY: Faces Two Class Suits in Oklahoma MAMMOTH ENERGY: Still Defends Class Action in Puerto Rico MDL 2904: Brown-Wells Suit over Data Breach Consolidated MDL 2904: DeMarshall v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated MDL 2904: Finch v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated MDL 2904: Grauberger v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated MDL 2904: Hively v. LABCORP. over Data Breach Consolidated MDL 2904: Mayer v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated MDL 2904: Worthey v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Court Closes Naples Class Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Doerwald Suit Moved to E.D. New York MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Dismiss GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Underway NCAA: Neglected Student-Athletes' Safety, Leiss Suit Says NCAA: Wakely Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety NEW MEXICO: APS Wins Dismissal of FAPE IDEA Suit NHK GROUP: Integrity Files Antitrust Trust Suit in Michigan NIGHT STAR: Illegally Towed Parked Vehicle, Green Says NORTH COAST MEDIA: Newell Sues over Pre-Recorded Phone Messages NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Schmieder Files Consumer Class Action OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Ongoing ONSHORE QUALITY: Robertson Seeks Overtime Wages for Workers PACIFIC FERTILITY: Court Narrows Claims in Egg Storage Litigation PERMITS ETC: Reed Seeks Minimum Wage for Exotic Dancers PETROS & SON'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/NJWHL, Lema Says PHARMAPACKS LLC: Diaz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act PLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE: Walk and Estrada Seek OT Pay for Clerks POLEKATZ GENTLEMEN'S: Exotic Dancers Not Contractors, Suit Says POWERSTROKE WELL: Lechot Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PUBLIX SUPER: Rivera Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages REILY FOODS: 1st Cir. Flips Dismissal in Dumont Suit REMAX REAL: Tikotzky Sues over Unsolicited Calls & Text Messages SANDHU INDUSTRIES: Ortega Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SANYO ENERGY: Ziccarello Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey SAVING INSURANCE: Moore Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Mediation in Agar Suit Set for Dec. 11 SHUTTERFLY INC: Gordon to Halt Merger Deal, Seeks Financials SIRIUS XM: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of DPPA CFAA Suit SKINNER SERVICES: Court OKs Class Certification in Pineda Suit SMOKERS GOODS: Ruos et al. Seek Overtime Wages STAND UP: Court OKs Arbitration in Townsend FLSA Suit SUNRISE SENIOR: Tunstall Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California TAIYAKI NYC: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act TATCHA LLC: Dawson Files ADA Class Suit in New York TENET HEALTHCARE: Maderazo Class Suit Ongoing TRACE STAFFING: Harake Seeks Certification of Class Under FCRA TRACTOR SUPPLY: Hornbeck Moves for Prelim. Approval of Settlement TRAVELCENTERS: Bid to Dismiss Ohio Class Suit Pending TRIHEALTH INC: Forman Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Fund TYSON FOODS: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit Ongoing TYSON FOODS: Fed Cattle Antitrust Litigation Ongoing TYSOON FOODS: Peterson Suit over Inflated Beef Price Underway U.S. IMMIGRATION: Nightingale Seeks to Certify Two Classes UNITED STATES: Removes Zhuravleva Suit to S.D. California US CONFERENCE: Franchell Files Class Suit in NY for Personal Injury USA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit by Puerto Rico Retirement Fund USHEALTH ADVISORS: Odom Sues over Illegal Telemarketing Calls VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit VIRGINIA COMMUNITY: Moore Sues over Employee Stock Ownership Plan VIVINT: Perrong Files Class FDCPA Suit in Utah VM TRUCKING: Court Partly Affirms Summary Judgment in Morales Suit VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in DSG Transmission Suit WELLS FARGO: Oct. 9 Final Settlement Approval Hearing in Sales Suit WELLS FARGO: Settlement of Institutional Investors Suit Okayed WELLS FARGO: Still Faces Suit over Debit Card Order of Posting WHITESTONE REIT: Co-Lead Plaintiffs Appointed in Clark Class Suit ZIMMER BIOMET: Shah Class Certification Bid Underway ********* 2U INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of 2U Inc. (NASDAQ: TWOU) between February 25, 2019 and July 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased 2U Inc. securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit 2U Inc. Shareholder Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company faced increasing competition in online education and particularly regarding graduate programs; (2) that the Company faced certain program-specific issues that negatively impacted its performance; (3) that, as a result, the Company's business model was not sustainable; (4) that the Company would slow its program launches; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis." The truth began to emerge on May 7, 2019, when the Company disclosed declining enrollments in some of its largest graduate programs. On this news, the Company's share price fell $15.16 or nearly 26% to close at $44.77 per share on May 8, 2019. On July, 30, 2019, after the market closed, the Company reported a larger-than-expected loss for second quarter 2019. The Company also revised its guidance for fiscal 2019, expecting a net loss between $157.5 and $151.5 million. On this news, 2U's common stock fell $23.70 or nearly 65% to close at $12.80 per share. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 7, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased TWOU securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://tinyurl.com/y3xo6hyz or contact Matthew E. 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 Information: Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Website: https://www.bernlieb.com Tel.: (877) 779-1414 Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] 2U INC: Faces Harper Securities Suit Over Declining Share Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- AARON HARPER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. 2U, INC., CHRISTOPHER J. PAUCEK, and CATHERINE A. GRAHAM, Case No. 1:19-cv-07390 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2019), is brought on behalf of those that purchased 2U securities seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Mr. Harper alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company faced increasing competition in online education and particularly regarding graduate programs and that the Company faced certain program-specific issues that negatively impacted its performance. He contends that when the truth began to emerge and when the Company disclosed declining average enrollments in some of its largest graduate programs, the Company's share price fell, thus, harming him and other shareholders. 2U is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal executive offices located in Lanham, Maryland. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of 2U. 2U is an education technology company that works with universities to provide online graduate programs and certificates for working adults.[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: lglancy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com 2U INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against 2U, Inc. (NASDAQ: TWOU) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of 2U between February 25, 2019 and July 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company faced increasing competition in online education and particularly regarding graduate programs; (2) the Company faced certain program-specific issues that negatively impacted its performance; (3) as a result, the Company's business model was not sustainable; (4) the Company would slow its program launches; and (5) as a result, 2U's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the October 7, 2019 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com [GN] 2U INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in 2U, Inc. (TWOU) to the securities class action, Harper v. 2U, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-07390, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. If you invested in 2U between February 25, 2019 and July 30, 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 October 7, 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/TWOU or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing TWOU@hbsslaw.com According to the Complaint, Defendants misrepresented and concealed the following: (1) 2U faced increasing competition in online education and particularly regarding graduate programs; (2) 2U faced program-specific issues that negatively impacted its performance, including 2U's grad business; (3) 2U's business model was unsustainable; and (4) 2U would slow its program launches. On July 30, 2019, the market learned the truth when Defendants announced disappointing Q2 2019 financial results and revised U2's 2019 guidance to double its expected loss. Analysts immediately downgraded the stock, including Oppenheimer which said 2U was "uninvestable given the uncertainty over its business model." This news drove the price of 2U shares steeply lower on July 31, 2019. "We're focused on investors' losses and the extent to which 2U may have misled investors about the sustainability of its business model," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding 2U 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 TWOU@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman 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. Tel.: 510-725-3000 Email: reed@hbsslaw.com [GN] 2U INC: RM Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- RM LAW, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased 2U, Inc. (NASDAQ: TWOU) common stock February 26, 2018 and July 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). 2U shareholders may, no later than October 7, 2019, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of 2U and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign up online. On May 7, 2019, the Company lowered its revenue guidance for fiscal 2019 to a range of $534 to $537 million, from prior guidance range of $546.6 to $550.8 million, due to declining average enrollments in some of its largest graduate programs. On this news, the Company's share price fell $15.16, or nearly 26%, to close at $44.77 per share on May 8, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then on July 30, 2019, after the market closed, the Company reported a larger-than-expected loss for second quarter 2019. The Company also revised its guidance for fiscal 2019, expecting a net loss between $157.5 and $151.5 million, compared to prior net loss guidance between $79.0 and $77.2 million, because it would "moderate [its] grad program launch cadence." On this news, the Company's share price fell $23.70, or nearly 65%, to close at $12.80 per share on July 31, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company faced increasing competition in online education and particularly regarding graduate programs; (2) that the Company faced certain program-specific issues that negatively impacted its performance; (3) that, as a result, the Company's business model was not sustainable; (4) that the Company would slow its program launches; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October 7, 2019, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C. (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by email at rm@maniskas.com RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW, P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. Contact: Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel.: 484-324-6800, 844-291-9299 Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN] 3M COMPANY: Laborer's Fund Hits Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------ Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Welfare Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 3M Company, Inge G. Thulin, Michael F. Roman and Nicholas C. Gangestad, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-15982, (D. N.J., July 29, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 3M is a multinational conglomerate corporation whose common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange. It produces per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances used in industrial and consumer products, including non-stick cookware, water-repellent clothing, camping gear, shoes, stain resistant fabrics, textiles and carpets, cosmetics, surfactants for electronics manufacturing, and products that resist grease, water, and oil, such as coated papers for fast-food takeout. The substances allegedly do not break down molecularly, thus causing harm to the environment with some states claiming that it has contaminated their tap water. These omissions and misrepresentations caused 3M's stock price to trade at artificially inflated prices. The price of 3M common stock declined from its close of $163.35 per share on May 28, 2019 to trade as low as $160.50 per share in intraday trading and close at $161.40 per share on May 29, 2019. Plaintiff purchased 3M shares and lost substantially after corrective disclosures. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 Fax: (212) 584-0799 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 Email: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com ABBVIE INC: Faces 12 Class Suits by Indirect HUMIRA Buyers ---------------------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that between March and May 2019, 12 putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by indirect HUMIRA purchasers, alleging that AbbVie's settlements with biosimilar manufacturers and AbbVie's HUMIRA patent portfolio violate state and federal antitrust laws. AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases; IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in North Chicago, Illinois. ABBVIE INC: Settlement in Rubinstein Suit Wins Initial Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a court has granted preliminary approval to the parties' settlement agreement in Rubinstein, et al. v Gonzalez, et al. In November 2014, five individuals filed a putative class action lawsuit, Rubinstein, et al. v Gonzalez, et al., on behalf of purchasers and sellers of certain Shire plc (Shire) securities between June 20 and October 14, 2014, against AbbVie and its chief executive officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the defendants made and/or are responsible for material misstatements in violation of federal securities laws in connection with AbbVie's proposed transaction with Shire. In July 2019, the court granted preliminary approval to the parties' settlement agreement. AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases; IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in North Chicago, Illinois. ABBVIE INC: Still Defends Suit Over AndroGel "Sham Litigation" -------------------------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend suits, including a class action case, in Pennsylvania over alleged "sham litigation" related to AndroGel. In September 2014, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a lawsuit against AbbVie and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the 2011 patent litigation with two generic companies regarding AndroGel was sham litigation and the settlements of that litigation violated federal antitrust law. In May 2015, the court dismissed the FTC's settlement-related claim. In June 2018, following a bench trial, the court found for the FTC on its sham litigation claim and ordered a disgorgement remedy of $448 million, plus prejudgment interest. The court denied the FTC's request for injunctive relief. AbbVie is appealing the court's liability and disgorgement rulings and, based on an assessment of the merits of that appeal, no liability has been accrued for this matter. The FTC is also appealing aspects of the court's trial ruling and the dismissal of its settlement-related claim. One purported class action on behalf of direct AndroGel purchasers based on the trial court's ruling in the FTC's case is also pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and is stayed pending the appeals in the FTC's case. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases; IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in North Chicago, Illinois. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Shaw Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Jasmaine Shaw, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Hollister Co. and Does 1-50, Inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 30-2019-01068593 (Cal. Super., May 8, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for Central California on July 31, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-01490. Figueroa seeks redress for Defendants' failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.[BN] Defendants are represented by: Emily T. Patajo, Esq. Rachael Lavi, Esq. Cassidy C. Veal, Bar No. 323899 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 Email: epatajo@littler.com rlavi@littler.com ADVANCED LOAN: Silvera Files Class Suit in Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Loan Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Silvera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Advanced Loan Systems, LLC doing business as: Oneloanplace.com, a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00383 (N.D. Fla., Aug. 14, 2019). The case type is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Advanced Loan Systems, LLC is a loan agency in Tallahassee, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. ALLIED CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allied Capital Corp., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06559 (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2019), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Allied Capital Corp. is an online marketing company that conducted telemarketing campaigns in order to promote its business. Fabricant claims to have received auto-dialed telemarketing calls on his phones. Fabricant's phone is registered in the National Do-Not-Call registry. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com ALLSTATE FIRE: Cody Files Class Suit in Texas --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company. The case is styled as Andrea Cody, Traevion Love, Brittany Burk, and Dana Whitfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01935-K (N.D. Tex., Aug. 13, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Insurance filed for Breach of Insurance Contract. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company operates as an insurance firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Scott Black, Esq. Daly & Black PC 2211 Norfolk Street, Suite 800 Houston, TX 77098 Tel: (713) 655-1405 Fax: (713) 655-1587 - and - Richard D Daly, Esq. Daly & Black PC 2211 Norfolk Street, Suite 800 Houston, TX 77098 Tel: (713) 655-1405 Fax: (713) 655-1587 Email: rdaly@dalyblack.com ALTA MESA: Plumbers Suit Transferred to Southern District of Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALTA MESA RESOURCES, INC. f/k/a SILVER RUN ACQUISITION CORPORATION II, JAMES T. HACKETT, THOMAS J. WALKER, WILLIAM D. GUTERMUTH, JEFFREY H. TEPPER, DIANA J. WALTERS and RIVERSTONE INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, the Defendants, and Camelot Event Driven Fund, A Series of Frank Funds Trust, the Movant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00920 (Filed Jan. 30, 2019), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District Southern of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston) on Aug 12, 2019. The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-02982 to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of Securities Exchange Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lynn N. Hughes. Alta Mesa is an independent oil and gas exploration and production company.[BN] Attorneys for the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund are: David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER ET AL 58 S Service Road, Ste 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. LERACH COUGHLIN ET AL 58 S Service Rd Ste 200 Melville, NY 11747-2342 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Attorneys for Defendants are: Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 500 W 2nd Street, Floor 19, Suite 140 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 710-5960 E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com - and - James Christian Word, Esq. Jessica Leigh Bengels, Esq. LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP Washington, DC 20004, Ste 1000 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 E-mail: christian.word@lw.com Attorneys for Camelot Event Driven Fund are: Christopher J Keller, Esq. Francis P McConville, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0853 Facsimile: (212) 883-7053 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com AMNEAL PHARMA: Appeal in Williams Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the appeal in the class action suit initiated by Emielou Williams is ongoing. On August 3, 2017, plaintiff Emielou Williams filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Alameda on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by violating various California wage and hour laws, and seeking, among other things, declaratory judgment, restitution of allegedly unpaid wages, and disgorgement. On October 10, 2017, Impax filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations. On December 12, 2017, the Court overruled Impax's Demurrer to Plaintiff's individual claims. However, it struck all of plaintiff's class allegations. On March 13, 2018, plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint once again including the same class allegations. The Company filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations on April 12, 2018. On September 20, 2018, the Court again struck plaintiff’s class allegations; plaintiff has appealed this most recent order to the California State Court of Appeal. Plaintiff filed her opening appellate brief on February 22, 2019; Impax's brief in response was filed on April 18, 2019; plaintiff filed her reply brief on May 7, 2019; and Impax filed a surreply on May 22, 2019. The appeal has now been fully submitted on the briefs. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Digoxin Drug-Related Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit related to the price fixing of the generic drug digoxin, is pending. On April 17, 2017, Lead Plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against Impax and four current or former Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiff asserts claims regarding alleged misrepresentations about three generic drugs. Its principal claim alleges that Impax concealed that it colluded with competitor Lannett Corp. to fix the price of generic drug digoxin, and that its digoxin profits stemmed from this collusive pricing. Plaintiff also alleges that Impax concealed from the market anticipated erosion in the price of generic drug diclofenac and that Impax overstated the value of budesonide, a generic drug that it acquired from Teva. On June 1, 2017, Impax filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 7, 2018, the Court granted Impax's motion, dismissing plaintiffs' claims without prejudice and with leave to amend their complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint October 26, 2018. Impax filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 6, 2018; plaintiffs' opposition thereto was filed on January 17, 2019; and Impax's reply in support of its motion to dismiss was filed on February 7, 2019. A hearing before the Court on the motion to dismiss took place on May 2, 2019. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Document Discovery in Generic Pricing Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, is proceeding to document discovery. Between March 2016 and January 2019, numerous complaints styled as antitrust class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (or end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") have been filed against manufacturers of generic digoxin, lidocaine/prilocaine, glyburide-metformin, and metronidazole, including Impax. The end-payor plaintiffs comprise Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund; Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund; Pipe Trade Services MN; Edward Carpinelli; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Nina Diamond; UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund; Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund; The City of Providence, Rhode Island; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund; United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust; Ottis McCrary; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Unite Here Health; Valerie Velardi; and Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc.; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.; César Castillo, Inc.; Ahold USA, Inc.; and FWK Holdings, L.L.C. The opt-out plaintiffs comprise The Kroger Co.; Albertsons Companies, LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P.; Humana Inc.; and United Healthcare Services, Inc. On April 6, 2017, the JPML ordered the consolidation of all civil actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("E.D. Pa."), as In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2724). Consolidated class action complaints were filed on August 15, 2017 for each of the 18 drugs; Impax is named as a defendant in the 2 complaints respecting digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine. Impax also is a defendant in the class action complaint filed with the MDL court on June 22, 2018 by certain direct purchasers of glyburide-metformin and metronidazole. Each of the various complaints alleges a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for the particular drug products at issue. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On October 16, 2018, the Court denied Impax and its co-defendants' motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint. On February 15, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims brought by two classes of indirect purchasers in the digoxin action. The Court dismissed seven state law claims in the end-payor plaintiffs' complaint and six state law claims in the indirect reseller plaintiffs' complaint. Motions to dismiss the glyburide-metformin and metronidazole complaint, as well as 2 of the complaints filed by certain opt-out plaintiffs, were filed February 21, 2019. On March 11, 2019, the Court issued an order approving a stipulation withdrawing the direct purchaser plaintiffs' glyburide-metformin claims against Impax. Document discovery otherwise is proceeding. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Opana ER(R) Antitrust Litigation Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself against Opana ER(R) Antitrust Litigation. From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints styled as class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (also known as end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") were filed against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and Impax. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise Value Drug Company and Meijer Inc. The end-payor plaintiffs comprise the Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund; Massachusetts Bricklayers; Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund; Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Kim Mahaffay; and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund. The opt-out plaintiffs comprise Walgreen Co.; The Kroger Co.; Safeway, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P.; Albertson’s LLC; Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.; and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") ordered the pending class actions transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ("N.D. Ill.") for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2580). (Actions subsequently filed in other jurisdictions also were transferred by the JPML to the N.D. Ill. to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings, and the District Court likewise has consolidated the opt-out plaintiffs' actions with the direct purchaser class actions for pretrial purposes.) In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Discovery, including expert discovery, is ongoing. On March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification and opening expert reports. Defendants' oppositions to class certification and rebuttal expert reports are due to be filed in August 2019. No trial date has been scheduled. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement Reached in Sergeants Benevolent Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has reached a settlement in principle with plaintiffs in the case, Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC, et. al., subject to execution of definitive documentation. In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis plc) and numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic versions of Forest's Namenda IR product. The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly purchased Namenda(R) IR or its generic equivalents in various states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants' allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims pending factual development or resolution of claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct purchasers (in which the Company is not a defendant). On September 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay, referred the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of supplemental, non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to be scheduled in 2019. The parties thereafter participated in supplemental discovery, as well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss briefing. On December 26, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims. On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs informed the Magistrate Judge that they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019. In June 2019, the Company reached a settlement with plaintiffs, subject to Court approval. The amount of the settlement is not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. ANGI HOMESERVICES: Conner Files Class Suit under ADA ---------------------------------------------------- ANGI Homeservices, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. ANGI Homeservices, Inc., Homeadvisor, Inc. and IAC/InterActiveCorp., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04680 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019). ANGI Homeservices offers a digital marketplace for home services, connecting millions of homeowners across the globe with home service professionals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com APPLE INC: Lopez Challenges Illegal Recording of Communications --------------------------------------------------------------- FUMIKO LOPEZ, and FUMIKO LOPEZ, as guardian of A.L., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:19-cv-04577-NC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2019), arises from the Defendant's unlawful and intentional recording of individuals' confidential communications without their consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California Unfair Competition Law. Siri is a voice-recognition software program developed by Apple that allows individuals to use their voice to ask questions and receive answers based on information available on the Internet. Apple preloads Siri on devices it manufactures, including Apple's iPhone smartphones, iPad tablets, Apple Watches, AirPod headphones, HomePod smart speakers, MacBook laptops, and iMac computers ("Siri Devices"). Apple knows that unauthorized recordings are common and as such tasks its human reviewers with, among other things, identifying whether Siri was deliberately activated or not, the Plaintiffs allege. Despite this, Apple has not informed consumers they are regularly being recorded without consent, the Plaintiffs add. Apple Inc. is a business incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business located in Cupertino, California. Apple is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling, inter alia, smartphones, tablet computers, wearable technology, headphones, laptops and desktop computers that come with software programs that Apple develops pre-installed. Apple designs its products in California, and its marketing efforts emanate from California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark N. Todzo, Esq. Eric S. Somers, Esq. LEXINGTON LAW GROUP 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 913-7800 Facsimile: (415) 759-4112 E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com esomers@lexlawgroup.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. Ian Sloss, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com isloss@lowey.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Erin Green Comite, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169-1820 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com ecomite@scott-scott.com - and - E. Kirk Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM P. O. Box 382434 Birmingham, AL 35238 Telephone: (205) 612-0243 E-mail: kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com APPLE INC: Siri Recordings Spawn Class-Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Ed Hardy, writing for Cult of Mac, reports that a class action lawsuit has been proposed to prevent Apple from recording Siri commands without users' express consent. And the plaintiffs want restitution, of course. Apple admits it made recordings of people talking to the Siri voice-control system to improve the system. As part of the process, some of these were listened to by humans. A whistleblower claims third-party contractors working for Apple frequently overheard private conversations that were recorded when an iPhone or Apple Watch mistakenly believed that the user had activated Siri. This caused the company to suspend its practice of having people review recordings. "We are committed to delivering a great Siri experience while protecting user privacy," Apple said in a statement. "While we conduct a thorough review, we are suspending Siri grading globally. Additionally, as part of a future software update, users will have the ability to choose to participate in grading." Lawsuit demands permanent changes A suit filed in the Nothern District of California accuses Apple of "unlawful and intentional recording of individuals' confidential communications without their consent from approximately October 2011 to the present." As evidence, they point out that Apple's privacy policy says "We may collect and store details of how you use our services, including search queries. This information may be used to improve the relevancy of results provided by our services." The plaintiffs do not believe that this covers the company recording accidental Siri interactions and letting third-party contractors listen to them, especially when the people being recorded are children. They want Apple to get consent before recording any minor's Siri interactions, and all previous ones deleted. As mentioned, the company has already promised to allow people to opt out of its Siri review program. And anyone can make their iPhone stop making these recordings. The plaintiffs in the proposed class action lawsuit also want "restitution of Plaintiffs' and the Class members' money and property lost as a result of Apple's acts of unfair competition." This comes from their claim that they bought Apple devices because these would better protect their privacy than rivals' would, something they say these secret recordings indicate isn't true. If Apple doesn't rectify their complaints within 30 days, the plaintiffs warn that they'll seek punitive damages. Not yet a class action A lawsuit like this one isn't actually a class action yet. The plaintiff, Fumiko Lopez and a minor, have asked that it be certified one, but it's up to the court. The court will base its decision on whether a sufficient number of people have been harmed to warrant a class action. [GN] APPLE INC: Williams, et al. Sue over iCloud Service Rate -------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA M. WILLIAMS AND JAMES STEWART, On Behalf of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. APPLE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-04700 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 12, 2019), alleges breach of contract, violations of California's False Advertising Law and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs bring the class action complaint against Apple, Inc. on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons in the United States who during the Class Period paid for subscriptions to Apple's iCloud service. Apple's iCloud service provides users the ability to store their digital data on remote servers, as opposed to keeping the data stored merely on the users' devices. This is commonly referred to as "storing on the cloud." Apple sold subscriptions to the putative class members by which Apple represented to class members that, in exchange for paying Apple the iCloud monthly subscription fees, Apple would provide them with cloud storage. In truth and in fact, however, Apple lacked the necessary infrastructure to provide this service at the time it sold it. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and the putative class members, instead of storing class members' data on Apple cloud servers and facilities, Apple actually stored users' data on cloud facilities owned and operated by other entities, like Amazon, Microsoft or Google -- all undisclosed to these class members who paid and entrusted Apple to store their data. The selection of a cloud storage provider is a significant and material consideration, as it involves entrusting all of a user's stored data—including sensitive information like photographs, documents of all kinds, and e-mail content—to be stored by the cloud storage provider. Thus, users have an interest in who is offering this storage and taking custody of their data. For this reason, in Apple's iCloud subscription contract, Apple went to great lengths to represent and assure iCloud subscribers that Apple was the provider of the cloud storage service being purchased by the putative class members. Apple highlighted as much in its iCloud contract for U.S. subscribers,the lawsuit says. Touting itself as the provider of the iCloud service (when, in fact, Apple was merely reselling cloud storage space on cloud facilities of other entities) allowed Apple not only to obtain paid subscriptions of class members who subscribed to iCloud believing that their cloud storage was being provided by Apple, but also allowed Apple to charge a premium for its iCloud service because subscribers placed a value on having the "Apple" brand as the provider of the storage service for their most sensitive data. In fact, at the time that Apple was selling iCloud storage as its own to subscribers, but actually reselling (unbeknownst to class members) cloud storage provided by Amazon or Microsoft, these rival entities (i.e., Amazon or Microsoft) were providing cloud storage services to the public at prices lower than Apple's iCloud. Class members, therefore, paid a premium for their belief and understanding that their data would be stored by Apple. Cloud storage involves stashing data on hardware in a remote physical location, which can be accessed from any device via the internet. Clients send files to a data server maintained by a cloud provider instead of (or as well as) storing it on their own hard drives. Cloud storage systems generally encompass hundreds of data servers linked together by a master control server.[BN] Counsel for James Stewart and Andrea M. Williams are: Roy A. Katriel, Esq. THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 546 4435 E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com - and - Azra Mehdi, Esq. THE MEHDI FIRM, P.C. One Market Spear Tower, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 293-8039 Facsimile: (415) 293-8001 E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com ARONESTY AND SANTORO: Buscemi Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Buscemi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aronesty And Santoro, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-23112 (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2019), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Aronesty and Santoro operates as "Hair By Scott & Company," a full-service hair salon. To promote its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer. Buscemi did not give his express written consent to be contacted in such manner. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Jordan D. Utanski, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com utanski@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ARROWHEAD PHARMA: 9th Cir. Affirms Order of Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------- Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a memorandum affirming the district court's dismissal of all claims in a consolidated class action. The Company and certain executive officers were named as defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California regarding certain public statements in connection with the Company's drug research programs. The consolidated class action, initially filed as Meller v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-08505 (C.D. Cal, filed Nov. 15, 2016 ), Siegel v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-8954 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2016), and Unz v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.2:17-cv-00310 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 13, 2017) asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding certain public statements in connection with the Company's drug research programs and seek damages in an unspecified amount. Additionally, a putative stockholder derivative action captioned Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., (Los Angeles County Superior Court, filed January 19, 2017) asserting substantially similar claims is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court and is stayed pending the related consolidated class action. Two additional putative stockholder derivative actions, captioned Lucas v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03207 (C.D. Cal., filed April 28, 2017), and Singh v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03160 (C.D. Cal., filed April 27, 2017), alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the alleged facts underlying the securities claims, are pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Lucas and Singh actions have been consolidated. On December 21, 2017, the federal district court dismissed the consolidated class action with prejudice. On July 23, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum affirming the district court's dismissal of all claims in the consolidated class action. The Lucas and Singh actions are stayed pending resolution of the Ninth Circuit appeal. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters. The Company makes provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. No such liability has been recorded related to these matters. The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter and cannot accurately estimate any potential liability the Company may incur or the impact of the results of this matter on the Company. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops medicines for the treatment of intractable diseases in the United States. The company was formerly known as Arrowhead Research Corporation and changed its name to Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in April 2016. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Pasadena, California. ARROWHEAD PHARMA: Suit over Hepatitis B Drug Research Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative consolidated class action suit regarding the company's public statements in connection with its hepatitis B drug research. The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California regarding certain public statements in connection with the Company's hepatitis B drug research. The consolidated class action, initially filed as Wang v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 10, 2014), and Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07911 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 13, 2014), asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought damages in an unspecified amount. Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions captioned Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv-08982 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 20, 2014), Bernstein (Backus) v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:14-cv-09247 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2014); and Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00446 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 22, 2015), were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the alleged facts underlying the securities claims. An additional consolidated derivative action asserting similar claims was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, initially filed as Bacchus v. Anzalone, et al., (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 5, 2015); and Jackson v. Anzalone, et al. (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 16, 2015). Each of these suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts and some seek various forms of injunctive relief. On October 7, 2016, the federal district court dismissed the consolidated class action with prejudice. Following the dismissal of the consolidated class action, the parties for the Weisman and Johnson actions jointly stipulated to dismiss the actions, with the parties bearing their own fees and costs. The parties to the Bernstein and consolidated derivative action agreed to stay the matters pending the resolution of the Ninth Circuit appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated class action. On February 15, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum affirming the district court’s dismissal of all claims. Plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative action voluntarily dismissed their case. The parties to the Bernstein action filed a stipulation to continue the stay of the action pending resolution of the Ninth Circuit appeal in Meller v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-08505 (C.D. Cal.). The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself in each of these matters. The Company makes provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. No such liability has been recorded related to these matters. The Company does not expect these matters to have a material effect on its Consolidated Financial Statements. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops medicines for the treatment of intractable diseases in the United States. The company was formerly known as Arrowhead Research Corporation and changed its name to Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in April 2016. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Pasadena, California. BDJ TRUCKING: Yata's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Advisement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman has taken under advisement the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Hamimi Yata, et al. v. BDJ Trucking Co., et al., Case No. 1:17−cv−03503 (N.D. Ill.). The status hearing in the lawsuit, which was set for August 16, 2019, is stricken.[CC] BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Kakkar Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants in Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso, have sought dismissal of the case. On February 6, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso was filed against the Company, and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. A second substantially similar class action was filed on March 14, 2018 by plaintiff Frances Rudy against the same defendants in the same court. The lawsuits purport to assert class action claims on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from May 8, 2017 through January 30, 2018. The complaints allege that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's clinical trials being conducted in the U.S. to assess rivo-cel (rivogenlecleucel, formerly known as BPX-501) as an adjunct T-cell therapy administered after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. On April 9, 2018, the District Court consolidated the two lawsuits under the Kakkar action. On March 26, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs to represent the putative class and on May 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On July 5, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on discovering and developing novel cellular immunotherapies for the treatment of hematological cancers, solid tumors, and orphan inherited blood disorders in the United States and internationally. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. BIZQUALIFY LLC: Seeks Prelim. OK of $695K Settlement in Hu Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit styled QIUZI HU, an individual, EDWIN RAMIREZ, an individual, IVAN RONCERIA, an individual, WENZHI FEI, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. JOSE M. PLEHN-DUJOWICH, a.k.a. JOSE M. PLEHN, an individual; BIZQUALIFY LLC, a California limited liability company; and POWERLYTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-01791-EDL (N.D. Cal.), jointly move the Court for an order preliminarily approving the Parties' Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release of Claims, pursuant to which the Defendants agreed to pay $695,000 into a Settlement Fund. Following an arm's-length negotiation, and with the assistance of Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, the Parties reached terms of settlement at the April 23, 2019 settlement conference. The Parties thereafter entered into the Class Settlement Agreement. The proposed Class Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as "all Class Members," including Class Representatives, who do not opt out of the settlement: All Class Members, including Class Representatives, who do not exclude themselves from the Class or Settlement Class, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 6.3 of the Settlement Agreement and the Class Notice. Under the Settlement, the Defendants have agreed to pay a sum of up to $695,000 into a Settlement Fund, comprised of: a. $375,000 in exchange for a general release of all claims by the Settlement Class; b. Up to $20,000, in an amount to be determined by the Court, as incentive awards to Class Representatives; and c. Up to $300,000, in an amount to be determined by the Court, as payment for the reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the Settlement Class, which funds are to be paid to Class Counsel. The Parties also ask the Court to direct the Class Counsel, in its capacity as Settlement Administrator, to disseminate the Notice of Class Action Settlement, Claim Form, and Opt-Out Form to the Settlement Class by e-mail and, where possible, mail. The Parties further ask the Court to schedule a Final Approval Hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence, argument, and any objections relating to the Parties' Class Settlement, and to set the amounts to be paid by the Defendants in the form of incentive awards to Class Representatives and reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses to Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on October 1, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiffs, Class, Subclass, and FLSA Collective are represented by: Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq. Krista L. Baughman, Esq. Gregory R. Michael, Esq. DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 177 Post Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 433-1700 Facsimile: (415) 520-6593 E-mail: harmeet@dhillonlaw.com kbaughman@dhillonlaw.com gmichael@dhillonlaw.com Defendants Jose M. Plehn-Dujowich and BizQualify LLC are represented by: Loren Kieve, Esq. KIEVE LAW OFFICES 2655 Steiner Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Telephone: (415) 364-0060 E-mail: lk@kievelaw.com BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Bid to Dismiss Mishal & Berger Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Court in the class action suit initiated by Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger held a hearing on the motion to dismiss and has taken the issue under advisement. On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on behalf of themselves and the purported class, Plaintiffs) initiated a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the Court) against the following defendants: the Company, Boardwalk GP, LP (Boardwalk GP), Boardwalk GP, LLC and Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp. (BPHC) (together, Defendants), regarding the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its right to purchase the issued and outstanding common units of the Company not already owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates (Purchase Right). On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to the approval of the Court (the Proposed Settlement). Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed, and related claims against the Defendants would be released by the Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general partner of Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise its Purchase Right for a cash purchase price, as determined by the Company's Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, as amended (the Limited Partnership Agreement), and gave notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement. On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase of the Company's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right. On September 28, 2018, the Court denied approval of the Proposed Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class action complaint was filed in this proceeding. In July 2019, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss and has taken the issue under advisement. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids and other hydrocarbons (NGLs) pipeline and storage systems in the United States. The company operates natural gas pipeline systems in the Gulf Coast region, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, as well as the Midwestern states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; and NGLs pipelines and storage facilities in Louisiana and Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp. CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Justiss Hits Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------- Scott Justiss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Canntrust Holdings Inc., Peter Aceto and Greg Guyatt, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07164 (S.D. N.Y., July 31, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. CannTrust is a Canada-based producer of medical and recreational cannabis. Unknown to investors, CannTrust allegedly was growing cannabis in five unlicensed locations causing its Pelham, Ontario greenhouse to be noncompliant with certain Canadian regulations and had shipped unlicensed cannabis in violation of the Canadian Cannabis Act. On July 8, 2019, following this disclosure, the price of CannTrust's common stock declined on the NYSE by $1.11 per share or over 22%, from a closing price of $4.94 per share on July 5, 2019, to close at $3.83 per share on July 8, 2019 on heavy trading volume. Justiss owns CannTrust common stock. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com CAPITAL ONE: Fadullon Sues Over Credit Card Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Fadullon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Amazon Web Services, Inc., Paige A. Thompson and Does 1-10,, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01189, (W.D. Wash., July 30, 2019), seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further relief resulting from negligence and violations of Washington Consumer Protection Act, the Washington Data Breach Disclosure Law and the California Data Breach Law. On July 29, 2019, it was reported that Capital One and Amazon Web experienced an unauthorized access by a hacker who obtained certain types of personal information relating to people who had applied for credit card products and used them to purchase from Amazon. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. T. David Copley, Esq. Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com dcopley@kellerrohrback.com claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com - and - Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, SBN 223242 Bradley K. King, SBN 274399 AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, California 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com rglezakos@ahdootwolfson.com CAPITAL ONE: Harn Sues Over Credit Card Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- Matthew Harn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., and Capital One, N.A. and Does 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02441, (D. Kan., July 31, 2019), seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further relief resulting from breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment and violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. On July 29, 2019, it was reported that Capital One experienced an unauthorized access by a hacker who obtained certain types of personal information relating to people who had applied for credit card products. Capital One is a bank holding company and financial institution that offers credit cards to consumer applicants throughout the United States. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 32 Corporate Woods, Suite 600 9225 Indian Creek Parkway Overland Park, KS 66210-2000 Tel: (913) 253-2144 Fax: (866) 347-1472 Email: snehrbass@foulston.com CAPITAL ONE: Howitt Files Sues Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- Stephen Jeffrey Howitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-07161, (S.D. N.Y., July 31, 2019), seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further relief resulting from negligence and violations of New York general business laws. On July 29, 2019, it was reported that Capital One and Amazon Web experienced an unauthorized access by a hacker who obtained certain types of personal information relating to people who had applied for credit card products and used them to purchase from Amazon. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lynda J. Grant, Esq. THE GRANT LAW FIRM 521 5th Ave., 17th Floor New York, NY Tel: (212) 292-4441 Fax: (212) 292-4442 Email: lgrant@grantfirm.com dcopley@kellerrohrback.com claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com CAPITAL ONE: Miller Files Class Suit in Washington -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Financial Corporation. The case is styled as Kelly Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, National Association and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02447-JEB (D.C. Wash., Aug. 13, 2019). Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking and savings accounts headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Capital One is ranked 10th on the list of largest banks in the United States by assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Tel: (917) 438-9102 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com CAPITAL ONE: Tester Files Class Suit in Virginia ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Financial Corporation. The case is styled as Maria de Lourdes Tester and Tracy Elizabeth Masi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, N.A. and Capital One Bank (USA), Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00579 (E.D. Va., Aug. 13, 2019). Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking and savings accounts headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Capital One is ranked 10th on the list of largest banks in the United States by assets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Arnold Breit, Esq. Breit Cantor Grana Buckner, PLLC Towne Pavilion Center II 600 22nd St, Suite 402 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Tel: (757) 622-6000 Email: jbreit@bdbmail.com CAPITALA FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss Paskowitz Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Capitala Finance Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the case, Paskowitz v. Capitala Finance Corp., et al., is still pending. On December 28, 2017, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit complaint, Paskowitz v. Capitala Finance Corp., et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (case number 2:17-cv-09251-MWF-AS) (the "Paskowitz Action"), against the Company and certain of its current officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between January 4, 2016 and August 7, 2017. On January 3, 2018, another alleged stockholder filed a putative class action complaint, Sandifer v. Capitala Finance Corp., et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (case number 2:18-cv-00052-MWF-AS) (the "Sandifer Action"), asserting substantially similar claims on behalf of the same putative class and against the same defendants. On February 2, 2018, the Sandifer Action was transferred, on stipulation of the parties, to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The Sandifer Action was voluntarily dismissed on February 28, 2018. On March 1, 2018, the Paskowitz Action was transferred, on stipulation of the parties, to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (case number 3:18-cv-00096-RJC-DSC). On June 19, 2018, the plaintiffs in the Paskowitz Action filed their amended complaint. The complaint, as currently amended, alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, inter alia, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects between January 4, 2016 and August 7, 2017. The plaintiffs in the Paskowitz Action seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but did not specify the amount of damages being sought. Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Capitala Finance said, "While the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation, the outcome of these legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Capitala Finance Corp. is a Business Development Company specializing in traditional mezzanine, senior subordinated and unitranche debt, first-lien and second-lien loans, equity investments in sponsored and non-sponsored lower and traditional middle market companies. The company is base in Charlotte, North Carolina. CARIBBEAN CAR: Mirabal Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- RIGOBERTO ANDUX MIRABAL, GABRIEL CANO ARANGO, YOAN AQUINO MARTINEZ, LUCAS PEDRONZO TOLEDO, JULIO CESAR OCHOA, NELSON BATISTA CORBO, WILLIAM RICARDO ANTUNEZ VALDEZ, and THE ESTATE OF CARLOS ALBERTO on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who were employed by Caribbean Car Wash, Inc. Plaintiffs, v. CARIBBEAN CAR WASH, INC., ULPIANO RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, and OMAR RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-16608 (D. N.J., Aug. 13, 2019) is an action arising out of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage, overtime compensation, and other monies, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"). The Defendants intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly have engaged in a policy, pattern, and/or practice of violating the FLSA and NJWHL. This policy, pattern, and/or practice has included but is not limited to failing to pay all tips received by its tipped employees to those employees in occupations which "customarily and regularly receive tips" by permitting the taking of tips and gratuities by management personnel; failing to provide required notice of the tip credit provisions of the FLSA; failing to pay Plaintiffs the proper minimum wage for each hour worked; and failing to pay Plaintiffs the proper overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are individuals residing in the State of New Jersey who were employees of Defendants. CCW is a business incorporated in the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi Mermelstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10166 Phone: (212) 490-3600 Fax: (212) 682-0278 Email: avi@adklawfirm.com CASA SYSTEMS: IPO-Related Class Suits Underway in Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in two class action suits related to its initial public offering (IPO). On May 29, 2019 and July 3, 2019, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Massachusetts Superior Court against the Company and certain of its directors and officers, among others, alleging claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering (IPO). Plaintiffs base their claims on allegations that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in documents that the Company issued in connection with its IPO. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, and equitable and injunctive relief. No amounts have been accrued for this matter in the quarter ended June 30, 2019 as the Company does not believe the likelihood of a material loss is probable. Casa Systems said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be predicted with certainty, the resolution of this matter could have a material impact on the Company's results of operations in the period in which the matter in resolved." Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform, delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts. CB RESTAURANTS: Padilla Balks at "House Fees" for Exotic Dancers ---------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH PADILLA on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CB RESTAURANTS, INC. d/b/a SUGAR'S GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, GLENN WILLIAMS, TERESA THOMPSON, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00970 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 9, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wages, house fee charges, tips, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. CB Restaurants required and/or permitted Sarah Padilla and others similarly situated to work as exotic dancers at their adult entertainment club but refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage. In fact, Defendants refused to compensate them whatsoever for any hours worked. Plaintiffs' only compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons, and even those were partly confiscated by the club. Defendants took money from Plaintiffs in the form of "house fees" or "rent". The Plaintiffs were also required to divide tips with Defendants' managers and employees who do not customarily receive tips, the lawsuit says. Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Texas, under the name of "Sugar's Gentlemen's Club".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Hodges, Esq. Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com dhodges@kennedyhodges.com CHAMBERS FINE: Picon Files Class Suit under ADA ----------------------------------------------- Chambers Fine Art Inc is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chambers Fine Art Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07544 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019). Chambers Fine Art is an art gallery based in New York City and Beijing that specializes in Chinese contemporary art.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com CHANEL JOHNSON: El Files Class Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chanel Johnson. The case is styled as Erwin El, Plaintiff v. Chanel Johnson also known as: officer Chanel Johnson, in her official capacity, M. Bowe, also known as: Supervisor M. Bowe, in his individual capacity and Plainfield Police Department and all others similarly situated, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-16693-SDW-LDW (D. N.J., Aug. 14, 2019). The case type is stated as Civil Rights: Other. The Defendants are government representative exercising government functions.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Trejo Seeks Unpaid Wages for Workers ------------------------------------------------------------ Ruben Trejo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC (dba SPECTRUM), TWC ADMINISTRATION, LLC, And DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV28173 (Cal. Super., Aug. 13, 2019), alleges that Plaintiff has not been paid all wages owed for all hours worked as required under California law. The similarly situated individuals include non-exempt employees who are not parties to an arbitration agreement with Defendant and who performed retail sales work as employees of Defendants, worked overtime and earned commission and/or bonus pay within the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit. Time Warner Employees are not compensated by Defendants for all hours they worked and/or for all wages earned, including, but not limited to properly computed and calculated overtime. Plaintiff worked overtime and earned bonus and commission wages. During his employment with Defendants, like other members of the California Class, Plaintiff worked in excess of eight hours in a workday and/or in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff has been injured by the illegal practices and conduct alleged in this complaint. Plaintiff claims under California law are similar to and typical of the claims of the members of the California Class.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Matthew Righetti, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94101 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 Facsimile: (415) 397-9005 E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Reached in Tagalogon Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2019, that a settlement has been reached in the class action suit entitled, Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging that the Company improperly classified its managerial employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate wage statements, in addition to other claims. The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act in addition to other monetary payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. BC603620). On July 29, 2016, the company filed a response to the complaint. On March 7, 2019, the parties participated in voluntary mediation, which concluded without the parties reaching a resolution. On June 4, 2019, the parties notified the Court that they reached a tentative agreement to settle this case. The settlement agreement is subject to documentation and court approval. Cheesecake Factory said, "Based on the current status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount in anticipation of settlement." The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, incorporated on February 13, 1992, is engaged in the restaurant and bakery business. As of March 2, 2017, the Company operated 208 Company-owned restaurants: 194 under The Cheesecake Factory mark, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe mark and one under the Rock Sugar Pan Asian Kitchen mark. The Company's segments include The Cheesecake Factory restaurants, and other. It also operates bakery production facilities, which produce desserts for its restaurants, international licensees and third-party bakery customers. The company is based in Calabasas Hills, California. CINEMARK USA: Brown Settlement Agreement Preliminarily Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- Cinemark USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the settlement agreement in the case, Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., has been preliminarily approved by the Court and is subject to final approval later this year. The case presents putative class action claims for penalties and attorney's fees arising from alleged violations of the California wage statement law. The claim is also asserted as a representative action under the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for penalties. The Court granted class certification. The company denies the claims, denies that class certification is appropriate, denies that the plaintiff has standing to assert the claims alleged and is vigorously defending against the claims. The Company denies any violation of law; however, to avoid the cost and uncertainty associated with litigation the Company and the plaintiff entered into a Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release of Claims (the "Settlement Agreement") to fully and finally dismiss all claims that would be brought in the case. The Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court and is subject to final approval later this year. During 2018, the Company recorded a litigation reserve based on the proposed Settlement Agreement. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Cinemark USA, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates in the motion picture exhibition industry. The company operates in two segments, U.S. Markets and International Markets. As of December 31, 2018, it operated 546 theatres and 6,048 screens in the United States and Latin America. The company was incorporated in 1984 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. Cinemark USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Cinemark Holdings, Inc. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $15.7MM Remains to be Paid from Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's remaining loss accrual in a class action lawsuit over royalty interest claims totals $15.7 million at June 30, 2019, representing additional settlement obligations expected to be substantially satisfied in the third quarter of 2019. In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company. The Petition, as amended, alleged the Company improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and sought recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the proposed class. The Company denied all allegations and denied that the case was properly brought as a class action. Due to the uncertainty of and burdens of litigation, in February 2018 the Company reached a settlement in connection with this matter, which was subsequently approved by the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma in June 2018. Under the settlement, the Company initially expected to make payments and incur costs associated with the settlement of approximately $59.6 million and accrued a loss for such amount at December 31, 2017. In the third quarter of 2018, the Company made payments totaling $45.8 million to satisfy the majority of its obligations under the settlement. The Company's remaining loss accrual for this matter totals $15.7 million at June 30, 2019, representing additional settlement obligations expected to be substantially satisfied in the third quarter of 2019. The accrual for this matter is included in "Accrued liabilities and other" on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Continental Resources, Inc. explores for, develops, and produces crude oil and natural gas properties primarily in the north, south, and east regions of the United States. The company sells its crude oil and natural gas production to energy marketing companies, crude oil refining companies, and natural gas gathering and processing companies. Continental Resources, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. CONTRA COSTA: Violates TCPA by Sending Unsolicited Fax, Katz Say ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY KATZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONTRA COSTA SELF HELP FOUNDATION INC.; TUNISIA ISMALIA EVANS ALSALAHUDDIN, and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:19-cv-04587-DMR (N.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited advertisement messages via "telephone facsimile machines" to the Plaintiff and the class. Contra Costa Self Help Foundation is a business entity that provides community services. Tunisia Ismalia Evans Al-Salahuddin is the Chief Financial Officer of Foundation. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com CONTRACT FREIGHTERS: Merrill Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- FRANKLIN MERRILL; ANTHONY GLOVER; KEITH HERRING; ANTHONY DENNIS; LARRY JURCAK; SAMI NASR; RONALD DENNIS; RODNEY LACY; JAMES NEWBERRY; TAMI POTIRALA; CRAIG WILLIAMS; ZIGMUND GUTOWSKI; JOSEPH HORION; ERIC ARD; ALLEN CASHMAN; ADAM HEIDE; EDUARDO SUSTAITA; JOSE GARCIA; ERIC ROBERTSON; BECKY AUSTIN; JEFFREY BIGGS; PAULA HORION; JOSE LIMON; GERORD THOMAS; JAIME PARRALES; TURRELL SANDERS; EARNEST WARD, JR.; CHRISTOPHER ZDENEK; DANNY LLOYD; DUANE VANDERKAMP; JOEY BROWN; MELANIE BROWN; ORLANDO LEBRON; CHARLES TANKSLEY; GARY GRUBBS; CHRIS BEAUPRE; RAYNOLD CORNEILLE; JULIAN LAFRANKS; ANDRE ELLIS; BENJAMIN JOHNSON; ELVRETT LITTLEJOHN; JESSIE BRAXTON, JR.; JOHNNIE WYNNE; STEVEN KORTMAN; TERRY JONES; DONALD CREASMAN; ALEXANDER FLANIGAN; and TIM HOLLINGSWORTH; all individuals, Plaintiffs, v. CONTRACT FREIGHTERS, INC. a/k/a CFI, a Missouri corporation registered to conduct business in Colorado; TRANSFORCE, INC., a Canadian corporation; XPO LOGISTICS TRUCKLOAD, INC., a Missouri corporation registered to conduct business in Colorado; and CON-WAY TRUCKLOAD INC., a Missouri corporation registered to conduct business in Colorado, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02309 (D. Colo., Aug. 13, 2019) is a collective action pursuant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). All named Plaintiffs are similarly situated: they are all employees, or former employees, of Defendants, and Defendants have failed to pay them minimum wage on many occasions due to improper deductions from Plaintiffs' pay, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are, or were formerly, employed by Defendants. Defendant was, and remains, in the business of assisting companies in shipping goods all over the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John R. Crone, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN R. CRONE, LLC 4550 E Cherry Creek Drive South, #1003 Glendale, CO 80246 Phone: (907) 317-2066 Email: John@crone-law.com CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Skibbe Sues over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SKIBBE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CURALEAF HOLDINGS, INC., JOSEPH LUSARDI, NEIL DAVIDSON, and JONATHAN FAUCHER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04486 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Curaleaf securities between November 21, 2018 and July 22, 2019, inclusive. On July 22, 2019, the FDA sent a warning letter to Curaleaf regarding several CBD products sold at http://curaleafhemp.com.The Warning Letter noted that Curaleaf was selling unapproved new and misbranded drugs, improperly marketing its CBD products as dietary supplements, and selling unapproved new animal drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. On this news, shares of Curaleaf fell $0.58 per share or 7.27% to close at $7.40 per share on July 23, 2019, damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Curaleaf purports to operate as an integrated medical and wellness cannabis operator in the United States. Curaleaf is incorporated in Canada and has headquarters in Massachusetts.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com CURO GROUP: Continues to Defend Yellowdog Partners Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- CURO Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a securities class action lawsuit entitled, Yellowdog Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F. Gayhardt, William Baker and Roger W. Dean. On December 5, 2018, a putative securities fraud class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its chief executive officer, chief financial officer and chief operating officer in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned Yellowdog Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F. Gayhardt, William Baker and Roger W. Dean, Civil Action No. 18-2662. On May 31, 2019, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint naming Doug Rippel, Chad Faulkner, Mike McKnight, Friedman Fleischer & Lowe Capital Partners II, L.P., FFL Executive Partners II, L.P., and FFL Parallel Fund II, L.P. as additional defendants. The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and that certain defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as "control persons" of CURO. Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Company common stock between April 27, 2018 and October 24, 2018. Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted material information regarding its efforts to transition the Canadian inventory of products from Single-Pay loans to Open-End loans. Plaintiffs assert that the Company and the individual defendants made these misstatements and omissions to keep the stock price high. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief. While the Company is vigorously contesting this lawsuit, it cannot determine the final resolution or when it might be resolved. CURO Group said, "In addition to the expenses incurred in defending this litigation and any damages that may be awarded in the event of an adverse ruling, management's efforts and attention may be diverted from the ordinary business operations to address these claims. Regardless of the outcome, this litigation may have a material adverse impact on results because of defense costs, including costs related to indemnification obligations, diversion of resources and other factors." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CURO Group Holdings Corp., a diversified consumer finance company, provides consumer finance to a range of underbanked consumers in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The company was formerly known as Speedy Group Holdings Corp. and changed its name to CURO Group Holdings Corp. in May 2016. CURO Group Holdings Corp. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas. DETROIT EDISON: Court Dismisses With Prejudice Nolan ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LLESLIE D. NOLAN, Plaintiff, v. DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, DTE ENERGY CORPORATE SERVICES, LLC, DTE ENERGY COMPANY RETIREMENT PLAN, DTE ENERGY BENEFIT PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, JANET POSLER, QUALIFIED PLAN APPEALS COMMITTEE, MICHAEL S. COOPER, RENEE MORAN and JEROME HOOPER, Defendant, Case No. 18-13359 (E.D. Mich.), Judge David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, (i) granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and (ii) dismissed as moot their motion for judgment on the administrative record. In 2002, the Detroit Edison and its affiliated companies ("DTE") implemented a new retirement plan. Up to that point, DTE offered its employees a traditional defined benefit plan -- the Employees' Retirement Plan of the Detroit Edison Company or Traditional Plan -- wherein a retired employee would be paid an annuity calculated on a formula based on the employee's salary and years in service. The new plan is known as a "Cash Balance Plan," which has been described as a species of defined benefit plan, but also as a hybrid between a defined contribution plan and a defined benefit plan as it contains attributes of both. Under the Cash Balance Plan, the company established a hypothetical retirement account for each employee, which would grow from two sources: annual contribution credits (equal to a percentage of the participant's eligible earnings), and "interest credits" (initially linked to the interest rate of government-issued Treasury Bonds). When DTE made the change, it did not require existing employees who had earned benefits under the old plan to switch to the new plan. Instead, it provided a window for those employees to elect to stay with the Traditional Plan or opt in to the new one, thereby allowing them to receive future retirement benefits under one plan or the other, but not both. That choice carried some measure of risk, because no certain prediction could be made that at retirement time an individual employee would do better under the new plan than the old one. There was a further catch. Existing employees who elected to switch to the new Cash Balance Plan would have their accrued retirement benefits frozen and then receive a hypothetical retirement account balance based on what they had accrued already under the Traditional Plan, projected forward to their retirement date, and then reduced to present value. That established their opening cash balance, against which future accruals would be measured. In one way, that benefited them. It provided a guarantee that no matter how slowly their cash balance account grew compared to the opening balance, they would be guaranteed the monthly benefit upon retirement they had earned as of the date the account was frozen, and no less. Indeed, ERISA requires as much. But their cash balance account would not grow beyond that initial balance until their accumulated credits caught up to that initial balance, a phenomenon known in pension jargon as wear away. Plaintiff Nolan elected to switch to the Cash Balance Plan in the spring of 2002, after she had worked at DTE for just over 23 years. When she went to retire in 2017 after 38 years with the company, she was unpleasantly surprised to learn that her pension benefit had not grown much since her account was frozen in 2002. She believed that she should receive a monthly benefit as calculated under the Traditional Plan plus the amount accrued under the Cash Balance Plan since 2002, irrespective of the wear away. On Oct. 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed her putative class action complaint against the Defendants under various sections of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). She alleges that the Defendants breached the terms of the retirement plan, they failed to explain the election in terms that could be understood by the average person, and they failed to give notice that the new plan could result in a reduction of accrued benefits. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached the terms of the benefits plan (Count I), failed to state the terms in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant (Count II), and failed to give notice of an amendment to the plan that resulted in a significant reduction (Count III), all in violation of ERISA. The Defendants responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). DTE argues that the complaint fails to state a claim for violation of ERISA's disclosure requirements and seeks dismissal of Counts II and III. It also filed a motion for judgment on the administrative record as to Count I. The Court heard oral argument on May 8, 2019. Judge Lawson finds that the materials furnished by the Defendants to their employees in 2002 plainly state that a retiree electing to switch to the Cash Balance Plan would receive the "greater of" the accrued benefit under the traditional plan or under the Cash Balance Plan, but not both. The Defendants did not breach the plan when calculating the Plaintiff's monthly pension payment upon her retirement. And the plan materials provided notice that benefits under the new plan could be less, using language that could be understood by the average person. Moreover, all of the Plaintiff's claims are time-barred. Count I is time-barred and Counts II and III fail as a matter of law. Accordingly, because the Plaintiff has not stated a laim for which relief can be granted, the Judge granted the Defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint with prejuduce. He dismissed as moot the Defendants' motion for judgment on the administrative record. A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/SoDlmN from Leagle.com. Leslie D Nolan, Plaintiff, represented by Eva T. Cantarella -- ecantarella@hertzschram.com -- Hertz, Schram. Detroit Edison Company, DTE Energy Corporate Services LLC, DTE Energy Company Retirement Plan, DTE Energy Benefit Plan Administration Committee, Janet Posler, Qualified Plan Appeals Committee, Michael S Cooper, Renee Moran & Jerome Hooper, Defendants, represented by Antoinette S. Porter, One Energy Plaza, Christopher K. Meyer -- CMEYER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Mark B. Blocker -- MBLOCKER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP. DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Suit in Arkansas Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a purported class action complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, remains pending. In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center. The Company answered the original complaint in 2009, and there was no other activity in the case until May 2017. At that time, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting new causes of action. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the patients of the Center over a multi-year period by failing to meet minimum staffing requirements, failing to otherwise adequately staff the Center and failing to provide a clean and safe living environment in the Center. The Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying plaintiffs' allegations and asked the Court to dismiss the new causes of action asserted in the amended complaint because the Company was prejudiced by plaintiff's long delay in filing the amended complaint. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, so the lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as a class action. Diversicare Healthcare said, "The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest United States. Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee. E&A PROTECTIVE: Denied Drivers Meal Breaks, Gas Mileage Refunds --------------------------------------------------------------- Bobby Lee Hansen and Jackie Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New Prime, Inc. and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. l9STCV264l9, (Cal. Super., July 30, 2019), seeks redress for failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage/leave statements, reimbursement of gas mileage and resulting from unfair business practices, waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due upon termination and in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees. New Prime is a trucking and logistics company for general freight and refrigerated food throughout California and neighboring states where Hansen and Thompson worked as truck drivers from April 2018 through January 2019 and May 2017 through March 2019 respectively. They claim to be was misclassified as independent contractors. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 Email: cja@ackermanntilajef.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Facsimile: (310) 862-6851 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com EATON, OH: Quinn et al. Seek OT Wages for Firefighters ------------------------------------------------------ JAMES L. QUINN, RANDALL K. ANDERSON, JAMES H. ROBERTS, MALLORY LEWIS, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF EATON, OHIO, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00241-TMR (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 9, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation, declaratory judgment, equitable and other relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act. While working at the rank of Captain or Lieutenant, Plaintiffs' primary job duty has been, and remains, to protect and serve the public by engaging in fire suppression, emergency response and related non-exempt activities. At fire and emergency scenes, the Plaintiffs work side-by-side with other front-line first responders, entering burning buildings, performing manual fire suppression work, providing emergency medical care, and performing other non-exempt duties. Eaton is a city in and the county seat of Preble County, Ohio, United States approximately 24 mi west of Dayton.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: Henry Arnett, Esq. LIVORNO & ARNETT CO., LPA 1335 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: 614.224.7771 Facsimile: 614.224.7775 E-mail: counsel@oapff.org - and - Sara L. Faulman, Esq. John W. Stewart, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: slf@mselaborlaw.com jws@mselaborlaw.com EDEN MANAGEMENT: Bayeg Sues Over Biometrics Data Sharing -------------------------------------------------------- Bertrand Bayeg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eden Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH08821 (Ill. Cir., July 29, 2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Eden Management operates as Eden Supportive Living, where Plaintiff worked at their facility in Illinois. He was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints and that Menasha improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data without informed consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Michael Hilicki, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe St, Suite 3390 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Tel: (312) 726-1092 Fax: (312) 726-1093 Email: Keith@KeoghLaw.com mhilicki@keoghlaw.com ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Generic Drug Pricing Litigation Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs' overarching conspiracy claims in Generic Drug Pricing Matters remains pending. In December 2014, the company received a grand jury subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the DOJ issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressed to Par Pharmaceuticals. The subpoena requested documents and information focused primarily on product and pricing information relating to the authorized generic version of Lanoxin (digoxin) oral tablets and generic doxycycline products, and on communications with competitors and others regarding those products. The company is cooperating with the investigation. In May 2018, the company and its subsidiary PPCI each received a CID from the DOJ in relation to a False Claims Act investigation concerning whether generic pharmaceutical manufacturers engaged in price-fixing and market allocation agreements, paid illegal remuneration and caused the submission of false claims. The company is cooperating with the investigation. Similar investigations may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded or result in litigation. The company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to its overall liability accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Since March 2016, various private plaintiffs and state attorneys general have filed cases against the company's subsidiary PPI and/or, in some instances, the Company, Generics Bidco I, LLC, DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC and/or PPCI, as well as other pharmaceutical manufacturers and, in some instances, other corporate and/or individual defendants, alleging price-fixing and other anticompetitive conduct with respect to generic pharmaceutical products. These cases, which include proposed class actions filed on behalf of direct purchasers, end-payers and indirect purchaser resellers, as well as non-class action suits, have been consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2724). The various complaints and amended complaints generally assert claims under federal and/or state antitrust law, state consumer protection statutes and/or state common law, and seek damages, treble damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Some claims are based on alleged product-specific conspiracies. The allegations relating to the company's subsidiaries in certain of the various complaints focus primarily on one or more of the following products: amitriptyline, baclofen, budesonide, digoxin, divalproex ER, doxycycline hyclate, doxycycline monohydrate, entecavir, fluoxetine, flutamide, hydroxyurea, labetalol, nystatin, omega-3-acid ethyl esters, propranolol and/or zoledronic acid. Other claims allege broader, multiple-product conspiracies involving various combinations of these and/or other products. Under these overarching conspiracy theories, plaintiffs seek to hold all alleged participants in a particular conspiracy jointly and severally liable for all harms caused by the alleged conspiracy, not just harms related to the products manufactured and/or sold by a particular defendant. In October 2018, the MDL court denied defendants' motions to dismiss federal antitrust claims relating to digoxin, divalproex ER and doxycycline hyclate, among other products. In February 2019, the MDL court dismissed certain state law claims relating to these same products, but allowed other state law claims relating to those products to proceed. In February 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' overarching conspiracy claims; that motion remains pending. The MDL court has also allowed certain discovery. Endo said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Mesh Liability Payments Reaches $3.4 Billion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Company has made total mesh liability payments of approximately $3.4 billion. Since 2008, the company and certain of its subsidiaries, including American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. (subsequently converted to Astora Women's Health Holding LLC and merged into Astora Women's Health LLC and referred to herein as AMS and/or Astora), have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in various state and federal courts in the U.S. (including a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (MDL No. 2325)), and in Canada and other countries, alleging personal injury resulting from the use of transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). In January 2018, a representative proceeding (class action) was filed in the Federal Court of Australia against American Medical Systems, LLC. In the various class action and individual complaints, plaintiffs claim a variety of personal injuries, including chronic pain, incontinence, inability to control bowel function and permanent deformities, and seek compensatory and punitive damages, where available. The company and certain plaintiffss counsel representing mesh-related product liability claimants have entered into various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other agreements to resolve up to approximately 71,000 filed and unfiled mesh claims handled or controlled by the participating counsel. These MSAs and other agreements were entered into at various times between June 2013 and the present, were solely by way of compromise and settlement and were not in any way an admission of liability or fault by the company or any of its subsidiaries. All MSAs are subject to a process that includes guidelines and procedures for administering the settlements and the release of funds. In certain cases, the MSAs provide for the creation of qualified settlement funds (QSFs) into which funds may be deposited pursuant to certain schedules set forth in those agreements. All MSAs have participation requirements regarding the claims represented by each law firm party to the MSA. In addition, one agreement gives the company a unilateral right of approval regarding which claims may be eligible to participate under that settlement. To the extent fewer claims than are authorized under an agreement participate, the total settlement payment under that agreement will be reduced by an agreed-upon amount for each such non-participating claim. Funds deposited in QSFs are considered restricted cash and/or restricted cash equivalents. Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned upon the receipt of documentation substantiating the validity of the claim, a full release and dismissal of the entire action or claim as to all AMS parties and affiliates. Prior to receiving funds, an individual claimant is required to represent and warrant that liens, assignment rights or other claims identified in the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied by the individual claimant. Confidentiality provisions apply to the amount of settlement awards to participating claimants, the claims evaluation process and procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and the negotiations leading to the settlements. In June 2017, the MDL court entered a case management order which, among other things, requires plaintiffs in newly-filed MDL cases to provide expert disclosures on specific causation within one hundred twenty (120) days of filing a claim (the Order). Under the Order, a plaintiff's failure to meet the foregoing deadline may be grounds for the entry of judgment against such plaintiff. In July 2017, a similar order was entered in Minnesota state court. In June 2018, at the request of the MDL court, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a minute order suspending the transfer of cases into the MDL. Subsequently, the MDL court issued a pretrial order discontinuing the direct filing of claims in MDL No. 2325. The MDL court also issued similar orders in other MDLs involving claims against other mesh manufacturers. To date, the Company has made total mesh liability payments of approximately $3.4 billion, $306.4 million of which remains in the QSFs as of June 30, 2019. Endo International said, "We currently expect to fund into the QSFs the remaining payments under all settlement agreements during 2019. As the funds are disbursed out of the QSFs from time to time, the liability accrual will be reduced accordingly with a corresponding reduction to restricted cash and cash equivalents. In addition, we may pay cash distributions to settle disputes separate from the QSFs, which will also decrease the liability accrual and decrease cash and cash equivalents." Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Trial in Opioid Related Suit to Begin Oct. 2019 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (MDL No. 2804), has set October 2019 as trial date for the claims of two Ohio counties (Track One plaintiffs) in Opioid-Related Matters. Since 2014, multiple U.S. states, counties, other governmental persons or entities and private plaintiffs have filed suit against us and/or certain of our subsidiaries, including Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI), EPI, PPI, Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (PPCI), Endo Generics Holdings, Inc. (EGHI), Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Generics Bidco I, LLC and DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC, as well as various other manufacturers, distributors and/or others, asserting claims relating to defendants' alleged sales, marketing and/or distribution practices with respect to prescription opioid medications, including certain of our products. As of July 29, 2019, the cases of which the company is aware includes, but are not limited to, approximately 18 cases filed by or on behalf of states; approximately 2,300 cases filed by counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other government-related persons or entities; approximately 153 cases filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare funds or other third-party payers and approximately 131 cases filed by individuals. Certain of the cases have been filed as putative class actions. In addition to the litigation in the U.S., in August 2018, an action against Paladin Labs Inc., EPI, the Company and various other manufacturers and distributors was commenced in British Columbia on behalf of a proposed class of all federal, provincial and territorial governments and agencies in Canada that paid healthcare, pharmaceutical and treatment costs related to opioids. In May 2019, two putative class actions were filed in Canada, seeking relief on behalf of Canadian residents who were prescribed opioid medications. One of the actions (filed in Ontario Superior Court) names Paladin Labs Inc., the Company and EPI along with several other defendants, and the other action (filed in Quebec Superior Court) names Paladin Labs Inc. along with several other defendants. Many of the U.S. cases have been coordinated in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (MDL No. 2804). In March 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a statement of interest in the case, and in April 2018 it filed a motion to participate in settlement discussions as a friend of the court, which the MDL court granted. The MDL court has issued a series of case management orders permitting motions to dismiss addressing threshold legal issues in certain cases (and has issued orders granting in part and denying in part some of those motions), setting a trial date in October 2019 for the claims of two Ohio counties (Track One plaintiffs), allowing certain discovery and establishing certain other deadlines and procedures, among other things. In June 2019, defendants in the Track One cases, including the company'ssubsidiaries, filed various motions for summary judgment, and the Track One plaintiffs also filed motions for summary judgment on certain issues.Other cases remain pending in various state courts. In some jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia, certain state court cases have been transferred to a single court within their respective state court systems for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The state cases are generally at the pleading and/or discovery stage with certain of these cases scheduled for trial beginning in 2020. The complaints in the cases assert a variety of claims including, but not limited to, claims for alleged violations of public nuisance, consumer protection, unfair trade practices, racketeering, Medicaid fraud and/or drug dealer liability statutes and/or common law claims for public nuisance, fraud/misrepresentation, strict liability, negligence and/or unjust enrichment. The claims are generally based on alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with the sale and marketing of prescription opioid medications and/or an alleged failure to take adequate steps to prevent abuse and diversion. Plaintiffs generally seek declaratory and/or injunctive relief; compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages; restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys' fees, costs and/or other relief. Endo International said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ENDURANCE INT'L: Machado Settlement Fairness Hearing on Sept. 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Court has scheduled a hearing for September 13, 2019 to determine whether the proposed settlement in the case, Machado v. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., is fair, reasonable and adequate and whether the case should be dismissed with prejudice. On May 4, 2015, Christopher Machado, a purported holder of the Company's common stock, filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and its former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, captioned Machado v. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 8, 2015, a second amended complaint on March 18, 2016, and a third amended complaint on June 30, 2017. In the third amended complaint, plaintiffs Christopher Machado and Michael Rubin allege claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities between October 25, 2013 and December 16, 2015, including persons or entities who purchased or acquired the Company's shares pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's October 25, 2013 initial public offering. The plaintiffs challenge as false or misleading certain of the Company's disclosures about the total number of subscribers, average revenue per subscriber, the number of customers paying over $500 per year for the Company's products and services, and the average number of products sold per subscriber. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and the purported class, compensatory damages, rescissory damages as to class members who purchased shares pursuant to the offering and the plaintiffs' costs and expenses of litigation. On January 12, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all proceedings pending the outcome of a mediation between the parties. The court granted the stay on February 21, 2018 and later extended the stay to allow the parties to discuss a potential resolution of this matter. The parties then negotiated the terms and conditions of a stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers, which, among other things, provide for the release of all claims asserted against the Company and its former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer. On July 6, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, certification of a proposed settlement class, and approval of notice to the settlement class. On January 2, 2019, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduling a hearing for September 13, 2019 to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and whether the case should therefore be dismissed with prejudice. The Company's combined contribution to the settlement pool under this proposed settlement and the potential settlement of the McGee litigation discussed below would be approximately equal to the $7.3 million it reserved for these matters during the year ended December 31, 2018. Endurance International said, "The Company cannot make any assurances as to whether or when the Machado settlement will be approved by the court." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides cloud-based platform solutions for small-and medium-sized businesses in the United States and internationally. The company operates in three segments: Web Presence, Domain, and Email Marketing. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts. ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Still Awaits Court OK on McGee Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a court presiding over William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al., has not yet ruled on plaintiff's unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of a proposed settlement, certification of the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, and approval of notice to the settlement class. On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant Contact and two of its former officers. An amended complaint, which named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed December 19, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015. The parties mediated the claims on March 27, 2018, and as a result of that mediation reached an agreement in principle with the lead plaintiff to settle the action. The parties then negotiated the terms and conditions of a stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers, which, among other things, provide for the release of all claims asserted against Constant Contact and its former officers. On May 18, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, certification of the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, and approval of notice to the settlement class. The court has not yet ruled on this motion. The Company's combined contribution to the settlement pool under this proposed settlement and the potential settlement of the Machado litigation discussed above would be approximately equal to the $7.3 million it reserved for these matters during the year ended December 31, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides cloud-based platform solutions for small-and medium-sized businesses in the United States and internationally. The company operates in three segments: Web Presence, Domain, and Email Marketing. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts. ENHANCED RECOVERY: Paul Files Class Suit under FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC. The case is styled as Alberto Paul, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04664 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Michael Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza Ste 5th Floor Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com - and – Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com EQUITY BANCSHARES: Suit Alleges Misleading Financial Report ----------------------------------------------------------- Equity Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company is defending against a purported class action suit in the Southern District of New York. On May 13, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its executive officers. The plaintiff alleges that the Company made materially misleading positive statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects starting on May 11, 2018, that these statements caused the Company's securities to be overvalued and that the "truth" came out on January 24, 2019, when the Company disclosed that a credit relationship was downgraded and further on April 22, 2019, when the Company disclosed a $14.5 million provision for loan loss against that credit relationship. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted. Equity Bancshares said, "At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the outcome of this litigation." Equity Bancshares, Inc., incorporated on August 23, 2002, is a bank holding company. The Company's principal activity is the ownership and management of its subsidiary, Equity Bank (the Bank). The Bank provides a range of financial services primarily to businesses and business owners, as well as individuals through its network of over 49 branches located in Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma. The company is based in Wichita, Kansas. EVOLENT HEALTH: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Evolent Health, Inc. ("Evolent" or the "Company") (EVH) on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Evolent common stock between March 3, 2017 and May 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased Evolent 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 October 7, 2019. You may contact David Kaplan, Esq. -- 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. Evolent provides health care delivery and payment services to a national network of health systems across Medicare, Medicaid and commercial markets. By the end of 2018, Evolent had contractual relationships with over 35 operating partners. Many of these "partners" were either related parties, or companies in which Evolent had significant ownership or had provided financing at the onset of the relationship. Evolent's largest and most important partner was University Health Care, Inc., d/b/a Passport Health Plan ("Passport"), which represented 20% of the Company's revenues. The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Evolent 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 Evolent's business, operations, and prospects, including Evolent's "partnership" with Passport specifically. Among other things, Defendants mispresented and failed to disclose that: (1) Evolent's partnership model did not align the Company's interests with those of its partners, as the model was designed to inflate the Company's revenue by extracting enormous administrative and management fees at the expense of its operating partners such as Passport; (2) Passport was struggling financially, particularly after Kentucky cut its reimbursement rates, and the partnership between Evolent and Passport was becoming increasingly unsustainable; (3) Evolent was draining Passport of functions, employees and money, to such an extent that Passport was left on the verge of insolvency; (4) Passport was conducting a bidding process for several months to sell itself to prevent liquidation; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Ultimately, on May 29, 2019, Evolent shocked investors when it unexpectedly announced that it was buying a controlling interest in Passport, which was essentially a bailout of the financially distressed health plan. Evolent acquired Passport despite previously stating that it had no intention of buying Passport or any other health plans for the foreseeable future, and that acquiring health plans was not part of its strategic focus. In addition, Evolent admitted that Passport was performing poorly and was not being run or managed properly, despite paying massive management fees to Evolent for what was previously understood by investors to be an aligned relationship. In reaction to these disclosures, Evolent's stock price plummeted nearly 30%. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the class action at www.saxenawhite.com Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, and California, 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. CONTACT INFORMATION: David Kaplan, Esq. Saxena White P.A. 12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475 San Diego, CA 92130 Tel: (858) 987-0860 Fax: (858) 369-0096 Website: www.saxenawhite.com Email: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com [GN] EVOLENT HEALTH: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Evolent Health, Inc. (NYSE:EVH) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's shares between March 3, 2017 and May 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before October 7, 2019. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Evolent's partnership model was built from the ground up to inflate the Company's revenue with huge fees and management expenses siphoned from operating partners including Passport. The partnership between Passport and Evolent quickly became unsustainable, especially when combined with complicating factors for Passport's operations in Kentucky. Passport was left on the brink of insolvency due to the Company draining it of employees and money. In fact, Passport was selling itself off in a bidding process to avoid insolvency. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Evolent, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contact: Brian Schall, Esq. The Schall Law Firm Website: www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 Email: info@schallfirm.com brian@schallfirm.com [GN] FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss Patel Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned NIMESH PATEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; ADAM PEZEN; CARLO LICATA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant-Appellant. No. 18-15982. (9th Cir.). Facebook users living in Illinois brought a class action against Facebook, claiming that Facebook's facial-recognition technology violates Illinois law. Class representatives Adam Pezen, Carlo Licata, and Nimesh Patel each live in Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that Facebook violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which provides that any person aggrieved by a violation of its provisions shall have a right of action against an offending party. According to the complaint, Facebook violated sections 15(a) and 15(b) of BIPA by collecting, using, and storing biometric identifiers a scan of face geometry, from their photos without obtaining a written release and without establishing a compliant retention schedule. Facebook moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint for lack of Article III standing on the ground that the plaintiffs had not alleged any concrete injury. While Facebook's motion to dismiss was pending, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court denied Facebook's motion to dismiss. To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized; and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. A plaintiff does not necessarily meet the concrete injury requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right. In other words, for Article III purposes, it is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that a defendant has violated a right created by a statute; the Court must still ascertain whether the plaintiff suffered a concrete injury-in-fact due to the violation. Facebook argues that the plaintiffs' complaint describes a bare procedural violation of BIPA rather than injury to a concrete interest, and therefore plaintiffs failed to allege that they suffered an injury-in-fact that is sufficiently concrete for purposes of standing. Plaintiffs, in turn, argue that Facebook's violation of statutory requirements amounted to a violation of their substantive privacy rights, and so they suffered a concrete injury for purposes of Article III standing. In addressing these arguments, the Court first considers whether the statutory provisions at issue were established to protect the plaintiff's concrete interests as opposed to purely procedural rights. In its recent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has recognized that advances in technology can increase the potential for unreasonable intrusions into personal privacy. These concerns extend to sense-enhancing thermal imaging, GPS monitoring for extended periods of time. Technological advances provide access to a category of information otherwise unknowable and implicate privacy concerns in a manner as different from traditional intrusions as a ride on horseback is different from a flight to the moon. In enacting BIPA, the General Assembly found that the development and use of biometric data presented risks to Illinois's citizens, and that the public welfare, security, and safety will be served by regulating the collection, use, safeguarding, handling, storage, retention, and destruction of biometric identifiers and information. Interpreting the statute, the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the strategy adopted by the General Assembly through enactment of BIPA was to protect individuals' biometric privacy by (1) imposing safeguards to insure that individuals' and customers' privacy rights in their biometric identifiers and biometric information are properly honored and protected to begin with, before they are or can be compromised and (2) by subjecting private entities who fail to follow the statute's requirements to substantial potential liability. Based on this interpretation, the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that an individual could be aggrieved by a violation of BIPA whenever a private entity fails to comply with one of section 15's requirements, because that violation constitutes an invasion, impairment, or denial of the statutory rights of any person or customer whose biometric identifier or biometric information is subject to the breach. Individuals are not required to sustain a compensable injury beyond violation of their statutory rights before they may seek recourse. Therefore, the Court concludes that the statutory provisions at issue in BIPA were established to protect an individual's concrete interests in privacy, not merely procedural rights. The Court next turns to the question whether the specific procedural violations alleged in this case actually harm, or present a material risk of harm to, such interests. Facebook's relevant conduct, according to the complaint, is the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers without a written release, in violation of section 15(b), and the failure to maintain a retention schedule or guidelines for destroying biometric identifiers, in violation of section 15(a). The plaintiffs allege that a violation of these requirements allows Facebook to create and use a face template and to retain this template for all time. Because the privacy right protected by BIPA is the right not to be subject to the collection and use of such biometric data, Facebook's alleged violation of these statutory requirements would necessarily violate the plaintiffs' substantive privacy interests. As the Illinois Supreme Court explained, the procedural protections in BIPA are particularly crucial in our digital world because when a private entity fails to adhere to the statutory procedures the right of the individual to maintain his or her biometric privacy vanishes into thin air. The Court concludes that the plaintiffs have alleged a concrete injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 8, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6d8xrjg from Leagle.com. Lauren R. Goldman -- lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com -- (argued), Andrew J. Pincus - apincus@mayerbrown.com -- and Michael Rayfield -- mrayfield@mayerbrown.comMayer Brown LLP, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant. John Aaron Lawson -- alawson@edelson.com -- (argued) and Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, San Francisco, California; Susan K. Alexander -- salexander@rgrdlaw.com -- and Shawn A. Williams -- shawnwrgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Francisco, California; Michael P. Canty -- mcanty@labaton.com -- and Corban S. Rhodes -- crhodes@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, New York; for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Susan Fahringer -- SFahringer@perkinscoie.com -- and Nicola Menaldo -- nmenaldo@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, Washington; Neal Kumar Katyal -- neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C.; Lauren Ruben -- Lruben@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Denver, Colorado; Thomas P. Schmidt, Hogan Lovells US LLP, 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022; Sara Solow, Hogan Lovells US LLP, 1735 Market St., 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103; for Amicus Curiae Internet Association. FACEBOOK INC: Loses Appeal, Class Action Over Facial Recognition ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Rosenblatt, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that Facebook Inc. has failed to undo a ruling that allows millions of its users to band together in a lawsuit accusing the social network of gathering and storing biometric data without consent, potentially exposing the company to billions of dollars in damages. A federal appeals court in San Francisco on August 7 rejected the company's request to block the privacy suit from proceeding as a class action on behalf of Illinois Facebook users going back to 2011 whose photos were tagged and collected in a company-controlled database. The decision exposes the company to potentially huge penalties under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2008, which provides for fines of $1,000 to $5,000 each time a person's image is used without consent. The appeals court said the lower court "did not abuse its discretion in determining that a class action was superior to individual actions in this case." Facebook said it planned to seek further review of the ruling. "We have always disclosed our use of face recognition technology and that people can turn it on or off at any time," a company spokesman said. The appeal delayed a trial that had been set for July 2018 before a judge who was unsympathetic to Facebook's arguments for limiting its legal exposure. Now that Facebook has lost the appeal, the case will once again move closer to a courtroom. A high-stakes trial could hardly come at a worse time for Facebook, which has been under siege by activists, regulators, lawmakers and prosecutors over its privacy practices. Facebook launched a feature in 2010 that allowed users to identify people they recognized in photos using a tool that automatically matched names to faces on pictures uploaded to the social-media site. The company was sued in 2015 over claims that it "secretly amassed the world's largest privately held database of consumer biometric data." Citing an Illinois law, one of only a handful in the U.S. regulating biometrics, subscribers alleged they never gave Facebook permission to use their faces as biometric identifiers, while the company countered that all users could opt out at any time. Google won dismissal of a similar case in December 2018. [GN] FISHER PRICE: Wray Suit Transferred to Western Dist. of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Renee Wray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01603 (June 4, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Buffalo) on Aug. 13, 2019. The Western District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01067-GWC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for children and infants, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Mark Allen Smith, Esq. CARUSO LAW FIRM PC 1325 East Fifteenth Street, Suite 201 Tulsa, OK 74120 Telephone: (918) 583-5900 Facsimile: (918) 583-5902 - and - Anthony Calbert Savastano, Esq. DUTHIE SAVASTANO BRUNGARD, PLLC P.O. Box 219 1010 Main Avenue Durango, CO 81302 Telephone: (970) 247-4545 Facsimile: (970) 247-4546 Attorneys for the Defendants are: Adrianne Elizabeth Marshack, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 371-2500 Facsimile: (714) 371-2550 E-mail: amarshack@manatt.com FLYING POINT SPORT: Olsen Suit Alleges Violation under ADA ---------------------------------------------------------- Flying Point Sport, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Flying Point Sport, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04669 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019). Flying Point Surf & Sport sells boating-related, clothing and accessories, jewelry and gifts, toys and sporting goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Tel: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com FMH LP: Deleston Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act --------------------------------------------------- FMH, L.P. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jermaine Deleston, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FMH, L.P. doing business as: Francis Marion Hotel a South Carolina limited partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07550 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019). FMH, L.P. is a 3-star hotel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik Mathew Bashian, Esq. Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C 500 Old Country Road, Suite 302 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 279-1555 Fax: (516) 213-0339 Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com FORD MOTOR: Agrees to $17MM Settlement Over Infotainment Woes ------------------------------------------------------------- Ronan Glon, writing for Digital Trends, reports that developing technology that works flawlessly is expensive, but releasing a piece software with annoying glitches can cost even more. Ford has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by motorists who experienced problems with its early infotainment systems for $17 million, though it completely denies wrongdoing. The plaintiffs all have one thing in common: They purchased or leased a Ford or a Lincoln vehicle between 2010 and August of 2013 equipped with a touchscreen-based software called MyFord Touch or MyLincoln Touch. The two systems are very similar, and they were available in a wide variety of models, including the Fusion, the MKX, and the MKZ. Ford and Lincoln often either charged extra for the feature, or made buyers step up to a more expensive trim level to unlock it. The honeymoon period didn't last long. According to the lawsuit, the software didn't respond to voice commands, didn't connect to the owner's mobile phone, provided the wrong directions to the destination entered, froze, or crashed. While there's no indication these problems caused crashes or injuries, they left many motorists without features that they paid for, including navigation. Bill Ford, a member of the Blue Oval's founding family and its executive chairman, had to wait for his system to reboot before he could reach his destination. Mark Fields, Ford's president, allegedly punched his touchscreen. Ford asked Microsoft to help it fix the issues, and it rolled out several updates, but the problems continued for nearly two more years. The company's modern-day infotainment systems are much better, considerably more reliable, and far easier to use, and it hopes the settlement will allow it to finally leave MyFord Touch and MyLincoln Touch behind. Only residents of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, North Carolina, Washington, and Virginia are eligible to receive part of the $17 million settlement. Motorists who needed to get an infotainment-related problem fixed once can ask for $100. Those whose car went into the shop twice can receive $250. The poor souls who drove through the service department's door three or more times can claim $400, and motorists whose software annoyed them but didn't require repairs can get up to $45. Current and former owners have until September 24 to file a claim. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Weidman's Brake Defect Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PAUL WEIDMAN, RAUL VALENTIN, ERICA GOMEZ, PERRY BURTON, TERESA PERRY, and ROY NAASZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-12719 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Gershwin A. Drain of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action Complaint, filed on Dec. 18, 2018. The Plaintiffs are six individuals from five different states who, at varying times between 2015 through 2017, purchased a Ford F-150 truck. They allege that each of these vehicles contains a defective front brake master cylinder that places it at risk of suddenly and unexpectedly losing braking ability. They assert that the master cylinders in all the F-150 trucks, model years 2013 through 2018, have a "defective sealing mechanism that is inadequate to prevent brake fluid from leaking," causing reduced or lost braking ability. Plaintiffs Weidman, Naasz, and Perry allege that they experienced some loss of braking force while driving. Specifically, Plaintiff Weidman maintains that his brakes failed within five months of purchasing his truck. Plaintiff Perry's brakes failed with less than 20,000 miles on her truck and Plaintiff Naasz's brakes failed while he was trying to slow down for a freeway off-ramp. In each case, Ford technicians diagnosed the problem as a failed master cylinder. The Plaintiffs further allege that Ford's pre-sale knowledge of the master cylinder defect is evident from internal documents that it provided to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. They further assert that there are an exceptionally high number of consumer complaints regarding the master cylinder defect, beginning with the model year 2013. Ford admitted the existence of the master cylinder defect in a safety recall. However, the Plaintiffs complain that the recall was inadequate because it only covered F-150s from model years 2013 through 2014. The recall was also inadequate because it simply provided for the replacement of the defective master cylinder with another defective master cylinder. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of all "current or former owners and/or lessees" of model year 2013 through 2018 Ford F-150 trucks under federal law, as well as seek to certify, on multiple claims, separate Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia and Texas state classes for vehicles purchased or leased in those states. Presently before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs filed their Response in Opposition on Jan. 23, 2019. The Defendant filed a Reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss on Feb. 6, 2019. Upon review of the parties' submissions, Judge Drain concludes that oral argument will not aid in the disposition of the matter. Accordingly, he resolves the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the briefs. The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion. He dismissed Counts 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22 and 24. Counts 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 23 remain. Among other things, he finds that Plaintiff Perry's breach of express warranty claim fails (Counts 3 and 15). The Plaintiffs fail to allege that the problems with the brake system reoccurred. He similarly dismissed Plaintiff Perry's implied warranty claim (Count 16), as the Plaintiff has not provided controlling authority that the Georgia courts would permit an implied warranty claim to proceed without allegations that the vehicle was inoperable or unusable. Count 1 (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) is dismissed. The Defendant is correct that if the Court finds the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead express and implied warranty claims, their claim under the MMWA also fails. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims (Counts 6, 9,13,18 and 24) fail because Ford's Limited Warranty covers the same subject matter. The Plaintiff counters that it is well established in the Sixth Circuit that a plaintiff may plead unjust enrichment in the alternative. However, the Defendant acknowledges the existence of the limited warranty. While the Plaintiff argues that it would be improper at the pleading stage to dismiss this claim because the Defendant may dispute the allegation in a subsequent stage of the proceeding, the Judge finds that the Defendant does not appear likely to do that. Because Ford admits to the existence of a valid contract such that whether a contract exists is not at issue for the factfinder, the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims fail. The Judge therefore dismissed Counts 6, 9, 13, 18 and 24. A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/rONnRB from Leagle.com. Paul Weidman, Raul Valentin, Erica Gomez, Perry Burton & Teresa Perry, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark P. Chalos, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Daniel R. Ferri -- dferri@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III -- Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com -- Beasley Allen Law Firm, John E. Tangren -- jtangren@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Melvin B. Hollowell , The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., W. Daniel Miles, III -- Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com -- BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC, William Kalas, The Miller Law Firm, P.C. & E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm. Roy Naasz, consolidated from 18-13165, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Mark P. Chalos, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., W. Daniel Miles, III, BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC & William Kalas, The Miller Law Firm, P.C. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Randall William Edwards -- redwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Scott Michael Hammack -- shammack@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Stephanie A. Douglas -- douglas@bsplaw.com -- Bush Seyferth & Paige. FORD MOTOR: Pinon Suit Transferred to Eastern District of Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Ramiro Antonio Sandoval Pinon, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Ford Motor Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02044, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) on Aug. 13, 2019. The Eastern District of Michigan Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-12374-SFC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sean F. Cox. The suit alleges violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Ford Motor is an American multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903. The company sells automobiles and commercial vehicles under the Ford brand and most luxury cars under the Lincoln brand.[BN] FORD MOTOR: Riverside Alleges False Fuel-Economy Ratings -------------------------------------------------------- RIVERSIDE TURF FARM, INC. and FRANK B. FLANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-12376-SFC (M.D. Fla., Aug. 12, 2019), alleges that the Defendant marketed and sold vehicles including the 2019 Ford Ranger and 2017- 2019 Ford F-150 with false fuel-economy ratings. The case is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of current and former owners or lessees of model year 2017 through 2019 Ford automobiles. Plaintiffs' experts have examined nominal road load numbers that Ford used for fuel economy and emissions certifications for the 2018 F-150 and 2019 Ranger as reported to the EPA and CARB. When compared with other vehicles of the same class with similar weights and dimensions, Ford's road loads plotted against speed produced curves that were abnormally low, especially in the lower speed ranges more heavily weighted in federal MPG determinations. Ford represented to customers their vehicles had achieved specific MPG estimates. Ford, however, concealed that it conducted inadequate and inaccurate EPA fuel economy testing, resulting in Class Vehicles with overstated miles-per gallon EPA fuel economy ratings, the lawsuit says. Ford's EPA fuel economy ratings and advertising statements overstated by a material amount the actual numbers that the required testing would have produced. These misstatements are material because the EPA numbers provide a necessary tool for vehicle comparison for consumers when evaluating vehicles to lease or purchase, and they exist to help foster realistic numbers with which consumers can compare one of the most important factors in new-car buyers' purchase decisions. The action seeks relief for the injuries sustained as the result of the inaccurate testing methods used by Ford to ascertain the fuel economy ratings of its vehicles and material misstatements regarding those ratings used in the marketing and sales of certain 2017-2019 Ford vehicles in the United States. Ford Motor is an American multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are: Charles Hudson, Esq. L. Shane Seaborn, Esq. PENN & SEABORN LLC 1971 Berry Chase Place Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: 334 676-1626 Facsimile: 334 687-5111 E-mail: Charlie@pennandseaborn.com Shane@pennandseaborn.com GENERAL ELECTRIC: Misled Investors in Baker Hughes Deal, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TRI-STATE JOINT FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GREGORY D. BRENNEMAN, CLARENCE P. CAZALOT, JR., WILLIAM EASTER III, LYNN L. ELSENHANS, ANTHONY G. FERNANDES, CLAIRE GARGALLI, PIERRE JEAN-MARIE HENRI JUNGELS, JAMES A. LASH, J. LARRY NICHOLS, JAMES W. STEWART, CHARLES L. WATSON, MARTIN S. CRAIGHEAD, AND KIMBERLY ROSS, the Defendants, Case No. 2019-0638 (Del. Chy., Aug. 13, 2019), alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting thereof, and tortious manipulation of and fraud upon a board process in connection with the combination of Baker Hughes with GE's Oil and Gas sub-segment to form Baker Hughes, a General Electric Company, which deal closed on July 3, 2017. The lawsuit contends that GE knowingly provided Baker Hughes, its Board and advisors, false financial statements that significantly inflated the prospects of its struggling oil and gas business. The Board approved the merger agreement and recommended that shareholders do the same based on those false financials. After signing the merger agreement and receiving audited financials that portrayed a fundamentally less valuable deal for Baker Hughes stockholders, the Board and GE inexplicably hid from investors the massive divergence between the unaudited financials on which the deal was negotiated and structured and those disclosed in Baker Hughes' definitive proxy statement. Worse yet, GE O&G was a non-publicly traded segment of GE, making it difficult for Baker Hughes investors to value GE O&G independently and further increasing stockholders' reliance on the Board's recommendation. If a corporate board's recommendation is to mean anything -- as it does under Delaware's corporate statute and common law -- the deal the target board believes it is recommending to its stockholders must fundamentally resemble the deal actually effected upon shareholder approval. GE also knew or acted with reckless indifference as to whether its GE O&G Forecasts were reliable, as these forecasts themselves were designed to be comparable to the earnings stated by the Unaudited Financial Statements. The intent and purpose of providing these false Unaudited Financial Statements and unreasonable Forecasts was to lure Baker Hughes into a hasty business combination with GE O&G. Baker Hughes in fact relied on these Unaudited Financial Statements to assess the business combination. GE knew that once the Board had entered into the Transaction, it would be difficult for the Baker Hughes Board to back out (and trigger a second failed merger attempt for the Company), despite the magnitude of the difference between the deal they believed they were approving and the deal they actually secured. The Form S-4 -- on which GE and Baker Hughes collaborated -- stated that Baker Hughes had found the Comparable Financial Statement Covenant had been satisfied, which falsely indicated that GE O&G's revised audited financials did not reflect more material, negative information about GE O&G than the unaudited financials. During the two weeks between the release of GE O&G's audited financials and the filing of the S-4, the Board had not met. Thus, GE intentionally created an informational vacuum regarding both GE O&G's actual financial conditions and the vast discrepancies revealed by the Comparable GE O&G Audited Financial Statements. The creation and maintenance of that informational vacuum caused the Board to continue with the Closing of the deal. GE knew that misleading Baker Hughes stockholders was an essential element to its scheme to acquire Baker Hughes and thereby attempt to salvage its own O&G business. This business combination was value-destructive for Baker Hughes stockholders. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class, in their capacity as Baker Hughes stockholders, have been injured and suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial. GE is a global high-tech industrial company.[BN] Counsel for Tri-State Joint Fund are: Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Alla Zayenchik, Esq. Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ B ERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 - and - Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 112 Madison Ave, 10th Flr. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 213-8311 - and - Thomas A. Uebler, Esq. Joseph L. Christensen, Esq. Hayley M. Lenahan, Esq. MCCOLLUM D'EMILIO SMITH UEBLER LLC Little Falls Centre Two 2751 Centerville Road, Suite 401 Wilmington, DE 19808 Telephone: (302) 468-5960 - and - Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3600 GENERAL MILLS: Newman Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned CONNIE NEWMAN, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated current citizens of Illinois, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC. AND GENERAL MILLS SALES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-L-0455, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Aug. 13, 2019, and assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00890-NJR-RJD. The Complaint alleges two causes of action against General Mills: (1) violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA"), and (2) unjust enrichment. These causes of action derive from Plaintiff's allegation that the labeling of General Mills Fruit Roll Up brand products ("Fruit Roll Ups") are false or misleading because the labels state the Fruit Roll Ups are "naturally flavored" and contain "no artificial flavors" when the Fruit Roll Ups contain malic acid.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Nelson, Esq. Nelson & Nelson, Attorneys at Law, P.C. 420 N. High St. P.O. Box Y Bellevile IL 62220 Email: dnelson@nelsonlawpc.com - and - Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. Eggnatz | Pascucci 7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230 Davie, FL33314 Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com MPascucci@justiceearned.com - and - Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq. Armstrong Law Firm LLC 8816 Manchester Rd., No. 109 St. Louis, MO 63144 Email: matt@mattarmstronlaw.com - and - Alexander J. Korolinsky, Esq. The Law Offices of Alexander J. Korolinsky, P.A. 1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Email: korolinsky@ajklegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen A. Stetsko, Esq. 131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60603-5559 Phone: (312) 324-8400 Fax: (312) 324-9400 - and - Charles C. Sipos, Esq. Lauren W. Staniar, Esq. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: (206) 359-3316 Fax: (206) 359-4316 Email: CSipos@perkinscoie.com LStaniar@perkinscoie.com - and - David T. Biderman, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Phone: 310.788.9900 Facsimile: 310.843.1284 Email: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com GENERAL MOTORS: Truesdell Sues Over Defective Headlights -------------------------------------------------------- Jason Truesdell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Motors LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02268, (E.D. Mo., July 25, 2019), seeks actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Truesdell purchased a 2014 Cadillac SRX that he claims has a headlight defect that causes the headlights to unexpectedly and prematurely wear-out and fail due to the fact that its seals in the exterior housing units wear out, allowing moisture to accumulate and condense and corroding lamp assembly components. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq. Daniel S. Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC 1010 Market Street, Suite 1645 St. Louis, MO 63101 Tel: (314) 241-5799 Fax: (314) 241-5788 Email: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com GERALD PETERS: Picon Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Peters Gallery 2, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gerald Peters Gallery 2, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07551 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019). Gerald Peters is a Santa Fe art gallery featuring major works in American Western Art, regional southwest painting, Naturalism and Contemporary art.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com GERAWAN FARMING: Court OKs $5MM Class Settlement in Amaro Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for Eastern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement in the case RAFAEL MARQUEZ AMARO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GERAWAN FARMING, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 1:14-cv-00147-DAD-SAB. (E.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs are former employees who worked as field workers for defendants. The Defendants grow and harvest grapes, oranges, and various stone fruits in California. The Defendants employ seasonal workers such as plaintiffs who are fired at the end of each harvest and are subsequently rehired for the next harvest to assist with preparing trees and vines and with harvesting fruit. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Gerawan Farming, Inc. and Gerawan Farming Partners, Inc. (defendants) alleging violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA). Here, plaintiffs move for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. Though Rule 23 does not explicitly provide for such a procedure, federal courts generally find preliminary approval of settlement and notice to the proposed class appropriate if the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and falls with the range of possible approval. Preliminary Fairness Determination In particular, preliminary approval of a settlement and notice to the proposed class is appropriate if: (i) the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations and (ii) the settlement falls within the range of possible approval, has no obvious deficiencies, and does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class. Procedural Fairness The Plaintiffs contend that the parties reached this settlement agreement following the exchange of discovery, depositions of defendants' 30(b)(6) witnesses, certification of the classes, extensive motion practice, and arm's length negotiations with the assistance of a skilled mediator. The Plaintiffs maintain that the proposed settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of all known facts and circumstances and is in the best interest of the class. Based on these representations, it appears that the parties' negotiations constituted genuine, informed, arm's length bargaining. Substantive Fairness Adequacy of the Settlement Amount To evaluate the fairness of the settlement award, the court should compare the terms of the compromise with the likely rewards of litigation. It is well-settled law that a cash settlement amounting to only a fraction of the potential recovery does not per se render the settlement inadequate or unfair. To determine whether a settlement falls within the range of possible approval a court must focus on substantive fairness and adequacy and consider plaintiffs' expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement offer. Here, the total proposed settlement is for $5,000,000. The portion of the settlement allocated to the settlement class is an estimated $3,365,000. Plaintiffs' counsel estimates the maximum possible recovery with respect to all of the claims to be $16,458,758. Thus, the proposed allocation of $3,365,000 to the settlement class under the proposed agreement represents approximately 20 percent of plaintiffs' maximum possible recovery. This settlement amount is not per se unreasonable, and district courts in California have found lower percentage recoveries under some circumstances to be reasonable for this purpose. Attorneys' Fees When a negotiated class action settlement includes an award of attorneys' fees, the fee award must be evaluated in the overall context of the settlement. At the same time, the court has an independent obligation to ensure that the award, like the settlement itself, is reasonable, even if the parties have already agreed to an amount. Where, as here, fees are to be paid from a common fund, the relationship between the class members and class counsel turns adversarial. As a result, the district court must assume a fiduciary role for the class members in evaluating a request for an award of attorney fees from the common fund. To assess whether the percentage requested is reasonable, courts may consider a number of factors, including: The extent to which class counsel achieved exceptional results for the class, whether the case was risky for class counsel, whether counsel's performance generated benefits beyond the cash settlement fund, the market rate for the particular field of law (in some circumstances, the burdens class counsel experienced while litigating the case (e.g., cost, duration, foregoing other work), and whether the case was handled on a contingency basis. Here, in addition to the AWPA claim, plaintiffs bring various California state law claims. Accordingly, California law governs the award and calculation of attorneys' fees. Under California law, the primary method for establishing the amount of reasonable attorney fees is the lodestar method. The proposed settlement in this case provides that class counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed one-third, or $1,500,000, of the total settlement amount. This amount is above the Ninth Circuit's benchmark. However, this percentage of attorneys' fees is not unreasonable as an upper bound. As such, the court approves the attorneys' fee request on a preliminary basis. In connection with the final fairness hearing, the court will cross check the requested attorneys' fees with the lodestar amount based upon counsel's submission and make a final determination of whether the requested amount is reasonable. Incentive Payment While incentive awards are fairly typical in class action cases, they are discretionary sums awarded by the court "to compensate class representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action, and, sometimes, to recognize their willingness to act as a private attorney general. Here, plaintiffs have requested a total incentive award of $20,000, with each named plaintiff receiving $10,000. In support of this request, plaintiffs contend that they have expended significant time and effort to assist with litigation by providing information regarding the nature of their claims, consulting with class counsel on multiple calls, regularly discussing the status of the case, and providing information to other class members. An incentive award of $20,000 amounts to 0.4 percent of the overall settlement amount of $5,000,000. In comparison, under the net settlement amount of $3,365,000 for the class, each of the 6,417 class members would receive an average payment of roughly $524. This is in line with other incentive awards that have been approved by this court. Because the court finds that the proposed incentive award is reasonable, the court approves it on a preliminary basis. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y53qyxmw from Leagle.com. Rafael Marquez Amaro, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated & Jesus Alarcon Urzua, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric Bryce Kingsley -- eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley APC, Liane Katzenstein Ly -- liane@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley, APC, Marcos Rodrigo Camacho, Law Offices of Marcos Camacho, 227 California Ave.Bakersfield, CA 93304, A Law Corporation & Mario Martinez -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch, APLC A Law Corporation. Gerawan Farming, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Abba Schwarz -- dschwarz@irell.com -- Irell & Manella, Patrick Moody -- pmoody@theemployerslawfirm.com -- Barsamian and Moody, Ronald H. Barsamian, Barsamian & Moody, Theane Diana Evangelis Kapur- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Bradley Joseph Hamburger -- bhamburger@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP, Tiffany X. Phan -- tphan@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP & Victor Jih -- VJih@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP. Gerawan Farming Partners, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Abba Schwarz, Irell & Manella, Patrick Moody, Barsamian and Moody, Ronald H. Barsamian, Barsamian & Moody & Victor Jih, Irell & Manella LLP. GHS INTERACTIVE: Cunningham Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Cunningham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GHS Interactive Security, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-06599 (C.D. Cal., July 30, 2019), seeks actual monetary loss or the sum of five hundred dollars for each violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, treble damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and such further relief. GHS Interactive Security offered a "free" home security system by placing telemarketing calls to Cunningham's phone via an auto-dialer with a prerecorded voice without prior written express consent. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger Furman, Esq. 7485 Henefer Avenue Los Angeles, California 90045 Telephone: (310) 568-0640 Facsimile: (310) 694-9083 Email: roger.furman@yahoo.com - and - Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Tel: (914) 358-5345 Fax: (212) 571-0284 Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Haut Sues Over Misrepresentation of Vanilla ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Haut, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Glanbia Performance Nutrition (Manufacturing), Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-04566 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2019), alleges violations of the New York General Business Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and consumer protection statutes of other states and territories in connection to vanilla content in the Company's products. Glanbia manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells ready-to-eat ("RTE") oatmeal cups and packets under the ThinkThin and Think! brands ("Products"). The Products are available to consumers nationwide from third-party retailers, including brick and mortar and online stores and directly from the Defendant's Web site. The Plaintiffs allege that the Products contain misleading and deceptive representations of their vanilla ingredient. The Plaintiffs add that the Defendant's conduct was misleading, deceptive, unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair because (1) it gives the impression to consumers the Products contain more of the characterizing ingredients than they actually do and (2) the ingredient list does not dispel ambiguity but reinforces the front-label impression as to a greater amount of the characterizing ingredients. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Downers Grove, Illinois (DuPage County). The Defendant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Glanbia PLC, an Irish food and beverage conglomerate with specialties in nutrition and dairy products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by direct purchasers of foreign exchange instruments that opted out of a class settlement reached with, among others, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Group Inc., is pending. GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 7, 2018 by certain direct purchasers of foreign exchange instruments that opted out of a class settlement reached with, among others, GS&Co. and Group Inc. The second amended complaint, filed on June 11, 2019, generally alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust and state common laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive, treble and other damages. Defendants moved to dismiss on July 25, 2019. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Class Suit Over 1MDB Scandal Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative securities class action lawsuit related to disclosures concerning 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). On December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Group Inc. and certain current and former officers of the firm alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act with respect to Group Inc.'s disclosures concerning 1MDB and seeking unspecified damages. The firm is cooperating with the DOJ and all other governmental and regulatory investigations relating to 1MDB and is engaged in discussions with various governmental and regulatory authorities. Proceedings by the DOJ or other governmental or regulatory authorities could result in the imposition of significant fines, penalties and other sanctions against the firm, including restrictions on the firm's activities. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Suit Over FX Transactions Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit related to foreign currency exchange markets. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in putative class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in September 2016 on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on June 30, 2017, generally alleged a conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and asserted claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. On March 15, 2018, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety, and on October 25, 2018, plaintiffs' motion for leave to replead was denied as to the claim under federal antitrust law and granted as to the claims under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. On November 28, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint asserting claims under various state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and seeking treble damages in an unspecified amount. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Securities Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has stayed the proceedings in a securities class action pending an appellate court's decision. Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm's conflict of interest management. The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which names as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages. The defendants have moved for summary judgment. On December 11, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted the defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district court's August 14, 2018 grant of class certification. On January 23, 2019, the district court stayed proceedings in the district court pending the appellate court's decision. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GREENE NAFTALI: Picon Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------- Greene Naftali Gallery Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Greene Naftali Gallery Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07543 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019). Greene Naftali Gallery Inc. is an Art gallery in New York City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com HEADWAY TECH: Faces Suit Over Hard Drive Component Price-fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Ferzula Elmazi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Headway Technologies, Inc., Hutchinson Technology Inc., Magnecomp Precision Technology Public Co. Ltd., NAT Peripheral (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., NAT Peripheral (H.K.) Co., Ltd., NHK Spring Co. Ltd., NHK International Corporation, NHK Spring (Thailand) Co., Ltd., NHK Spring Precision (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd., and TDK Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-12244, (E.D. Mich., July 30, 2019), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to the Sherman Act, federal antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection laws and the laws of unjust enrichment. Defendants are manufacturers of hard disk drive suspension assemblies. Elmazi purchased at least one HDD suspension assembly indirectly from at least one Defendant and claims that they conspired to fix prices of and allocate market shares for these suspension assemblies. Suspension assemblies are a component of hard disk drives and are installed in a variety of electronic products. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC 950 W. University Dr., Suite 300 Rochester, Michigan 48307 Tel: (248) 841-2200 Fax: (248) 652-2852 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. Noelle Feigenbaum, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 Email: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com KLerner@robinskaplan.com NFeigenbaum@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: (650) 784-4040 Facsimile: (650) 784-4041 Email: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Tel: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com sademi@ademilaw.com HEADWAY TECH: Suit Claims Price-Fixing of HDD Suspension Assemblies ------------------------------------------------------------------- NOW MICRO, INC., the Plaintiff, vs. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02196 (D. Minn., Aug. 9, 2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection laws, and the laws of unjust enrichment. The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive ("HDD") suspension assemblies. As Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division Makan Delrahim described, HDD suspension assemblies are "critical to the operation and performance of electronic devices, and their impact on American consumers and business is direct and substantial." HDD suspension assemblies are a component of hard disk drives, which use magnetism to store information electronically. HDDs use recording heads, attached to sliders, to read from and write onto rapidly spinning disks. HDD suspension assemblies hold the recording heads close to the disks and provide the electrical connection from the recording heads to the hard disk drives’ circuitry. HDDs containing HDD suspension assemblies are sold both as stand-alone devices and incorporated into a variety of ubiquitous electronics such as computers, gaming systems, printers, and copy machines. The Defendants manufactured and sold HDD suspension assemblies throughout and into the United States. As of 2016, Defendants TDK and NHK, along with their subsidiaries, were the leading manufacturers of HDD suspension assemblies, with a combined worldwide market share of approximately 90%.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are: Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON | KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Victoria Sims, Esq. Joel Davidow, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com joel@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com vicky@cuneolaw.com HEALTH INSURANCE: Schick Suit Moved to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case, Silvia Schick, James Nethnay, James Schaffer, Joseph Bond, Lisa Graham, Lynne Crowton, and Michael Scott Hoge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Respondents, Case No. 8:19-cv-00588 (Filed Mar. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Aug. 13, 2019. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01511 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff sues over unsolicited telephone sales. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., incorporated on October 26, 2012, is a developer, distributor and cloud-based administrator of individual and family health insurance plans (IFPs) and supplemental products, which include short-term medical (STM) insurance plans, and guaranteed-issue and underwritten hospital indemnity plans.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Adrian R Bacon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 324 S Beverly Drive Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - Todd Friedman, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS 601 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10022 (212) 446-4800 E-mail: todd.friedman@kirkland.com Attorneys for the Respondent are: Ashley L Shively, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 50 California Street, Suite 2800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 743-6900 Facsimile: (415) 743-6910 HELIUS MEDICAL: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: HSDT) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-07171, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise Helius securities between November 9, 2017, and April 10, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Helius securities during the class period, you have until September 9, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Helius Medical Technologies, Inc., a neurotechnology company, focuses on developing, licensing, or acquiring noninvasive technologies for the treatment of symptoms caused by neurological disease or trauma. The company's product is Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator ("PoNS"), a medical device for the treatment of chronic balance deficit associated with a mild to moderate traumatic brain injury. Its PoNS device treats neurostimulation of cranial nerves via the tongue to restore lost function. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the clinical study on the use of PoNS did not produce statistically significant results regarding the effectiveness of the treatment; (ii) as a result, the clinical study did not support the Company's application for regulatory clearance; (iii) as a result, the Company was unlikely to receive regulatory approval of PoNS; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On January 25, 2019, the Company announced that it had received a request for additional data and information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") related to the Company's request for de novo classification and 510(k) clearance of PoNS. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.48, or approximately 6%, to close at $7.13 per share on January 25, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. On April 10, 2019, the Company revealed that the FDA had denied regulatory clearance of the PoNS device because the Company had not provided sufficient clinical data to show the device was effective. On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.11, or more than 66%, to close at $2.10 per share on April 10, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] HELIUS MEDICAL: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline --------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: HSDT) from November 9, 2017 through April 10, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important September 9, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Helius investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Helius class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1496.html or 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) the clinical study on the use of the Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator ("PoNS") did not produce statistically significant results regarding the effectiveness of the treatment; (2) the clinical study did not support Helius' application for regulatory clearance; (3) Helius was unlikely to receive regulatory approval of PoNS; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Helius' 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 September 9, 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 https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1496.html or 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 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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Website: www.rosenlegal.com [GN] HERON THERAPEUTICS: Wong Securities Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Heron Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a purported federal securities class action suit initiated by Jimmy Wong. On June 3, 2019, a purported federal securities class action complaint was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer by Jimmy Wong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the 'Plaintiff"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Complaint"). In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges certain violations of federal securities laws in connection with the decline in market value of the Company's securities following the Company's announcement of its receipt of a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the New Drug Application (NDA) for HTX-011. The Plaintiff seeks class action certification, damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, fees and costs and such other relief as the United States District Court for the Southern District of California may deem just and proper. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in the case. Heron Therapeutics said, "Due to the early stage of this proceeding, we are not able to predict or reasonably estimate the outcome or possible losses relating to this matter." Heron Therapeutics, Inc., incorporated on February 5, 1987, is a biotechnology company. The Company is engaged in developing pharmaceutical products for patients suffering from cancer or pain. The company is based in San Diego, California. HERTZ LOCAL: Denied Workers Pay Slips, Meal Breaks, Says Ramirez ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Ramirez, on behalf of himself and other current and former non-exempt Hertz employees, Plaintiff, v. Hertz Local Edition Corp., Hertz Local Edition Transporting, Inc., Hertz Local Edition Transporting and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV26477 (Cal. Super., July 30, 2018), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to California Labor Code and costs and interest. Ramirez was employed by Hertz in a non-exempt position at their 9000 Airport Blvd., Los Angeles location. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Anwar D. Burton, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com aburton@lelawfirm.com HOWARD ZUCKER: Court OKs Class Certification in Guadagna -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned SALVATORE GUADAGNA, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, Defendant. No. 2:17-cv-03397 (ADS)(AKT). (E.D.N.Y.). The Plaintiff commenced this putative class action against the defendant Howard Zucker, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health (DOH), alleging that the Defendant violated the Medicaid Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794 and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class certification with the following revised class definition: All Medicaid recipients who were enrolled in the GuildNet MLTCP in Suffolk, Nassau, or Westchester County as of March 1, 2017 and who suffered reductions in care without constitutionally and statutorily mandated prior notice and opportunity to be heard when they transferred to new MLTCPs as a result of GuildNet's closure in their counties of residence. Numerosity Rule 23(a)(1) requires the movant to show that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The numerosity requirement in Rule 23(a)(1) does not mandate that joinder of all parties be impossible only that the difficulty or inconvenience of joining all members of the class make use of the class action appropriate. According to the Plaintiff, at least 550 GuildNet enrollees transferred to a new MLTCP and suffered reductions in care after learning of GuildNet's impending closure. As support, he cites a chart produced by the Defendant detailing the type and level of long-term care received by individuals who changed MLTCPs between April 1, 2017 and October 1, 2017. The chart shows the services received from GuildNet immediately before transferring to the new MLTCP and the services received immediately upon transfer. The Plaintiff contends that none of these individuals received adequate notice because the DOH treated all of them as if they were voluntarily transferring to a new plan. In the Court's view, this evidence suffices to establish numerosity. The Court finds the Plaintiff satisfied his burden of demonstrating numerosity. Commonality Under Rule 23(a)(2), there must be questions of law or fact common to the class. A question is common if it is capable of classwide resolutionwhich means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke. Here, the following common question exists capable of class-wide resolution whether a statutory or constitutional mandate existed requiring the Defendant to compel MLTCPs who accepted former GuildNet enrollees to provide notice and fair hearing rights. The Plaintiff alleges that the DOH knew of GuildNet's intention to close and was thus required by the Medicaid statute and the Constitution to adopt remedial measures protecting those rights, whereas the Defendant alleges that no legal basis exists for demanding additional action by the DOH. Resolving this legal dispute will conclusively resolve the Defendant's liability to the class as a whole, favoring certification. To supposedly show the absence of a common question, the Defendant shifts the focus to the providers who received the members of the putative class. GuildNet enrollees transferred to numerous different managed care organizations, including 49 MLTCPs. According to the Defendant, the new providers made individualized determinations of the level of service to provide transferred enrollees. In doing so, the provider assessed each enrollee's particularized infirmities, abilities, and home environments and then designed a plan of care tailored to that enrollee's unique needs. The Defendant thus believes that hundreds of distinct questions regarding the circumstances of each potential class member exist, rather than a single class-wide question. However, the Defendant's argument mischaracterizes the nature of the dispute. The Plaintiff is not challenging the assessments of the providers who received former GuildNet enrollees. Instead, the Plaintiff questions the lawfulness of the DOH's overarching policy regarding the transfer of enrollees from GuildNet to those providers. If the Medicaid statute and/or Constitution obligated the DOH to impose notice and fair hearing requirements on receiving providers, then the Defendant's failure to implement a policy to that affect violated the rights of the entire class. If, on the other hand, no such statutory or constitutional mandate existed, then the putative class's claims fail as a matter of the law. Either way, the Court can generate a common answer that will drive the resolution of the case without second-guessing the assessments of the post-GuildNet providers. Therefore, the Court finds the Plaintiff satisfied his burden of demonstrating commonality. Typicality The typicality prong of Rule 23(a)(3) requires that `the claims or defenses of the representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the class. The typicality requirement is satisfied when each class member's claim arises from the same course of events and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability. Here, the Plaintiff and the putative class members were subject to the same course of conduct by the DOH, and will proceed on virtually the same legal theories, satisfying the typicality inquiry. The Defendant objects that GuildNet's conduct cannot be imputed to the DOH and that the Court has already found that the DOH provided adequate notice. Putting aside the fact that these arguments are merely another failed attempt to litigate the merits of the Plaintiff's case, they are applicable to the putative class as a whole, and not just to the Plaintiff. As a result, they fail to show that the Plaintiff is subject to unique defenses that would make his claims atypical of the proposed class. Therefore, the Court finds the Plaintiff satisfied his burden of demonstrating typicality. Adequacy No identifiable actual or potential conflicts exist between the Plaintiff and other members of the putative class. All proposed class members suffered reduction of Medicaid services without receiving adequate notice. Also, the final relief sought by the Plaintiff on behalf of the proposed class is the same relief that he seeks for himself, namely, an order compelling DOH to restore to former GuildNet enrollees the level of care that they were previously receiving from GuildNet, until and unless they receive an adequate and timely notice and the opportunity to contest any reduction. These facts clearly establish his adequacy to represent the proposed class. The Defendant's only objection that awarding an injunction would be improper relates solely to the merits of the relief requested by the class writ large. It has no bearing on the capacity of the Plaintiff to adequately represent the interests of other class members. The Court finds the Plaintiff satisfied his burden of demonstrating adequacy. The Court grants the Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). The Court defines the class as follows: All Medicaid recipients who were enrolled in the GuildNet managed long-term care plans in Suffolk, Nassau, or Westchester County as of March 1, 2017 and who suffered reductions in care without prior notice and opportunity to be heard when they transferred to new managed long-term care plans as a result of GuildNet's closure in their counties of residence. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Memorandum Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3vpks86 from Leagle.com. Salvatore Guadagna, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Wait Taylor, NYLAG, Elizabeth A. Jois, New York Legal Assistance Group, Jane Greengold Stevens, New York Legal Assistance Group & Julia Grossman Russell, New York Legal Assistance Group, 7 Hanover Sq Fl 18, New York, NY 10004-4027. Howard Zucker, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, Defendant, represented by Dorothy O. Nese, Office of the New York State Attorney General. GuildNet, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Jordan B. Leader -- jleader@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose. HSBC USA: Faces Ortega Class Action ----------------------------------- HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a purported class action suit entitled, Frank Ortega v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association. In June 2019, plaintiff filed a purported class action in California Superior Court in Los Angeles County based upon an October 2018 data breach experienced by HSBC Bank USA. The purported class members are HSBC Bank USA customers from October 4, 2018 to October 14, 2018 whose personal information allegedly was compromised. Plaintiff alleges he suffered actual harm in the form of fraudulent charges on his account, as well as continuing harm resulting from the compromise of his and other purported class members' personal data. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the California Business and Professions Code 17200, negligence, and violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act 1750, and seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. The case is at a very early stage. HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer and commercial banking products, and related financial services in the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings Inc. HUCKBERRY INC: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ---------------------------------------------------------- Huckberry Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Huckberry Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04668 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019). Huckberry is an independent online retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com INEOS STYROLUTION: Foth Suit Dismissed Per Settlement Agreement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry in the case styled Anthony Foth, et al. v. INEOS Styrolution America, LLC, Case No. 1:19−cv−00460 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman. The minute entry states that: -- the Court grants the parties' Rule 41(a) stipulation to dismiss; -- the Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without prejudice with the right to reinstate within 30 days to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement agreement; -- the dismissal without prejudice will automatically convert to dismissal with prejudice after 30 days if Plaintiffs' claims are not reinstated beforehand; -- the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is stricken as moot; -- Status hearing set for September 6, 2019, is stricken; and -- Civil case terminated.[CC] INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Skrzeczkoski Class Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Intelligent Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a securities class action suit initiated by Michael Skrzeczkoski. On or about July 9, 2019, a securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-03949) by Michael Skrzeczkoski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the company, its executive officers, and each member of the Board of Directors. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the company's press releases and Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC's) filings were misleading as a result of the failure to disclose alleged related party transactions affecting revenue recognition and the absence of disclosure regarding certain allegations against director Parker H. Petit in connection with his former position with MiMedx, Inc. The complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs and unspecified damages on behalf of purchasers who acquired our stock during the period from January 23, 2019, through May 29, 2019, and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result of the alleged misleading statements. Intelligent Systems said, "We dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. We have not determined the likelihood of loss to be probable nor is any potential loss estimable at this time, therefore we have not recorded any related liability as of June 30, 2019." Intelligent Systems Corporation, incorporated on November 8, 1991, is engaged in the business of providing technology solutions and processing services to the financial technology and services market. The Company's financial transaction solutions and services (FinTech) operations are conducted through its CoreCard Software, Inc. (CoreCard) subsidiary. The company is based in Norcross, Georgia. INTERSECT ENT: Nov. 1 Hearing to Appoint Lead Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------- Intersect ENT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court has set a hearing for November 1, 2019, on the motion to appoint lead plaintiff. On or about May 15, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company, Avi Yaron, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02647, against the Company and certain individual officers alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual officers made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's business and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. On July 15, 2019, the purported stockholder filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff. The court has set a hearing date to decide that motion for November 1, 2019. Once a lead plaintiff is appointed, the Company expects the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Intersect said, "As of June 30, 2019, the Company has not recorded a contingent liability associated with this lawsuit, as the Company has not determined that a loss is probable. In addition, any possible loss or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time." Intersect ENT, Inc., incorporated on October 6, 2003, is a commercial-stage drug-device company. The Company develops drugs for patients with ear, nose and throat (ENT) conditions. The company is based in Menlo Park, California. JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Dolan Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- The case, Milita Barbara Dolan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Jetblue Airways Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-mc-00059 (Filed July 31, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on Aug. 12, 2019. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:19-mc-62009-MGC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Marcia G. Cooke. JetBlue Airways Corporation, stylized as jetBlue, is a major American airline low cost passenger carrier, and the sixth largest in the United States by passengers carried.[BN] JONES FINANCIAL: 8th Cir. Appeal in McDonald Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that the appeal in the consolidated case, McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On August 19, 2016, JFC, Edward Jones and certain other defendants were named in a putative class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by a participant in the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan (the "Retirement Plan"). The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Retirement Plan participants and seeks declaratory and equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement Plan. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the McDonald lawsuit which was granted in part dismissing the claim against JFC, and denied in part as to all other defendants on January 26, 2017. On November 11, 2016, a substantially similar lawsuit (Schultz, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) was filed in the same court. The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the Schultz plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the Schultz action was dismissed. The plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint on April 28, 2017. On December 13, 2018, the court entered a preliminary order approving a class action settlement agreement reached among the parties. Following a fairness hearing held on April 18, 2019, the court entered judgment on April 22, 2019 in which it granted final approval of the settlement, effected a full release of claims by the settlement class in favor of the defendants, and dismissed the consolidated lawsuit with prejudice. On June 14, 2019, the lone objector filed an appeal to the judgment approving the settlement. The appeal is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri. JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Discrimination Class Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that the company continues to defend the case, Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., discrimination class action suit. On May 24, 2018, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit (Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by a former financial advisor. An amended complaint was filed on September 24, 2018, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that the defendants discriminated against the former financial advisor and financial advisor trainees on the basis of race. On November 26, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding an allegation of discrimination of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuit seeks equitable and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri. JONES FINANCIAL: Renewed Bid to Dismiss Bland Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that defendants in Bland, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al. wage and hour class action suit, have filed a renewed motion to dismiss that amended complaint. On March 13, 2018, JFC and Edward Jones were named as defendants in a purported collective and class action lawsuit (Bland, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by four former financial advisors. The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the defendants unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from departing financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to financial advisor trainees among other claims. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and liquidated damages. JFC and Edward Jones deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit. On March 19, 2019, the court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, but permitting the plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain of their claims. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2019. Defendants have filed a renewed motion to dismiss that amended complaint. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri. JUUL LABS: R.E. Alleges Deceptive Trade of e-Cigarette Products --------------------------------------------------------------- R.E., individually and as parent and legal guardian of her minor child, P.K.E.; on behalf of themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00591 (Aug. 13, 2019), targets Defendants' unlawful scheme of engaging in consumer transactions in a manner that represents an unfair method of competition and unfair, deceptive, fraudulent acts and practices in the conduct of the tobacco trade and commerce including the JUUL products. P.K.E. is only 16 years old and addicted to an e-cigarette referred as "JUUL product". Health authorities consider youth e-cigarette use an epidemic. Mimicking Big Tobacco's past marketing practices, the Defendants prey on youth to recruit replacement smokers for financial gain. Altria recently acquired a 35% stake in JUUL which is the country's lead e-cigarette seller. Altria also owns Philip Morris, which sells Marboro, the country's most popular cigarette.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Ben Salango, Esq. Brett J. Preston, Esq. Dan R. Snuffer, Esq. PRESTON & SALANGO, P.L.L.C. 206 Capitol Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 3084 Charleston, WV 25331 Telephone: (304) 342 0512 Facsimile: (304) 342 0513 E-mail: brett@wvlawyer.com bsalango@vlawyer.com dsnuffer@vlawyer.com - and - Scott S. Segal, Esq. C. Edwards Amos, II THE SEGAL LAW FIRM 810 Kanawha Blvd., East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344 9100 Facsimile: (304) 344 9105 KC PLUMBING, LLC: Diaz Seeks Overtime Pay, Claims Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------- Marlon Diaz, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. KC Plumbing, LLC, and Kolbe Coto-Cruz, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04321, (E.D. N.Y., July 26, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and any other statutory penalties as recoverable, compensatory damages sustained as a result of Defendants' retaliation, including back pay, front pay, punitive damages, redress for failure to provide wage statements, costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Diaz worked for KC Plumbing, plumbing company owned/managed by Kolbe Coto-Cruz, as a plumber from in or around October 2016 until his termination on May 5, 2018. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Caitlin Duffy, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel. (516) 248-5550 Fax. (516) 248-6027 KIMPTON HOTEL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Anderson Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned MICHELLE ANDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant. Case No. 19-cv-01860-MMC. (N.D. Cal.). In their complaint, plaintiffs allege Kimpton uses an online reservation system that facilitates the booking of hotel reservations. Plaintiffs further allege that Kimpton informed its customers, including each of the three plaintiffs, that hackers may have accessed reservation information. In particular, Kimpton advised its customers in writing that, during said seven-month period, there was unauthorized access of Sabre Hospitality Solutions SynXis Central Reservations system (Sabre), a provider of reservations services that had been enlisted by Kimpton as a vendor. The Plaintiffs allege on behalf of each plaintiff three causes of action arising under California law, and, on behalf of Thomas alone, five additional causes of action arising under, respectively, the laws of Arizona, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New York, and Texas. Kimpton seeks dismissal for lack of standing and, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim. Here, Kimpton raises both types of challenges. At the outset, Kimpton offers evidence it contends is sufficient to demonstrate the falsity of plaintiffs' allegations that they booked reservations at Kimpton what Kimpton characterizes as the Breach Window and consequently, Kimpton argues, plaintiffs could not have suffered an injury fairly traceable to Kimpton. Next, Kimpton challenges the sufficiency of plaintiffs' allegations that they incurred an injury in fact and that any such injury is causally linked to Kimpton. Anderson The Plaintiffs allege Anderson had a reservation for a room at Kimpton's Sir Francis Drake Hotel in San Francisco, California during the time of the Data Breach. Kimpton has offered undisputed evidence, however, that its records reflect only one reservation for Anderson at the Sir Francis Drake Hotel, which reservation, made on May 4, 2016, was for a two-night stay beginning May 21, 2016. Because an unauthorized third party who accessed the Sabre system during the Data Breach period could only have obtained PII for customers whose stay ended no earlier than June 11, 2016, i.e., no earlier than sixty days before August 10, 2016, Anderson's reservation would not have been in the Sabre system in the period during which third parties had access to said system. Consequently, plaintiffs have failed to show Anderson suffered any injury by reason of the breach of Sabre's system. The complaint, as alleged on behalf of Anderson, is subject to dismissal for lack of standing. Ainsworth The Plaintiffs allege Ainsworth had a reservation for a room at Kimpton's Sir Francis Drake Hotel in San Francisco, California during the time of the Data Breach. Kimpton offers evidence, however, that the only reservation in its records for Ainsworth is a reservation made on February 4, 2016, for a stay from March 29, 2016, through April 1, 2016, which evidence plaintiffs have not disputed. For the reasons discussed above, such reservation would not have been in the Sabre system in the period during which third parties are alleged to have had unauthorized access to said system and consequently, plaintiffs have failed to show Ainsworth suffered any injury by reason of the breach of Sabre's system. The complaint, as alleged on behalf of Ainsworth, is subject to dismissal for lack of standing. Thomas The Plaintiffs allege that, during the Data Breach period, Thomas had reservations at seven different Kimpton hotels. Kimpton first challenges the allegation by offering evidence that its records for Jake Thomas include only three reservations, two of which, in 2011 and 2015, respectively, predate the Breach Window, and the third of which, although made on February 6, 2017, was not made through the Sabre system, but, rather, through Expedia, under which circumstance no payment card information is entered into the Sabre reservation system. In support of their opposition, however, plaintiffs have submitted a declaration from Thomas, in which he states he made his reservations under the name Jacob Thomas not Jake Thomas. In support of their claims, plaintiffs allege Kimpton failed to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to protect Thomas's PII, failed to establish and implement appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of Thomas's PII did not take all obligatory precautions to properly safeguard PII from unauthorized access and "opted to maintain an insufficient and inadequate system to protect Thomas's PII, with the result that Thomas's PII was left inadequately protected by Kimpton. Plaintiffs fail to allege, however, any facts to support those conclusory allegations. In particular, the complaint does not allege the nature of any assertedly reasonable, appropriate, obligatory, sufficient and/or adequate action Kimpton failed to take. The complaint, as alleged on behalf of Thomas, is subject to dismissal for lack of standing. Failure to State a Claim The Court will afford plaintiffs leave to amend to allege facts to support plaintiffs' standing to assert the claims they seek to bring against Kimpton. Under such circumstances, and given plaintiffs' assertion in their opposition that they intend to amend if provided such opportunity, the Court finds it appropriate to address the additional issue raised in Kimpton's motion to dismiss, specifically, whether plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. First Claim for Relief In the First Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton breached its contractual obligations owed to plaintiffs. In support thereof, plaintiffs allege Kimpton's customers, such as plaintiffs, are required to read and accept the terms of Kimpton's Privacy Policy before their hotel reservation can be confirmed and consequently, the promises made in the Privacy Policy are contractual in nature. Kimpton argues the complaint fails to include facts to support a finding that Kimpton breached the above-quoted provision. As set forth below, the Court agrees. In endeavoring to plead Kimpton's breach of the contractual provision on which they rely, plaintiffs do no more than allege Kimpton, as set forth above, failed to act in a reasonable and appropriate manner and failed to take obligatory, sufficient and adequate steps to protect plaintiffs' PII. Plaintiffs do not, however, plead any facts to support those conclusory assertions. The First Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal. Second Claim for Relief In the Second Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton violated Section 1798.81.5 of the California Civil Code, which provides that any business that owns, licenses, or maintains personal information about a California resident shall implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information, to protect the personal information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. As Kimpton points out, however, plaintiffs fail to allege any facts in support of their conclusory assertion that Kimpton violated Section 1798.81.5 by failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices. The Second Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal. Third Claim for Relief In the Third Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton violated Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code, which prohibits, inter alia, unlawful business practices. Plaintiffs base their claim on Kimpton's alleged violation of Section 1798.81.5 as well as Kimpton's alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. Swection 45, which statute prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices. To the extent the claim is based on an alleged violation of Section 45, the claim likewise is subject to dismissal, for the reason that such claim is based on plaintiffs' allegations that Kimpton failed to use reasonable measures to protect private [i]nformation and failed to comply with applicable industry standards but plaintiffs fail to allege what reasonable measures Kimpton failed to use or how Kimpton deviated from or otherwise failed to conform to any industry standard. Accordingly, the Third Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal. Fourth Claim for Relief In the Fourth Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, Arizona Revised Statutes Section 44-1522, which Act makes it unlawful to engage in a deceptive or unfair act or practice in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise. Kimpton argues the Fourth Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal for several reasons. As set forth below, the Court agrees. First, the allegations in the complaint indicate this claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which is one year. In particular, plaintiffs allege Kimpton advised Thomas of the data breach on July 28, 2017, i.e., a date more than one year before April 5, 2019, the date on which the complaint was filed, and fail to plead any facts to support a finding that an exception to the statute of limitations exists. Second, the claim is wholly based on the same conclusory allegations on which plaintiffs base the First Claim for Relief, i.e., their claim for breach of contract and, for the reasons stated above with respect to the First Claim for Relief, said allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable claim. The Fourth Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal. Fifth Claim for Relief In the Fifth Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colorado Revised Statutes Section 6-1-105, which Act prohibits any deceptive trade practice. The allegedly deceptive trade practices on which plaintiffs base this claim are the same practices on which plaintiffs base the Fourth Claim for Relief. For the reasons stated above with respect to the Fourth Claim for Relief, the Court finds the conclusory allegations by which such practices are described are insufficient to state a cognizable claim. The Fifth Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal. Sixth Claim for Relief In the Sixth Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Pennsylvania Statutes and Consolidated Statutes Section 201-3, which Law prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in the conduct of any trade or commerce. The allegedly unfair or deceptive acts on which plaintiffs base this claim are the same practices on which plaintiffs base the Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief. For the reasons stated above with respect to the those two Claims for Relief, the Court finds the conclusory allegations made in support of the Sixth Claim for Relief are insufficient to state a cognizable claim and, to the extent the Sixth Claim for Relief is based on misrepresentations and omissions, it fails to comply with Rule 9(b). The Sixth Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal. Seventh Claim for Relief In the Seventh Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton violated New York General Business Law Section 349, which prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business.The allegedly deceptive acts or practices on which plaintiffs base this claim are, with one exception, the same practices on which plaintiffs base the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Claims for Relief. For the reasons stated above with respect to those three Claims for Relief, the Court finds the conclusory allegations made are insufficient to state a cognizable claim and, to the extent the Seventh Claim for Relief is based on misrepresentations and omissions, it fails to comply with Rule 9(b). The Seventh Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal. Eighth Claim for Relief In the Eighth Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices, Consumer Protection Act, Texas Business and Professions Code Section 17.46, which Act prohibits false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. The allegedly deceptive acts or practices on which plaintiffs base this claim are the same practices on which plaintiffs base the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Claims for Relief. For the reasons stated above with respect to those four Claims for Relief, the Court finds the conclusory allegations made are insufficient to state a cognizable claim and, to the extent the Eighth Claim for Relief is based on misrepresentations and omissions, it fails to comply with Rule 9(b), The Eighth Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal. Accordingly, Kimpton's motion to dismiss is granted, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5cfq34o from Leagle.com. Michelle Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Jake Thomas & Tom Ainsworth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by B. Bobby Saadian -- bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com -- Wilshire Law Firm, Justin F. Marquez -- justin@wilshirelawfirm.com -- Wilshire Law Firm, PLC, Robert James Dart -- rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com -- Wilshire Law Firm & Thiago Merlini Coelho -- thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com -- Wilshire Law Firm. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Jon Peter Kardassakis -- Jon.kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Dyanne Jinhyung Cho -- dyanne.cho@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP. LOZANO INSURANCE: Jointly Move to Notify Class in Mosley Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Parties in the lawsuit captioned SHERI MOSLEY individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. LOZANO INSURANCE ADJUSTERS, INC., FRANK LOZANO, LISETTE LOZANO, and ANCHOR INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00379-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla.), jointly move the Court to order notice to be issued to the putative class according to their proposed form and process. The Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this action on April 3, 2019, alleging claims on behalf of herself and similarly situated persons. The Court designated the case as a Track Two case and issued a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Scheduling Order. At this point, the Parties want to attempt to settle the claims in the case. In pursuit of that end, they have agreed to proceed as follows: 1. The following persons should be sent notice of the alleged claims: Individuals who worked for Lozano Claims Adjusters in Florida as licensed insurance claims adjusters and who were classified as independent contractors, paid a day rate for their work, and not paid overtime wages for hours worked more than 40 in a workweek between April 4, 2016 and the date of final judgment in this matter (the "FLSA Collective"); 2. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall issue notice to the FLSA Collective members by first class mail, e-mail, and text message in the forms attached as Exhibits A (mail and e-mail) and B (text message); 3. No later than August 16, 2019, or within seven days of the Court's Order approving the notice and process, whichever is later, Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs' Counsel with the FLSA Collective members' names, last known mailing address, last known personal e-mail address, last known mobile telephone number, and an employee number or unique identifier for each FLSA Collective member. They will produce the information in separate columns in a manipulable electronic spreadsheet format, such as Excel ("Notice List"); 4. No later than August 23, 2019, or within seven days of receiving the Notice List, whichever is later, Plaintiffs' Counsel shall send FLSA Notice to the FLSA Collective members by first class mail, e-mail, and text message in the forms attached as Exhibits A (mail and e-mail) and B (text message); 5. FLSA Collective Members shall have 60 calendar days from the issuance of notice to join their claims to the action ("Notice Period"); 6. The Defendants will supply to the Plaintiffs' Counsel the last four digits of the social security numbers of those FLSA Collective Members whose notice is returned as undeliverable; 7. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall re-mail and e-mail notices that are returned as undeliverable for those individuals for whom Counsel can find better mailing or e-mail addresses; and 8. Within 30 days of sending FLSA Notice, Plaintiffs' Counsel shall send a follow-up notice to those FLSA Collective Members who have not opted into the collective action in the form attached as Exhibit G to the Declaration of Michael J.D. Sweeney.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC 260 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12471 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-6849 E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com The Defendants are represented by: Linda Bond Edwards, Esq. RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Post Office Box 10507 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2507 Telephone: (850) 222-6550 Telecopier: (850) 222-8783 E-mail: ledwards@rumberger.com LVNV FUNDING: Soussana Files FDCPA Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LVNV Funding, LLC. The case is styled as Israel Soussana, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Law Offices of Robert J. Colclough, III, LVNV Funding LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-07082 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. LVNV Funding, LLC is a debt purchasing agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amir J Goldstein, Esq. Amir J Goldstein Law Offices 7304 Beverly Blvd., Suite #212 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Tel: (323) 937-0400 Fax: (866) 288-9194 Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com M&T BANK: Settlement of Suit v. Wilmington Trust Finally Approved ----------------------------------------------------------------- M&T Bank Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a settlement agreement in the class action suit against Wilmington Trust Corporation has been approved by the court. Wilmington Trust Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of M&T, was the subject of a class action lawsuit alleging that Wilmington Trust Corporation's financial reporting and securities filings prior to its acquisition by M&T in 2011 were in violation of securities laws. In April 2018, the parties reached an agreement in principle and a formal settlement agreement was executed and filed with the court later in the second quarter of 2018. The proposed settlement was preliminarily approved by the court in July 2018. In the first quarter of 2018, the Company increased its reserve for litigation matters in anticipation of the settlement. The settlement amount of $200 million was paid, pursuant to the settlement agreement, during the third quarter of 2018. The settlement agreement was approved by the court in the fourth quarter of 2018. M&T Bank Corporation operates as the holding company for Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company; and Wilmington Trust, National Association that provide retail and commercial banking services. The company is based in Buffalo, New York. MAINSTREET REALTORS: Sued over Unsolicited Calls & Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- ETA TIKOTZKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff vs. MAINSTREET REALTORS and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01493 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2019), seeks to secure redress because Defendants willfully violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and invaded Plaintiff’s privacy by causing unsolicited phone calls and text messages to be made to Plaintiff's and other class members' cellular telephones through the use of an auto-dialer and with the use of pre-recorded messages. The Defendant made one or more unauthorized phone call to Plaintiff's cellular 18 phones using an automatic telephone dialing system for the purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiff.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (323) 979-2063 Facsimile: (323) 488-6748 E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com - and - Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com MAMMOTH ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Zeisset Class Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants in Matthew Zeisset, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Higher Power Electrical, LLC, Cobra Acquisitions LLC, and Cobra Energy, LLC (formerly Christopher Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Higher Power Electrical, LLC, Cobra Acquisitions LLC, and Cobra Energy, LLC), have moved to dismiss Mr. Zeisset's claims and compel them to arbitration on an individual basis. On April 16, 2019, a putative class and collective action lawsuit alleging that the Company failed to pay a class of workers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and Puerto Rico law was filed titled Christopher Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Higher Power Electrical, LLC, Cobra Acquisitions LLC, and Cobra Energy, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. On June 24, 2019, the complaint was amended to replace Mr. Williams with Matthew Zeisset, another former Higher Power employee, as the named plaintiff. The defendants have moved to dismiss Mr. Zeisset's claims and compel them to arbitration on an individual basis. The Company is evaluating the background facts and at this time is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. MAMMOTH ENERGY: Faces Two Class Suits in Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------- Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in two class action suits in the Western District of Oklahoma. In June 2019, the Company was served with two class action lawsuits filed in the Western District of Oklahoma alleging that several of the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) contained material misrepresentations and omissions in violation of federal securities laws. The Company believes these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the actions. However, the Company continues to evaluate the background facts and at this time is not able to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or whether they will have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. MAMMOTH ENERGY: Still Defends Class Action in Puerto Rico --------------------------------------------------------- Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuit related to an electrical failure in Puerto Rico. On June 27, 2018, the Company's registered agent notified the Company that it had been served with a putative class action lawsuit titled Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc.; Multisystem Restaurant Inc.; Restaurant Operators Inc.; Apple Caribe, Inc.; on their own behalf and in representation of all businesses that conduct business in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico vs. Mammoth Energy Services Inc.; Cobra Acquisitions, LLC; D. Grimm Puerto Rico, LLC; Aseguradoras A, B & C; John Doe; Richard Doe, in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Superior Court of San Juan. The plaintiffs allege negligent acts by the defendants caused an electrical failure in Puerto Rico resulting in damages of at least $300 million. The Company believes this claim is without merit and will vigorously defend the action. However, the Company continues to evaluate the background facts and at this time is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. MDL 2904: Brown-Wells Suit over Data Breach Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------- The case, DENISE BROWN-WELLS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00627 (Filed June 24, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 12, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16577 to the proceeding. The Brown-Wells case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re: AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly compromised patient data 1 that various medical diagnostic testing companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes, including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc. (Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative class actions now before the Panel soon followed. In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal and financial information, including social security numbers and credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending. Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there, and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jean S. Martin, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 2018 Eastwood Road, Ste. 225 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 222-4795 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com MDL 2904: DeMarshall v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, Michael DeMarshall, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OPTUM360 LLC, QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, and LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01764 (Filed July 3, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 12, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16562 to the proceeding. The DeMarshall case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re: AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly compromised patient data 1 that various medical diagnostic testing companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes, including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc. (Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative class actions now before the Panel soon followed. In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal and financial information, including social security numbers and credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending. Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there, and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Brant D Penney, Esq. Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD W1050 First National Bank Bldg. 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com - and - David P. McLafferty, Esq. MCLAFFERTY & ASSOC, P.C. 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 940-4000 Facsimile: (610) 940-4007 - and - Eugene A. Spector, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: espector@srkattorneys.com Attorneys for the Defendants are: Kadee Jo Anderson, Esq. STINSON LLP 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 335-1728 - and - Andy Kabat, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 Lasalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8794 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 - and - Alicia Paller, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-6404 MDL 2904: Finch v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------ The case, ASHLEY FINCH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OPTUM360 LLC, QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, and LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01764 (Filed June 13, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 12, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16573-MCA-MAH to the proceeding. The Finch case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re: AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly compromised patient data 1 that various medical diagnostic testing companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes, including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc. (Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative class actions now before the Panel soon followed. In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal and financial information, including social security numbers and credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending. Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there, and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Todd C. Werts, Esq. Bradford B. Lear, Esq. 2003 West Broadway, Suite 107 LEAR WERTS LLP Columbia, MO 65203 Telephone: 573-875-1991 Facsimile: 573-875-1985 E-mail: lear@learwerts.com werts@learwerts.com - and - Ryan M. Callahan CALLAHAN LAW FIRM, LLC 222 W. Gregory Blvd., Ste. 210 Kansas City, MO 64114 Telepone: 913-601-1620 E-mail: ryan@callahanlawkc.com - and - Lynn Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: 317-636-6481 Facsimile: 317-636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com MDL 2904: Grauberger v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, EMORY GRAUBERGER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED; OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC.; and AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03102 (Filed June 4, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 9, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16541 to the proceeding. The Grauberger case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re: AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly compromised patient data 1 that various medical diagnostic testing companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes, including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc. (Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative class actions now before the Panel soon followed. In its July 31, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal and financial information, including social security numbers and credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending. Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there, and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Brenton Jeremy Goodman, Esq. Levin Papantonio, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. Nicholas Ryan Barthel, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 - and - Matthew D. Schultz, Esq. LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7140 Facsimile: (850) 436-6140 - and - William Franklin Cash, III 316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600s Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7000 E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com Attorneys for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated are: Amy P. Lally, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 595-9500 Facsimile: (310) 595-9501 Attorneys for OPTUM360 Services, Inc. are: Steven Andrew Erkel, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 243-1000 Facsimile: (415) 243-1001 MDL 2904: Hively v. LABCORP. over Data Breach Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, GENE HIVELY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS and LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, doing business as LABCORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00609 (Filed June 18, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 12, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16584 to the proceeding. The Finch case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re: AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly compromised patient data 1 that various medical diagnostic testing companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes, including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc. (Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative class actions now before the Panel soon followed. In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal and financial information, including social security numbers and credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending. Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there, and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Narendra K. Ghosh PATTERSON HARKAVY, LLP 100 Europa Dr., Ste. 420 Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Telephone: (919) 942-5200 Facsimile: (919) 942-5256 - and - Carlos E. Mahoney, Esq. GLENN, MILLS, FISHER & MAHONEY, P.A. P.O. Drawer 3865 Durham, NC 27702 Telephone: (919) 683-2135 Facsimile: (919) 688-9339 Attorneys for the Defendants are: Catherine R. L. Lawson Scott Elliott Bayzle, Esq. PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP PNC Plaza 301 Fayetteville St., Ste. 1400 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 890-4640 MDL 2904: Mayer v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------ The case, Johanna Mayer individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED; OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC.; and AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01029 (Filed June 5, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 9, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.2:19-cv-16543 to the proceeding. The Mayer case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re: AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly compromised patient data 1 that various medical diagnostic testing companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes, including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc. (Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative class actions now before the Panel soon followed. In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal and financial information, including social security numbers and credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending. Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there, and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. Brian D. Chase, Esq. Ian M Silvers, Esq. BISNAR CHASE LLP 1301 Dove Street Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 752-2999 Facsimile: (949) 752-2777 - and - Jordan S. Esensten, Esq. Robert L Esensten, Esq. ESENSTEN LAW 12100 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1660 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 273-3090 Facsimile: (310) 207-5969 MDL 2904: Worthey v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------- The case, Paula Worthey, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS ; OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC.; and AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-05210 (Filed June 5, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 9, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.2:19-cv-16544 to the proceeding. The Worthey case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re: AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly compromised patient data 1 that various medical diagnostic testing companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes, including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc. (Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative class actions now before the Panel soon followed. In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal and financial information, including social security numbers and credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending. Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there, and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Michael Hayden Reed, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: michael.reed@klafterolsen.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 125 Maiden Lane, Suite 5c New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 - and - Russell Marc Yankwitt, Esq YANKWITT LLP 140 Grand Street, Suite 705 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 686-1500 E-mail: russell@yankwitt.com MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Court Closes Naples Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Court has closed the putative class action suit filed by James Naples against the Company and its Board of Directors. On December 3, 2018, James Naples, a purported Company shareholder, filed a putative class action suit against the Company and its Board of Directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleging that the Board had breached its fiduciary duties related to a proposed, and subsequently abandoned, US$75,000 common stock financing that was contemplated with affiliates of Vatera Holdings LLC. The suit alleged that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to disclose all material information to Company shareholders. The suit sought, among other things, to enjoin the shareholder vote on the financing proposal until additional disclosures were issued. On February 27, 2019, the suit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice as moot, though the court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating a claim by the plaintiff for attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company subsequently agreed to pay US$350,000 to plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of the claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the Action. The Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of the attorneys' fees and expenses or their reasonableness. The Court closed the matter on June 6, 2019. Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., a commercial-stage pharmaceutical company, discovers, develops, and commercializes various anti-infectives for the treatment of bacterial infectious diseases in North America. Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut. MIDLAND CREDIT: Doerwald Suit Moved to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- The case, Frank Doerwald and Paula Dowsett on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 605054/2019, 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 9, 2019. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-04586 to the proceeding. The suit demands $501,000 worth of damages. The suit alleges violation of 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 Plaintiffs appear pro se. Attorneys for the Defendant are: Dana Brett Briganti, 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 MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Dismiss GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, is pending. On May 23, 2019, plaintiffs in a series of putative class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The first action naming the Firm was styled Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. BofA Secs, Inc., et al., and the consolidated action is now styled In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation. The purported class period in the consolidated amended complaint is now from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2016. On June 13, 2019, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, provides various financial products and services to corporations, governments, financial institutions, and individuals in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The company operates through Institutional Securities, Wealth Management, and Investment Management segments. Morgan Stanley was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in New York, New York. NCAA: Neglected Student-Athletes' Safety, Leiss Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER LEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03446-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., Aug. 13, 2019) seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Texas Christian University ("TCU") student-athletes. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other TCU football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former TCU football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, says the complaint. Plaintiff Christopher Leiss is a natural person and citizen of the State of Texas. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football program at Hampton.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com NCAA: Wakely Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety -------------------------------------------------------- JOHN WAKELY, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03419-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., Aug. 12, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of James Madison University (JMU) student-athletes. According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why. Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football season, there are entire days of the week that millions of Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers -- are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going. But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than 1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20 Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and 21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car accidents. Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia, depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur" college football. Football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713.554.9099 Facsimile: 713.554.9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589 6370 Facsimile: 312 589 6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com NEW MEXICO: APS Wins Dismissal of FAPE IDEA Suit ------------------------------------------------ United States District Court for the District of New Mexico issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Plaintiff, v. LINDSAY SLEDGE et al., Defendants. LINDSAY SLEDGE et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS et al., Defendants. Consolidated with Civ. No. 18-1029 KK/LF, Civ. No. 18-1041 KK/LF. (D.M.N.). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs Lindsay Sledge and David Guba (Parents) allege the following. Parents' daughter P. S.-G. (Student) has Dravet syndrome and as a result has had life-threatening seizures since infancy. Her seizures are unchecked by traditional pharmaceuticals, however, the administration of cannabis daily as a preventative and at the onset of seizures has significantly reduced their frequency and length. At an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting in the spring of 2018, Parents requested homebound services for Student for the 2018-2019 school year, when she would be attending kindergarten. APS again rejected Parents' request. Parents submitted a request for an administrative due process hearing against APS and the New Mexico Public Education Department (NMPED), alleging that these entities had denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In her decision, the DPHO found that APS had denied Student a FAPE and ordered it to provide Student with homebound services and an abbreviated school schedule to allow Student to interact with peers. The DPHO also ordered a limited remedy against the NMPED. APS filed a civil action in this Court appealing the DPHO's decision. Parents, in turn, filed this cross-appeal on seeking limited review and modification of the DPHO's decision to: (a) award Mother compensation for accompanying Student to preschool in 2017 and 2018; (b) find that the NMPED denied Student a FAPE and, (c) award Parents their attorneys' fees and costs, all pursuant to the IDEA. In addition, Parents allege that Defendants discriminated against Student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and pursuant to this statute seek: (a) damages for Mother's wage loss and Student's pain and suffering; (b) a declaratory judgment that the CUA discriminates against children with disabilities and (c) an award of attorneys' fees and costs. In its motion, Albequerque Public School (APS) seeks dismissal of Parents' IDEA claim challenging the adequacy of the remedy the DPHO ordered against APS, and of Parents' Section 504 claims against it. The NMPED and the State of New Mexico (State Defendants), in turn, seek dismissal of all of Parents' claims against them. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Parents' IDEA Claim Against APS In its Motion to Dismiss, APS first seeks dismissal of Parents' claim challenging the adequacy of the remedy the DPHO ordered against it pursuant to the IDEA. An eligible child acquires a substantive right to such an education once a State accepts the IDEA's financial assistance. A free appropriate public education (FAPE) includes both special education and related services. Special education is specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, while related services are the support services required to assist a child to benefit from that instruction. The IDEA requires special education and related services to conform to the child's IEP, which describes the special education and related services that will be provided. In their cross appeal, Parents challenge the adequacy of the remedy the DPHO ordered against APS under the IDEA, claiming that the DPHO should have ordered APS to compensate Mother for accompanying Student to preschool in 2017 and 2018. In its Motion to Dismiss, APS argues that the Court should dismiss this claim because Parents have failed to allege a violation of the IDEA and thus are not entitled to any remedy. Specifically, APS argues that the IDEA does not require APS to either provide medical cannabis to Student or accommodate the use of same, and therefore Parents' claim fails to state a cause of action under the IDEA. In its Memorandum Opinion and Ordered, this Court ruled that: (1) the IDEA does not require APS to administer or accommodate the administration of cannabis to Student but (2) Parents nevertheless met their burden of proving that APS failed to offer Student a FAPE for kindergarten and are entitled to relief under the IDEA. However, the Court also ruled that Parents did not meet their burden of proving that APS denied Student a FAPE for preschool, id., and this ruling forecloses Parents' claim that the DPHO should have ordered APS to compensate Mother for accompanying Student to school during her preschool years. Initially, as explained at some length in its Memorandum and Opinion and Order, the Court agrees that the IDEA does not require APS to administer or accommodate the administration of cannabis to Student. The administration of cannabis to Student has at all relevant times been unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and it would be absurd to interpret the IDEA to require APS to commit or accommodate a federal crime to satisfy its obligation to provide Student with a FAPE. Nevertheless, in its review of the administrative record this Court found that Parents met their burden of proving that APS failed to offer Student a FAPE for kindergarten. In particular, the Court found that, in Student's IEP for the 2018-2019 school year, APS proposed that Student should attend full-day kindergarten at her neighborhood school even though the school would lack any means of providing or obtaining timely treatment for her life-threatening seizures. The IEP in question rejected homebound services for Student, but did not indicate that Parents would either provide Student's school with prescription medication to treat her seizures or accompany Student to school to administer treatment themselves. Thus, the IEP would have put Student's life or health at unreasonable risk; and, an educational program that puts a child's life or health at unreasonable risk is not reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits and therefore not a FAPE. In light of this ruling, APS' argument that Parents have failed to plead their entitlement to any remedy under the IDEA is doomed to failure. However, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, this Court ruled that Parents did not meet their burden of proving that APS denied Student a FAPE for preschool. In particular, the Court found that the plan for Mother to accompany Student to preschool was not a requirement, but rather a choice Mother made to effectuate the IEP team's mutual preference for Student to attend preschool and also accommodate her own preference for Student to have access to cannabis. This ruling also defeats Parents' claim that the DPHO should have ordered APS to compensate Mother for accompanying Student to preschool. Courts may only grant equitable relief to remedy a demonstrated violation of the IDEA and such relief must be within the range of reasonable choices in seeking to achieve the IDEA's purposes.. With respect to Student's preschool years, the Court has already found that there was no demonstrated violation of the IDEA to remedy. With respect to Student's kindergarten year, the Court finds that, as a matter of law, compensating Mother for accompanying Student to preschool is outside the range of reasonable choices to remedy APS' failure to offer Student a FAPE for kindergarten, because the remedy would be wholly unrelated to the violation. The Court will grant APS' motion to dismiss Parents' claim challenging the adequacy of the remedy the DPHO ordered against APS under the IDEA. Parents' Section 504 Claims Against APS APS also seeks dismissal of Parents' claims that it discriminated against Student based on her disability in violation of Section 504. The Supreme Court recently addressed the interplay of the IDEA and Section 504, noting that, important as the IDEA is for children with disabilities, it is not the only federal statute protecting their interests. In their Complaint, Parents correctly allege that the then-applicable version of the CUA prohibited the storage or administration of cannabis by school staff or on school grounds. Thus, by Parents' own admission and in conformity with federal law APS refused to allow its personnel to store Student's cannabis on school grounds or administer it to her, not because of Student's disability, but rather because the storage and administration of cannabis was illegal. Critically, Parents do not allege that APS administered cannabis to nondisabled students or stored cannabis for them; nor do they allege that APS refused to administer legal medications to Student or store legal medications for her. In short, Parents' allegations that APS discriminated against Student on the basis of disability amount to no more than threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements and do not count as well-pleaded facts. The Court will therefore grant APS' motion to dismiss Parents' Section 504 disability discrimination claims against it. Parents' IDEA Claims Against the NMPED According to Parents' Complaint, these claims are based on the NMPED's failure to act to enforce the rights of students with disabilities in New Mexico and seek amendment to the CUA to allow children to receive medical cannabis during the school day from school staff to ensure that they can attend school and receive special education in their LRE. In their Motion to Dismiss, the State Defendants argue that Parents fail to state a claim against the NMPED under the IDEA because the NMPED has no obligation to seek amendment to the CUA, and also because such an amendment would be futile. The Court agrees that there is simply no provision in the IDEA that can be reasonably interpreted to obligate the NMPED to seek amendment of a state statute such as the CUA to allow school personnel to administer cannabis to qualified students on school grounds. The IDEA does not unambiguously require state educational agencies to pursue legislative amendments in general, or legislative amendments allowing schools to violate federal law in particular. Thus, to read this requirement into the IDEA would raise a serious doubt about the statute's constitutionality, while construing the statute to exclude such a requirement would fairly avoid the question. The Court finds that Parents have failed to state a claim against the NMPED under the IDEA. Parents' Section 504 Claims Against the State Defendants Parents also assert that the State Defendants discriminated against Student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504 by prohibiting her from receiving cannabis from school personnel or on school grounds pursuant to the CUA Parents further seek a declaration that the CUA in effect at the relevant time illegally discriminated against Student on the same basis. In support of these claims, Parents again allege that the State Defendants should have sought amendment of the CUA to allow qualified students to receive cannabis from school staff during the school day. However, this allegation fails to state a claim against the State Defendants under Section 504. As a matter of law, the Court finds that the State Defendants' alleged prohibition of the administration of cannabis by school staff on school grounds, and their alleged failure to seek amendment of the CUA, were not based on Student's disability as required to state a claim under Section 504. Rather, the State Defendants' alleged acts and failures to act applied to disabled and nondisabled individuals alike and were based on the identity of the substance at issue, i.e., cannabis, and the laws prohibiting its possession and use. Notably, Parents do not allege that the State Defendants permitted school staff to administer cannabis to nondisabled individuals on school grounds, nor do they allege that the State Defendants prohibited school staff from administering legal medications to Student or other disabled students on school grounds. The Court will stop short of holding that Student, as a young child whose parent gives her cannabis to treat a life-threatening seizure disorder, is excluded from the protections of Section 504 or subject to school discipline because she is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, as the State Defendants seem to suggest. However, the foregoing statutory provisions confirm that Section 504 does not require states to permit or accommodate the use of cannabis. Because the facts Parents have alleged do not give rise to the inference that the State Defendants acted or failed to act on the basis of Student's disability, the Court will grant the State Defendants' motion to dismiss Parents' Section 504 claims against them. Albuquerque Public Schools' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion for Partial Dismissal is granted. The Plaintiffs' claim challenging the adequacy of the remedy the DPHO ordered against APS pursuant to the IDEA, and Plaintiffs' claims against APS pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, are dismissed with prejudice and Defendants State of New Mexico and New Mexico Public Education Department's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint to Enforce IDEA and the Prohibition Against Disability Discrimination in Public Education is granted. Plaintiffs' claims against the State Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxrwq6cz from Leagle.com. Albuquerque Public Schools, Plaintiff, represented by Barry J. Berenberg, Walsh Gallegos Trevino Russo & Kyle, PC & Evelyn Howard-Hand, Walsh, Gallegos, Trevino, Russo & Kyle, P.C., 500 Marquette Ave., N.W.Suite 1310, Albuquerque, NM 87102 Lindsey Sledge & David Guba, as parents of P.S.G., on behalf of P.S.G., Defendants, represented by Gail S. Stewart -- gstewart@66law.com -- Steven Granberg Attorney at Law PA. NHK GROUP: Integrity Files Antitrust Trust Suit in Michigan ----------------------------------------------------------- Integrity Financial Services of Tampa Bay Inc. and Cowden Associates, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NHK Spring Co. Ltd., NHK International Corporation, TDK Corporation, NAT Peripheral (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd., NAT Peripheral (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., NHK Spring (Thailand) Co., Ltd., TDK Corporation, Magnecomp Precision Technology Public Co. Ltd., SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd, Hutchinson Technology Inc. and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-12258, (E.D. Mich., July 31, 2019), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to the Sherman Act, federal antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection laws and the laws of unjust enrichment. Defendants are manufacturers of hard disk drive suspension assemblies. Suspension assemblies are a component of hard disk drives and are installed in a variety of electronic products. Integrity Financial Services is a full-service residential and commercial lending company. It claims to have purchased hard disk drive suspension assemblies indirectly from one or more defendants. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Jay L. Himes, Esq. Domenico Minerva, Esq. Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. Tianran Song, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 907-0700 Fax: (212) 818-0477 Email: gasciolla@labaton.com jhimes@labaton.com kgarvey@labaton.com dminerva@labaton.com jcrevier@labaton.com tsong@labaton.com - and - Paul F. Novak, Esq. Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq. Diana Gjonaj, Esq. Tiffany Ellis, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 3011 West Grand Blvd., Suite 2150 Detroit, Michigan 48202 Telephone: (313) 800-4170 Email: pnovak@weitzlux.com dgjonaj@weitzlux.com dstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com tellis@weitzlux.com NIGHT STAR: Illegally Towed Parked Vehicle, Green Says ------------------------------------------------------ NIKIRA GREEN, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. ALBERT SIORDIA DBA NIGHT STAR TOWING, a business entity unknown; DR. M. FORGHANI, S.C., an Illinois corporation aka WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER, a business entity unknown, and DOES 1 Through 75, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01089316-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Sup., Aug. 12, 2019), alleges that Defendants illegally towed Plaintiff's vehicle. The Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose cars have been towed by Night Star Towing in violation of the California Department of Motor Vehicle Section 22658, and California Unfair Competition Law. On or about 1:30 pm on May 9, 2019, the Plaintiff parked her Vehicle, in the parking lot of FORGHANI aka WHC for less than an hour as she had done on numerous occasions even though she was not a patient because there was no signage that indicated that vehicles would be towed. The receptionist and manager at Night Star refused to let Plaintiff retrieve her belongings and personal possessions unless she paid the excessive gate fee of $85. She explained she did not have the $85 but needed her work boots and personal items. Under CVC 22658(b), Night Star cannot lawfully charge Plaintiff an $85 gate fee to retrieve her personal belongings from her Vehicle, the lawsuit contends. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered sleepless nights, depression and made it difficult for her to be with her son and to take care of his health problems.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Craig J. Beauchamp, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG J. BEAUCHAMP 1502 N. Main St. Santa Ana, CA 92701 Telephone: 949 689-9709 NORTH COAST MEDIA: Newell Sues over Pre-Recorded Phone Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- JOUREY NEWELL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTH COAST MEDIA, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01811 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 9, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited pre-recorded messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. North Coast used a software program to transmit thousands of unsolicited pre-recorded messages to Plaintiff and proposed Class Members. By using an automated telephone dialing system to send thousands of messages without first obtaining the prior express written consent of recipients, North Coast violated the TCPA. On July 29, and August 1 and 7, the Plaintiff received a pre-recorded message call from North Coast to his cellular telephone number. The pre-recorded message was identical on both calls, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff and the other call recipients were harmed by these calls. They were temporarily deprived of legitimate use of their phones because the phone line was tied up during the telemarketing calls and their privacy was improperly invaded. Moreover, these calls injured Plaintiff and the other call recipients because they were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying, were a nuisance, and disturbed the solitude of Plaintiff and the class.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com mwilson@meyerwilson.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Schmieder Files Consumer Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwest Collectors, Inc. The case is styled as Sarah Schmieder individually and on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Northwest Collectors, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05457 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 13, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit. NorthWest Collectors is a full service collection & credit reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omar TayseerSulaiman, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: (630) 575-8181 Email: osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com - and - James C. Vlahakis, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: (630) 575-8181 Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Ongoing ----------------------------------------- Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a re-filed class action suit in Missouri. In March 2017, a putative class action case was re-filed against the Company and other parties in Missouri state court after the predecessor case was dismissed without prejudice by the federal court. The Company successfully removed the case to federal court and is currently vigorously defending the case. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Omega Flex, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells flexible metal hoses and accessories in the United States and internationally. The company was formerly known as Tofle America, Inc. and changed its name to Omega Flex, Inc. in 1996. Omega Flex, Inc. was founded in 1975 and is based in Exton, Pennsylvania. ONSHORE QUALITY: Robertson Seeks Overtime Wages for Workers ----------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ONSHORE QUALITY CONTROL SPECIALISTS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00803-RP (W.D. Tex., Aug. 13, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Robertson and the other employees like him regularly worked for QCS in excess of 40 hours each week. But QCS never paid these employees overtime for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, QCS paid these employees a day rate with no overtime compensation.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 877-8788 Facsimile: 713 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PACIFIC FERTILITY: Court Narrows Claims in Egg Storage Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned IN RE PACIFIC FERTILITY CENTER LITIGATION. Case No.18-cv-01586-JSC. (N.D. Cal.). Pacific Fertility markets and sells egg and embryo cryopreservation services. Cryopreservation involves preservation of tissue using cooling techniques. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, Prelude took over operation of Pacific Fertility's egg and embryo storage facilities through its newly created operating subsidiary. Prelude is unlicensed and operates a national network of egg and embryo long-term freezer storage facilities staffed by non-clinical non-medical employees. Both Prelude and Pacific MSO insist that Plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed in its entirety as to them because Plaintiffs' group pleading violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)'s notice requirement. Prelude also moves to dismiss Plaintiff's bailment claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Finally, both Prelude and Pacific MSO move to dismiss Plaintiffs' premises liability and fraudulent concealment/UCL claims for failure to state a claim, albeit on slightly different grounds as discussed below. Plaintiffs' Group Pleading Adequately Puts Defendants on Notice Rule 8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Here, the FAC allegations adequately put Prelude and Pacific MSO on notice of the claims against them. Plaintiffs allege that Prelude took over Pacific Fertility's egg and embryo storage in September 2017 and that in connection with that takeover, Prelude created Pacific MSO to assist with the egg and embryo storage operation. Neither this transaction nor the existence of Prelude and Pacific MSO were disclosed to Plaintiffs until sometime after the Tank 4 incident. While the background allegations often include and/or language with respect to Prelude and Pacific MSO, the allegations under each of the claims are as to each defendant separately. To the extent that the same allegations are pled as both, that is because at this stage of the litigation Plaintiffs do not know which defendant did what. Given Plaintiffs' lack of knowledge of either defendant until after this action was filed, it is only through discovery that they will be able to differentiate meaningfully between the liability of the defendants. Further, given the close relationship between these defendants and the fact that they share the same counsel, they are aware of the actions they may have taken to give rise to Plaintiffs' legal claims. Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs' allegations provide sufficient notice to Prelude and Pacific MSO as to the nature of the claims asserted, including what conduct is at issue. Prelude and Pacific MSO's motions to dismiss predicated on Rule 8(a) are denied. Plaintiff's Bailment Claim Prelude's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' bailment claim is twofold. First, Prelude insists that the claim fails because Plaintiffs have not pled that it took possession of Plaintiffs' tissue. Second, Prelude maintains that the claim is duplicative of the negligence claim. A bailment is generally defined as the delivery of a thing to another for some special object or purpose on a contract, express or implied, to conform to the objects or purposes of the delivery which may be as various as the transactions of men. Plaintiffs allege that Prelude received for safekeeping Plaintiffs' irreplaceable personal property to be safely and securely kept for the benefit of Plaintiffs. Further, under Pacific Fertility's agreement with Prelude, Prelude was identified as responsible for determining the method, details, and means of performing [egg and embryo storage] Services. Notwithstanding these allegations, Prelude insists that the FAC fails to allege that it as opposed to Pacific MSO took custody of the property at issue Plaintiffs' tissue. Plaintiffs have nonetheless not alleged sufficient facts to give rise to a bailment claim against Prelude. At oral argument, Plaintiffs conceded that their bailment claim does not arise out of a contract; instead, Plaintiffs contend that their bailment claim is a negligence bailment claim not requiring an express or implied contract. In Whitcombe, 2 F.3d at 313, the court considered whether a claim for bailment existed between an automobile property owner and a marine terminal operator when the property owner deposited automobiles with a freight forwarder who contracted with a shipping company who turned the automobiles over to the marine terminal operator who provided stevedoring services. The automobiles were damaged while in the care of the marine terminal operator. Applying California law, the Ninth Circuit found that a bailment was created between the property owner and the marine terminal operator based on the principle that when a cargo owner voluntarily delivers cargo to a terminal operator for storage and eventual shipment, a bailment is created between the owner and the terminal operator. Plaintiffs' urging that the same principle applies here is unpersuasive. Plaintiffs did not deliver their property to Prelude for storage and eventual shipment, and did not even deliver it to a different entity for delivery to Prelude for storage and eventual shipment pursuant to an implied or express contract. The circumstances alleged here are entirely different from Whitcomb. Plaintiffs delivered their property to Pacific Fertility for storage and with no knowledge that Pacific Fertility would hand over storage to Prelude. Plaintiffs do not cite any case which supports the creation of a bailment between the plaintiff and the ultimate possessor in such circumstances. While pleading of alternative theories of relief on the same set of facts is, of course, quite proper and is often done where there is a legally recognized basis for recovery in both contract and tort. Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts that support a bailment claim, that is, a contractual theory of recovery. Plaintiff's bailment claim against Prelude is dismissed. Plaintiffs' Premises Liability Claim Prelude and Pacific MSO advance the same three reasons for dismissal of Plaintiffs' premises liability claim: (1) it is legally indistinct from the negligence claim (2) Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts which would give rise to an independent premises liability clam and (3) premises liability only protects individuals coming onto land and not the property they leave behind. First, while the elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury, the duty of care arises differently in the two claims; that is, a premises liability claim is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises, accordingly, mere possession with its attendant right to control conditions on the premises is a sufficient basis for the imposition of an affirmative duty to act. Plaintiffs contend that as with their bailment claim they are allowed to plead alternative claims and that discovery will shed light on whether the negligence and premises liability claims will merge. The Court agrees that Prelude's motion is premature to the extent that it is based on the overlapping nature of these claims. Second, Plaintiffs have adequately pled facts which would suggest a plausible basis for a premises liability claim. Plaintiffs allege that Prelude and Pacific MSO owned, leased, and/or occupied the property, premises, machinery, and equipment, including Tank 4, on the premises at 55 Francisco Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, California 94133. With respect to Pacific MSO, Plaintiffs specifically allege that while it is a Delaware corporation, its principal executive office is located at 55 Francisco Street, San Francisco. Likewise, with respect to Prelude, Plaintiffs have pled that it is a Delaware corporation, but that it operates Pacific Fertility's storage facility at 55 Francisco Street, San Francisco. Prelude's factual argument that it has produced documents showing that its corporate headquarters are in Tennessee such that Plaintiffs cannot allege that it owned, leased, or possessed the real property at 55 Francisco Street is improper at the pleadings stage. Finally, Prelude and Pacific MSO's argument that premises liability only extends to individuals and not the property they leave behind is likewise improper at this stage. Neither Prelude nor Pacific MSO have cited a case which holds that premises liability only covers injuries to persons and not property and the Court is unaware of any. Indeed, the law is to the contrary. Defendants' attempt to discredit this language from Wilson, Wilson v. Rancho Sespe, 207 Cal.App.2d 10, 17 (1962), as running afoul of the Restatement of Torts Section 318 limitation of premises liability claims to bodily injury is unpersuasive. Neither the cases Defendants cite nor any other case post-Wilson that the Court could find holds that premises liability only covers bodily injury. The Court thus cannot say as a matter of law that Plaintiffs' premises liability claim fails because they seek redress for injury to their property as opposed to their persons. Prelude and Pacific MSO's motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' premises liability claim are therefore denied. Plaintiffs' Fraudulent Concealment Claim and UCL Claims Finally, Prelude and Pacific MSO move to dismiss Plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment and UCL claims (predicated on the same fraud) on the same grounds. As a threshold matter, they both insist that Plaintiffs' complaint fails to meet Rule 9(b)'s specificity requirement because of group pleading and because it fails to specific the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged fraud. In addition, Prelude and Pacific MSO contend that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead that they concealed a material fact or that they owed Plaintiffs a duty to disclose. Plaintiffs' Allegations Satisfy Rule 9(b) The elements of a claim for fraudulent concealment are: (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he or she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact. Fraud claims are subject to the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b), which requires a plaintiff to state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. A plaintiff must include the who, what, when, where, and how of the fraud. Here, Plaintiffs allege that Prelude and Pacific MSO knowingly and intentionally failed to disclose and actively concealed: (1) that they had acquired control over the storage of Plaintiffs' eggs and embryos from PFC, had no license, and had no medical personnel on staff and (2) that their systems and processes in place to safeguard the eggs and embryos were inadequate. Plaintiffs also allege that Prelude and Pacific MSO failed to disclose that they were not employing reasonable processes and systems to safeguard Plaintiffs' eggs and embryos and failed to disclose that there had been a change in control over tissue storage, and that their storage systems and processes were inadequate. For the same reason Plaintiffs' group pleading of these allegations is sufficient for purposes of Rule 8(a), it is likewise sufficient for purposes of Plaintiffs' fraud claims under Rule 9(b). Given Prelude and Pacific MSO's parent and subsidiary relationship and Plaintiffs' limited knowledge of the operation of this relationship, Plaintiffs permissibly plead their claim as to both defendants equally. Plaintiffs have Adequately Alleged Concealment of a Material Fact Prelude and Pacific MSO next argue that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead concealment of a material fact because Plaintiffs have not specified with particularity how their alleged failure to disclose that they had taken over the tissue management from Pacific Fertility was material; that is, what they would have done differently if this information was disclosed. Plaintiffs, however, did plead what they would have done differently: Had either or both PFC and Prelude disclosed that Prelude had taken control of PFC's egg and embryo storage operation or that the Prelude's storage monitoring and alarm systems and other processes were deficient, nonfunctional, or incapable of protecting their eggs and embryos in the event of a tank failure, Plaintiffs would not have purchased or continued using the egg and embryo storage services. Plaintiffs have alleged that they would have behaved differently ceased purchasing or using the egg and embryo services had they known that Prelude and/or Pacific MSO had taken over the tissue storage operation from Pacific Fertility. At the pleading stage, the Court must accept this allegation as true. Likewise, Plaintiffs have adequately pled how the systems and processes were inadequate Prelude lacked monitoring, alarm, and response systems and processes sufficient to detect and prevent harm from a dangerous temperature rise in Tank 4 and how these facts were intentionally concealed Plaintiffs were not notified of Prelude and Pacific MSO's existence until after the March 2018 incident. Plaintiffs have Not Adequately Alleged a Duty to Disclose Lastly, Prelude and Pacific MSO argue that they had no duty to disclose their role in the tissue storage operation or any details of the tissue storage operation. There are four circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud: (1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff and (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts. Plaintiffs contend that the duty arises here because Defendants have exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to Plaintiffs; however, it is not enough to plead that Defendants had exclusive knowledge Plaintiffs must also plead a relationship between the parties which gives rise to the obligation to disclose this information. Plaintiffs do not allege any such relationship or transaction. Plaintiffs' fraudulent disclosure claim is dismissed. Because Plaintiffs' UCL claim is predicated on the same factual allegations, it is likewise dismissed. In summary, Prelude and Pacific MSO's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The motions to dismiss for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a)'s notice pleading requirement and to dismiss the premises liability claim under Rule 12(b)(6) are denied. Prelude's motion to dismiss the bailment claim is granted with leave to amend. Prelude and Pacific MSO's motion to dismiss the fraudulent concealment and UCL claims based on Plaintiffs' failure to allege a duty to disclose is granted with leave to amend. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y57ho7ja from Leagle.com. R. E., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs -- ehg@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Amy Marie Zeman -- amz@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Daniel C. Girard -- dgirard@girardsharp.com -- Girard Sharp LLP, Dylan Hughes -- dsh@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Jordan S. Elias -- jelias@girardsharp.com -- Girard Sharp LLP, Joseph G. Sauder -- mds@sstriallawyers.com -- Sauder Schelkopf LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah Robin London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339, Steven M. Tindall -- smt@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Tiseme Gabriella Zegeye, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 & Adam E. Polk, Girard Sharp LLP. Megan Bauer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Jonathan Bauer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Brett Wolf -- awolf@pwcklegal.com -- Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane, Adam E. Polk -- apolk@girardsharp.com -- Girard Sharp LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah Robin London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP,Steven M. Tindall, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Tiseme Gabriella Zegeye, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, LLP & Tracey B. Cowan -tcowan@pwcklegal.com -- Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane. Pacific Fertility Center, Defendant, represented by Joseph Spalding Picchi -- jpicchi@glattys.com -- Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi A Professional Corporation & Aaron Thomas Schultz -- aschultz@glattys.com -- Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi. Prelude Fertility, Inc. & Pacific MSO, LLC, Defendants, represented by Erin McCalmon Bosman -EBosman@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Benjamin Scott Kagel -- bkagel@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster, David Frank McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Julie Yongsun Park -- juliepark@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & William Francis Tarantino -wtarantino@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP. PERMITS ETC: Reed Seeks Minimum Wage for Exotic Dancers ------------------------------------------------------- TYHESIA REED, On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, the PLAINTIFF, vs. PERMITS, ETC., INC. d/b/a THE ROSE GENTLEMAN'S CLUB d/b/a FLASHDANCE, the DEFENDANT, Case No. 9:19-cv-81145-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 13, 2019), alleges that Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and all other members of the class and collective as "independent contractors" and failed to pay them minimum wage compensation they were entitled to under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The class and collective is composed of female employees who, during the relevant time period of June 2016 through the date of judgment in this case, worked as exotic dancers for Defendant and were denied their fundamental rights under applicable state and federal laws.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are: David B. Sacks, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. SACKS 4494 Southside Boulevard, Suite 101 Jacksonville, FL 32216 Telephone: (904) 634-1122 E-mail: david@lawofficejacksonville.com - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com PETROS & SON'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/NJWHL, Lema Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Lema, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Petros & Son's, Inc. of Ewing N.J. d/b/a Ewing Diner, Petros Grumitsaris a/k/a Peter, and Peter Kritsikokas, Case No. 3:19-cv-16457 (D.N.J., Aug. 7, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have committed widespread violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act and of the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law by failing to adequately pay its employees, including the Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. Petros & Son's, Inc., of Ewing, New Jersey, trading as Ewing Diner, is a corporation incorporated under the laws of New Jersey and has its registered office in W. Trenton, New Jersey. The Individual Defendants are owners, officers, and/or managing agents of the Defendant Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Qinyu Fan, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: qfan@hanglaw.com PHARMAPACKS LLC: Diaz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------- Pharmapacks, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pharmapacks, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07615 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019). Pharmapacks, LLC is an E-commerce service in Islandia, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal PLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE: Walk and Estrada Seek OT Pay for Clerks ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMIE WALK AND JUDITH ESTRADA on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. PLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY CENTER, SC AND JOHN A. KOTIS, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05422 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 12, 2019), seeks overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff is a current employee who has worked for Defendants since approximately February 2019 and performs billing, collections and other clerical office work for Defendants. Walk is compensated on an hourly basis and works over 40 hours per week and is denied overtime pay by Defendants for such hours. The Plaintiff is a current employee who has worked for Defendants since approximately February 2019 as a surgical assistant and performs related clerical work for Defendants. Estrada is compensated on an hourly basis and works over 40 hours per week and is denied overtime pay by Defendants for such hours. The Defendant provides medical and surgical services, primarily cosmetic and plastic surgery procedures, to patients. The Defendant's primary practice is located in Arlington Heights, Illinois.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff, and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known or unknown, are: John W. Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 POLEKATZ GENTLEMEN'S: Exotic Dancers Not Contractors, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CEAIRA REED, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiffs, v. POLEKATZ GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, LLC, STEPHEN H. DABROWSKI, SHANE FULTS, JEFFREY MIKE, and FRANK LAPORT, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05382 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 9, 2019), alleges that Defendants misclassify dancers, including Plaintiffs, as independent contractors so that they do not have to compensate them minimum wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants required Ceaira Reed and others similarly situated to work as exotic dancers at their adult entertainment club but refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage. In fact, the Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiffs whatsoever for any hours worked. The Plaintiffs' only compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons and even some of those tips were illegally confiscated by the club. The Defendants also violated the FLSA by failing to pay time and a half to their employees when they worked more than 40 hours a week. The Defendants took money from Plaintiffs in the form of "house fees" or "rent". Plaintiffs were also required to divide tips with Defendants' managers and employees who do not customarily receive tips.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com POWERSTROKE WELL: Lechot Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN LECHOT, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. POWERSTROKE WELL CONTROL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19 cv-02315 (D. Colo., Aug. 13, 2019) is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") lawsuit against Defendant due to Defendant's failure to pay certain workers overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. Instead of paying workers overtime, Powerstroke paid them a set daily rate for each day worked, regardless of how maw many hours they worked in a week. This violates the FLSA because employees paid on a day rate basis are still owed an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. Therefore, Lechot and the other employees paid according to Powerstroke's day rate pay plan are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime and other damages, says the complaint. Plaintiff Lechot was employed by Defendant as a Snubbing Supervisor. Powerstroke is an oilfield services company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com PUBLIX SUPER: Rivera Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------- MISMA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62000-RKA (S.D. Fla., Aug. 9, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text message to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In efforts to drum-up business, Defendant would often send marketing text messages providing different types of offers and savings for future purchases without first obtaining express written consent to send such marketing text messages as required to do so under the TCPA. Defendant knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA, causing injuries to Plaintiff and members of the putative class, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant. Defendant is a supermarket chain with more than 1,215 locations throughout the Southeastern United States.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI Thomas J. Patti, Esq. 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-907-1136 Facsimile: 855-529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com REILY FOODS: 1st Cir. Flips Dismissal in Dumont Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, issued an Opinion reversing the District Court's judgment granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned KATHY DUMONT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. REILY FOODS COMPANY; NEW ENGLAND COFFEE COMPANY, Defendants, Appellees. No. 18-2055. (1st Cir.). Defendant New England Coffee Company, operating as a subsidiary of Reily Foods Company, sells a Hazelnut Creme coffee. Kathy Dumont contends that she purchased the coffee because she thought that a coffee styled Hazelnut Creme contained some hazelnut. After learning that the Hazelnut Creme coffee contained no hazelnut at all, Dumont brought this putative class action challenging the coffee's labeling as a violation of Massachusetts' consumer protection laws. Suing individually and on behalf of a putative nationwide class of allegedly similarly situated consumers, Dumont claimed that the packaging was (1) an unfair and deceptive practice under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A and (2) untrue and misleading advertising under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 266, section 91. The district court dismissed Dumont's complaint without leave to amend. Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), the court held that the complaint offered insufficient detail regarding the circumstances of plaintiff's purchase and that it therefore failed to pass muster under the relevant pleading standard. Dumont's argue that the district court erred in its conclusion that her complaint provided insufficiently particularized facts to satisfy Rule 9(b). The Court reviews de novo the dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 9(b). Rule 9(b) provides that, in alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the defendants urge us to affirm on the alternative basis that the complaint failed to state a claim for a violation of chapter 93A. Chapter 93A prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. On appeal, Dumont argues solely that the labeling was deceptive not that it was unfair. An advertisement is deceptive when it has the capacity to mislead consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances, to act differently from the way they otherwise would have acted to entice a reasonable consumer to purchase the product. One might presume that a reasonable consumer who, like Dumont, cared whether the coffee she intended to purchase contained real hazelnut would check the list of ingredients. On the other hand, perhaps a reasonable consumer would find in the product name sufficient assurance so as to see no need to search the fine print on the back of the package, much like one might easily buy a hazelnut cake without studying the ingredients list to confirm that the cake actually contains some hazelnut. And the complaint makes clear that convention in the industry presumably in large part because of federal labeling requirements is to state on the front of a package containing a product that is nut flavored but that contains no nuts that the product is naturally or artificially flavored. Indeed, another Reily Foods subsidiary that sells a hazelnut coffee includes a flavoring disclosure on the front of its package. The Court dissenting colleague points out that the package says Freshly Ground 100% Arabica Coffee. The proposition by no means unreasonable is that a consumer could read this statement in isolation as saying that the package contains only coffee and Arabica coffee at that, with no nuts or anything else. But a consumer might instead read this statement as saying that 100% of the coffee in the package is of the Arabica variety. After all, if there is nothing in the package other than coffee, what does Hazelnut Creme mean to say? Indeed, even Reily Foods concedes that the package also contains some flavoring, so it cannot be the case that 100% Arabica Coffee means the package contains coffee alone. None of this is to say that the dissenting colleague's reading is by any means unreasonable. To the contrary, the Court would likely land upon that reading were the Court in the grocery aisle with some time to peruse the package. That being said, the Court thinks it best that six jurors, rather than three judges, decide on a full record whether the challenged label has the capacity to mislead reasonably acting, hazelnut-loving consumers. And the Court sees no unfair cost in recognizing a state-law claim that can only be lodged against manufacturers that fail to adhere to the rules and safe harbors that have been created by the FDA and that help form consumers' expectations in reading labels. Therefore, and while it is certainly a close question for the reasons well marshalled by the thoughtful dissent, the Court holds that Dumont's complaint states a plausible claim for relief. The defendants propose one additional alternative ground for affirming the dismissal of Dumont's complaint: Even if the complaint alleges a claim under chapter 93A, they argue, that claim is impliedly preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The defendants contend only that the application of chapter 93A as proposed by Dumont is impliedly preempted as an attempt to use a state law to enforce federal requirements, thereby potentially interfering with federal enforcement of the food-labeling provisions of the FDCA. In support of this argument, the defendants point to the Supreme Court's opinion in Buckman Company v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001). In that case, patients who suffered injuries from implantation of orthopedic bone screws sought damages under state tort law on the theory that the defendant made fraudulent representations to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the course of obtaining approval to market the screws. The Court decided that the claims conflicted with and were therefore impliedly preempted by the FDA's statutory enforcement scheme. Dumont agrees with the defendants that this reasoning in Buckman applies by analogy to her claim implicating federal food-labeling requirements. Dumont argues, therefore, that chapter 93A predates the applicable federal requirements, and that she is not seeking to impose state-tort liability because the label violates the FDCA, but rather because it independently violates chapter 93A. Defendants, in turn, do not argue that chapter 93A is not a traditional tort-like law that predates the FDCA. Based on the parties' foregoing positions, the Court therefore presumes but do not hold that Dumont's complaint is preempted unless the conduct it pleads: (1) violates FDCA labeling requirements and (2) would also violate chapter 93A even if the FDCA did not exist. With that test in mind, the Court turns back to the complaint. Dumont contends, though, that the complaint also seeks to vindicate the separate and independent right to be free from deceptive and unfair conduct. And the complaint can indeed be read to allege liability not because the label constitutes misbranding under federal law, but rather because the label has the capacity to deceive or mislead reasonable consumers, in violation of chapter 93A. Under that reading of the complaint, the allegation that the label violated the FDCA serves simply to counter a claim of express preemption. The Court finds nothing in Buckman to suggest that such an indirect relationship between a state-law claim and federal law warrants preemption, at least as long as the factfinder avoids equating violation of the federal law with deception under the state law. Suppose, for example, that a pharmacist told a patient that a product was FDA approved, but it was not. The Court doubts that the consumer's fraud claim under state common law would be preempted merely because the consumer's reliance evidence was buttressed by the background knowledge that FDA approval connotes efficacy and safety. The Court concludes, in sum, that under the parties' chosen standard, Dumont's claim under chapter 93A is not impliedly preempted by federal law. The Court reverses the district court's dismissal of the complaint. A full-text copy of the First Circuit's August 8, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y52ypo7p from Leagle.com. John T. Longo, 681 Smith Street, Providence, RI 02908-3502 and Citadel Consumer Litigation, PC on brief for appellant. Timothy H. Madden -- thm@dcglaw.com -- Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, LLP, Mark A. Cunningham -- mcunningham@joneswalker.com -- Thomas A. Casey, Jr. -- tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com -- John R. Guenard -- jguenard@joneswalker.com -- and Jones Walker LLP, on brief for appellees. REMAX REAL: Tikotzky Sues over Unsolicited Calls & Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- ETA TIKOTZKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. REMAX REAL PROS, a California Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01494 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited phone calls and sending text message to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Re/Max Real Pros operates a real estate company. Unfortunately for consumers, Re/Max Real Pros utilizes a sophisticated telephone dialing system to call consumers with pre-recorded messages and with text individuals en masse promoting its services. However, Re/Max Real Pros fails to get the requisite prior consent prior to sending these text messages. Furthermore, Defendant fails to have procedure in place to ensure that they were not calling and/or messaging consumers on the National Do Not Call Registry.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq. E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (323) 979-2063 Facsimile: (323) 488-6748 - and - Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com Website: www.MarcusZelman.com SANDHU INDUSTRIES: Ortega Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Rudy Ortega, Darwin Hernandez and Ostin Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANDHU INDUSTRIES, INC., SANDHU BUILDERS 1 INC., KING HWY NY LLC and TEJPAL SANDHU, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04661 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019) is an action against Defendants to recover unpaid wages on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, ("NYLL"). The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week in violation of both the FLSA and the NYLL. The Defendants also willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record keeping requirements of the FLSA and the NYLL by failing to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by and wages paid to Plaintiffs, says the complaint. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as construction laborers. Defendants are engaged in the construction industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway, Suite B Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com SANYO ENERGY: Ziccarello Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Richard Ziccarello, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Sanyo Energy (U.S.A.) Corporation, SANYO NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, and PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01995 (April 12, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 13, 2019. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16623 to the proceeding. Sanyo Energy was founded in 1999. The Company's line of business includes the manufacturing of storage batteries.[BN] SAVING INSURANCE: Moore Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE MOORE on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAVING INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. and RICHARDSON MARKETING GROUP, the LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05413 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 12, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, calls were made to residential telephone lines despite their presence on the National Do Not Call Registry, such as the Plaintiff's. The Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Mediation in Agar Suit Set for Dec. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- Sensient Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that parties in the class action suit Agar v. Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC, have agreed to submit this case to mediation, which is currently scheduled for December 11, 2019. On March 29, 2019, Calvin Agar (Agar), a former employee, filed a Class Action Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court against Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI). On May 22, 2019, Agar filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint against SNI (the Complaint). Agar alleges that SNI improperly reported overtime pay on employees' wage statements, in violation of the California Labor Code. The Complaint alleges two causes of action, and both concern the wage statements. The Complaint does not allege that SNI failed to pay any overtime due to Agar or any of the putative class or group members. The Complaint merely challenges the manner in which SNI has reported overtime pay on its wage statements. SNI maintains that it has accurately paid Agar and the putative class members for all overtime worked, and that they have not experienced any harm. SNI further maintains that the format of its wage statements does not violate the requirements of state law or any specific guidance from California decisional law, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or the California Labor Commissioner's Office. Finally, SNI contends that certain of the state law claims are subject to mandatory individual arbitration. SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on July 10, 2019. SNI continues to evaluate the developing legal authority on this issue. SNI intends to vigorously defend its interests, absent a reasonable resolution. The parties have agreed to submit this case to mediation, which is currently scheduled for December 11, 2019. Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7, 1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. SHUTTERFLY INC: Gordon to Halt Merger Deal, Seeks Financials ------------------------------------------------------------ David Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, plaintiff, v. Shutterfly, Inc., William J. Lansing, Elizabeth Sartain, Brian Thomas Swette, Thomas D. Hughes, Eva Manolis, Henry Tayloe Stansbury, Ann Mather, Elizabeth S. Rafael, Ryan O'Hara and Michael P. Zeisser, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04335 (N.D. Cal., July 29, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert from proceeding with, consummating or closing the merger of Shutterfly and Apollo Global Management, LLC, rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Shutterfly shareholders stand to receive $51.00 in cash for each share of stock they own. Shutterfly is a retailer and manufacturing platform for personalized products and communications while Apollo is a global alternative investment manager. The merger's proxy statement failed to provide the line items used to calculate EBITDA non-GAAP metric or a reconciliation of this non-GAAP projection to its most comparable GAAP measure. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New Yor006B, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com SIRIUS XM: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of DPPA CFAA Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned JAMES E. ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.; DOES, 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. No. 18-55169. (9th Cir.). In his complaint, Andrews apparently unaware of the agreements between Auto Source, AutoManager, and Sirius XM pursuant to which his personal information was shared alleged that Sirius XM obtained his name and address, as well as his phone number, from the motor vehicle records, most likely the registration documents submitted to the DMV after he purchased the car. Andrews filed a putative class action complaint in the district court, alleging violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) and seeking an injunction and statutory damages of $2,500 for each violation. Because the court found that Sirius XM obtained Andrews's personal information from his driver's license and the Form 262, neither of which, it determined, constituted a DMV record it concluded that the undisputed facts establish that Sirius XM did not use personal information`from a motor vehicle record and that Sirius XM was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the DPPA claim. Turning to Andrews's motion for leave to amend, the district court concluded that amendment would be futile because the proposed amended complaint failed to allege that he had suffered a loss or damage cognizable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291. The Court reviews de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. A court's denial of leave to amend is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. DPPA Andrews contends that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of Sirius XM, arguing that the company violated the DPPA's prohibition on using and disclosing personal information derived from DMV records when it obtained his name, address, and phone number from his driver's license and the Form 262. He urges us to issue a limited ruling holding that where a plaintiff can establish that a third party accessed a report whether it be an accident report or dealership record of sales) containing information from a driver's license issued by a state DMV the plaintiff can state a claim for violation of the DPPA. Origins and Scope of the DPPA Congress enacted the DPPA in 1994, in response to a troubling phenomenon that occurred throughout the 1980s and early 1990s state DMVs' practice of selling or freely disclosing drivers' personal information, which led to unfortunate consequences ranging from the trivial onslaughts of random solicitations to the tragic the murders of several people by stalkers or ex-spouses. Accordingly, concerned that personal information collected by States in the licensing of motor vehicle drivers was being released even soldwith resulting loss of privacy for many persons, Congress provided federal statutory protection through the DPPA. Andrews's Claim To prevail on his DPPA claim, Andrews must satisfy Secion 2722(a) and prove that (1) Sirius XM knowingly obtained his personal information (2) from a motor vehicle record (3) for a nonpermissible use. The first and third elements are undisputed here: Sirius XM obtained and used Andrews's name and telephone number, personal information as defined by the DPPA, for nonpermissible promotional purposes. The DPPA defines a motor vehicle record as any record that pertains to a motor vehicle operator's permit, motor vehicle title, motor vehicle registration, or identification card issued by a department of motor vehicles. Sirius XM argues that a driver's for use in the normal course of business by a legitimate business, but only to verify the accuracy of personal information submitted by the individual and if such information as so submitted is not correct or is no longer correct, to obtain the correct information in limited circumstances. Section 2721(b)(3), license cannot qualify under that definition, citing to the district court's analysis: A driver license, although it contains personal information contained in the records of the DMV, is not itself a record contained in the records of the DMV. Nor does it make sense to include a driver license as a motor vehicle record when a motor vehicle record is defined as any record that pertains to a motor vehicle operator's permit. Interpreting the statute as [Andrews] suggests and construing a motor vehicle record to include a driver license would render the definition's use of both record and pertains to as surplusage because the driver license would be pertaining to itself and ignore the requirement that it also be a record. The Court is not wholly persuaded by this linguistic analysis of the DPPA. Sirius XM argues, as the district court concluded, that construing a motor vehicle record' to include a driver license would render the definition's use of both record' and pertains to' as surplusage, but a record is defined as, among other things, information that is inscribed on a tangible medium. A driver's license is a tangible document that serves as proof of an individual's permission to operate a motor vehicle, and can therefore be considered a record. And, although Sirius XM raises a fair point as to whether pertains to would be rendered surplusage, it would make little practical sense that a photocopy of a driver's license which is indisputably a record that pertains to a motor vehicle operator's permit could be a qualifying motor vehicle record, but the actual license lying right next to it on the desk at the DMV, containing identical personal information, could not. The Court is therefore unconvinced that a driver's license is not a record based solely on the wording of the statute's definition. But just because a driver's license is a record does not necessarily mean it is a motor vehicle record. Reading Section 2722's words in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme, the Court concludes that a driver's license in the possession of its owner is not a qualifying motor vehicle record under the DPPA. Andrews contends that Sirius XM's conduct violated the literal text of the statute. But, even if the statute could be read to cover this conduct, the Court will not adopt a literal interpretation that would thwart the purpose of the overall statutory scheme or lead to an absurd result. Andrews's expansive conception of the DPPA does not align with the statute's clear purpose. And, although both Andrews and Sirius XM utilized a considerable quantity of briefing ink trading hypotheticals and parading various horribles in support of their respective positions, the Court concludes that Andrews's position yields the more absurd results. Aggrieved plaintiffs, Andrews included, might have other statutory remedies to rectify alleged abuses of their personal information. But the DPPA a statute concerned solely with the actions of state DMVs and those who illicitly retrieve information from them—is not the proper vehicle for such redress, where, as here, the source of that information is a driver's license in its owner's possession. Sirius XM correctly observes that the DPPA was not designed to remedy every misuse of personal information that happened to come from a driver's license. Instead, its scope is limited to impermissible disclosures by state DMVs to those who seek information from them. Andrews concedes that neither Sirius XM nor anyone else requested or acquired his information from the California DMV. Therefore, we conclude that Sirius XM's conduct, annoying as it might have been, did not violate the DPPA. CFAA Andrews also challenges the district court's conclusion that amending his complaint to add a claim under the CFAA would have been futile. The CFAA makes it unlawful to, among other things, intentionally access a computer without authorization and obtain information from any protected computer. It provides a private right of action for any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of the statute against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief, but only if the conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth elsewhere in the CFAA. Accordingly, because Sirius XM allegedly stole the personal information without compensating Andrews, he lost the value of that information and the opportunity to sell it. The CFAA, however, defines loss as any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service. The Court further observes that the CFAA is an anti-hacking statute, not an expansive misappropriation statute. The statute's loss definition with its references to damage assessments, data restoration, and interruption of service clearly limits its focus to harms caused by computer intrusions, not general injuries unrelated to the hacking itself. Given this circumscribed focus, and the principle that a general statutory term should be understood in light of the specific terms that surround it, the Court will not expand the CFAA's limited conception of loss to include the sort of injury pleaded in Andrews's proposed amended complaint. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that an amendment adding a CFAA claim to Andrews's complaint would have been futile. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 8, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5s3nzeu from Leagle.com. Jeffrey Wilens -- jeff@lakeshorelaw.org -- (argued), Lakeshore Law Center, Yorba Linda, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Shay Dvoretzky -- sdvoretzky@jonesday.com -- (argued) and Jeffrey R. Johnson -- jeffreyjohnson@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Washington, D.C.; Thomas Demitrack -- tdemitrack@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Cleveland, Ohio; Lee A. Armstrong -- laarmstrong@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, New York, New York; for Defendants-Appellees. SKINNER SERVICES: Court OKs Class Certification in Pineda Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned JOSE PINEDA, JOSE MONTENEGRO, MARCO LOPEZ, and JOSE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SKINNER SERVICES, INC., d/b/a SKINNER DEMOLITION, THOMAS SKINNER, DAVID SKINNER, ELBER DINIZ, and SANDRO SANTOS, Defendants. Civil Action No. 16-12217-FDS. (D. Mass.). This case concerns claims by manual laborers against their employer, Skinner Services, Inc. d/b/a Skinner Demolition (Skinner), and supervisors Thomas Skinner, David Skinner, Elber Diniz, and Sandro Santos, for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Massachusetts wage laws. After discovery, plaintiffs moved to certify two classes as to their state-law claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The first putative class, the Reporting Class, consists of individuals who allege that they were not compensated for travel time between Skinner's headquarters and jobsites. The second putative class, the Uniform Class, consists of individuals who allege that their paychecks were subject to mandatory deductions for uniform cleaning services. In addition, because plaintiffs seek certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), they must also establish that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Plaintiffs must establish each of those elements by a preponderance of the evidence. The Reporting Class All manual laborers who worked at Skinner Services, Inc. at any time from August 5, 2013 through February 29, 2016, except those laborers (a) residing exclusively in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, Everett, Chelsea, or Brookline, Massachusetts during the time period; and/or (b) who are immediate family members of the Defendants. Numerosity In the First Circuit, a class size of more than 40 persons is generally found to establish numerosity. The putative Reporting Class includes approximately 109 persons. Therefore, the numerosity requirement is satisfied. Common Questions of Law and Fact An individual question is one where members of a proposed class will need to present evidence that varies from member to member, while a common question is one where the same evidence will suffice for each member to make a prima facie showing or the issue is susceptible to generalized, class-wide proof In their opposition brief, defendants raise a variety of counterarguments. First, they attack the credibility of the named and opt-in plaintiffs and note various inconsistencies in their deposition testimony. For example, Pineda testified as follows: Q: I need to get it clear on the record. If you drove to a work site or to the shop, it was at your own will and not at the direction of Skinner Services, correct?A: It is correct. He also testified, "If the jobsite was near my house, I would drive there directly”. However, as plaintiffs note, in response to a separate line of questioning by defense counsel, Pineda clearly testified that he always had to go to the Yard. Defendants further note that Pineda testified that presently, he prefers to go to the shop because it reduces his] cost. But the operative word is presently Pineda's current preference to arrive at the Yard to use company transportation does not undermine his assertion that during the relevant class period, he was required by Skinner management to do so. Defendants' other attacks on the credibility of other plaintiffs do not change the disposition of the class-certification motion. For example, defendants note that Lopez testified that he had never seen a written statement memorializing the Policy. It goes without saying that such an admission is hardly surprising indeed, plaintiffs allege that the Policy was unwritten, and that is supported by the report written by the primary Department of Labor investigator. Defendants make a stronger attack on Montenegro's credibility. Montenegro alleged that Santos forged his signature on the Cintas uniform laundering agreement, but later appeared to backtrack, claiming that the signature on the form was his. However, to the extent defendants rely on their own deposition testimony in support of their opposition to class certification, such testimony is also clouded by inconsistencies. For example, defendants testified that, during the class period, supervisors would tell laborers which jobsites to report to for the following day. However, defendants have not produced any corroborating evidence, such as printouts of email or text messages, to substantiate that assertion, despite a discovery request. Second, defendants contend that one common answer is not possible based on the unique circumstances of each individual employee. They raise a variety of issues that they claim require individualized analyses that preclude class certification. However, some of these issues are irrelevant to the class-certification question. And defendants' argument that laborers reported to the Yard of their own volition or upon an order by their supervisors only bolsters the rationale for class certification. As plaintiffs note, if defendants are correct that reporting was not mandatory, then they will prevail on the common and predominant issue. Third, defendants dispute that common evidence exists that will resolve the question of class certification. In support, they rely on Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A., 93 F.Supp.3d 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), where the district court held that plaintiffs not adduced sufficient evidence to support the inference of a de facto illegal labor policy. Fourth, defendants briefly state that hours spent by laborers may be exempt from the overtime regulations of the FLSA and Massachusetts law pursuant to the Motor Carrier Exemption for time spent working as a truck driver, loader, or truck driver's helper. However, as a procedural matter, FLSA exemptions must be asserted in pleadings as an affirmative defense. Defendants failed to do so here, and thus have waived this argument. Typicality The typicality requirement is satisfied `when the named plaintiff's injuries arise from the same events or course of conduct as do the injuries that form the basis of the class claims and when the plaintiff's claims and those of the class are based on the same legal theory. Here, the alleged injuries lost wages all arise out of plaintiffs' allegation that Skinner refused to pay them for mandatory time spent loading tools at and traveling to and from the Yard. Accordingly, plaintiffs have met the typicality requirement. Adequacy To satisfy the adequacy requirement, the moving party must show first that the interests of the representative party will not conflict with the interests of any of the class members, and second, that counsel chosen by the representative party is qualified, experienced and able to vigorously conduct the proposed litigation. Rather, defendants only contend that the named plaintiffs' interest conflict with those of the FLSA collective. After this court conditionally certified the collective action, several dozen Skinner laborers opted into the FLSA action, of which nine were discovered to be members of the Boston Crew. As explained above, plaintiffs concede that the Boston Crew was never subject to the Policy, and thus have excluded them from the Reporting Class. Defendants contend that the exclusion of the Boston Crew demonstrates a bias toward the proposed Rule 23 Reporting class that could substantially prejudice a substantial portion of the FLSA Optin class, as plaintiffs have to argue that laborers who reside in greater Boston were not similarly aggrieved by the alleged unwritten reporting policy. Plaintiffs counter that it was impossible to know that the Policy did not apply to the Boston Crew until conditional certification was granted and discovery was underway. In any event, however, plaintiffs' separate motion for reformation, which will be addressed below, moots this objection. Whether Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate The aim of the predominance inquiry is to test whether any dissimilarity among the claims of class members can be dealt with in a manner that is not inefficient or unfair. Here, the predominance factor weighs strongly in favor of certification. Defendants' predominance arguments, distilled to their essence, amount to either outright denials of the existence of such a policy which again, only strengthens plaintiffs' case for class certification or claims that individualized proof of damages predominate. Plaintiffs dispute that an individual damages inquiry is necessary, as they have proffered an expert report and model that may be used to calculate classwide damages. But even if such an inquiry were necessary, the Court could bifurcate the liability and damage trials, appoint a special master to preside over individual damages proceedings, or simply decertify the class after the liability trial. Superiority A Rule 23(b)(3) class action is particularly superior where class treatment can vindicate the claims of 'groups of people whose individual claims would be too small to warrant litigation.' Here, several factors support the conclusion that a class action is superior to other available methods of adjudication. In light of the common questions of law and fact, only a limited number of plaintiffs need testify to establish liability. And because almost all of the putative class members would recover at most a few thousand dollars, it is doubtful that plaintiffs would be able to bring individual lawsuits. Furthermore, a class adjudication is often superior in the employment context where the risk of employer reprisal may deter employees from bringing claims on an individual basis. Because a class action will more efficiently resolve the Reporting Class claims than would a series of individual cases, plaintiffs' motion to certify will be granted as to the Reporting Class. Uniform Class Because plaintiffs allege that Skinner forced its employees to enroll in the Cintas uniform cleaning service, they seek to certify a Uniform Class defined as follows: All manual laborers who worked at Skinner Services, Inc. at any time from August 5, 2013 through present, from whose paychecks a uniform cost was deducted. Numerosity The putative Uniform Class includes approximately 43 persons, which exceeds the threshold required to establish numerosity. Common Questions of Law and Fact There are common questions of law and fact as to the Uniform Class. Whether Skinner violated the Massachusetts Wage Act depends on whether it forced plaintiffs, through coercion or intimidation, into signing up for the Cintas uniform cleaning program, and whether the deductions were valid attachments, assignments, or set-offs. These questions may be answered through common evidence, and there is no reason to think that the answers will vary between class members. In opposition, defendants contend that the uniform deductions are permissible as a "valid set-off" because the employees voluntarily used and benefitted from the" program. In support, they rely on Cormier v. Landry's Seafood House-N.C., Inc., 2015 WL 12732419 (D. Mass. Feb. 23, 2015), in which the putative class was comprised of servers at Massachusetts restaurants. The defendant maintained an Employee Discount Program, through which employees could for example receive complimentary coffee and drinks and 50% discounts on food and entertainment options at defendant's facilities. To participate in the program, employees had to agree to have a bi-weekly $9.50 enrollment fee deducted from their paychecks. However, because it was undisputed that enrollment in the benefit program was completely voluntary and that plaintiffs encountered no difficulty in unenrolling, the court held that the bi-weekly deductions were valid set-offs under Section 150 of the Wage Act. By contrast, even if one were to assume that uniform costs could be properly deducted from wages, here plaintiffs have proffered evidence that their enrollment in the Cintas cleaning program was involuntary. Whether the deductions are valid set-offs is a common question of fact. Typicality The typicality requirement is also satisfied. As with the Reporting Class, the alleged injuries—lost wages—arise out of the same course of conduct, Skinner's putative coercion of laborers into enrolling into the cleaning program. Adequacy Defendants do not appear to contest the adequacy prong of the Rule 23(a) analysis as to the Uniform Class. In any event, there is no reason to doubt that the named plaintiffs will adequately represent the interests of the putative class, and that plaintiffs' counsel are qualified to prosecute the class claims. Predominance Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions concerning only individual class members. Indeed, the threshold question is whether Skinner required its laborers to enroll in the Cintas cleaning program. If, as defendants contend, enrollment was entirely voluntary, then they will prevail on the issue of liability if the weekly deductions were valid set-offs. If not, then the only other substantial question is damages, which presumably may be calculated without undue difficulty from Skinner's payroll records. Superiority Finally, a class action is superior to other available methods of adjudication. There are a limited number of issues of law and fact that will control the outcome of the Uniform Class claims. Moreover, the potential amount of damages is considerably less than at stake in the Reporting Class, further strengthening the argument for certification. For those reasons, plaintiffs' motion to certify will be granted as to the Uniform Class. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Memorandum Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxsxqune from Leagle.com. Jose Pineda, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Jose Montenegro, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Marco Lopez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Jose Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Nicole Horberg Decter -- ndecter@segalroitman.com -- Segal Roitman, LLP, Carey D. Shockey -- cshockey@segalroitman.com -- Segal Roitman LLP, Jasper J. Groner -- jgroner@segalroitman.com -- Segal Roitman, LLP, Nathan P. Goldstein -- ngoldstein@segalroitman.com -- Segal Roitman, LLP & Paige W. McKissock -- pmckissock@segalroitman.com -- Segal Roitman, LLP. Skinner Services, Inc., doing business as Skinner Demolition, Thomas Skinner, David Skinner, Elber Diniz & Sandro Santos, Defendants, represented by Gregory J. Aceto, Aceto, Bonner & Prager, PC, Ian P. Gillespie, Aceto, Bonner & Prager, PC & Michael B. Cole, Aceto, Bonner & Prager, PC, One Liberty Square, Suite 410, Boston, MA 02109 SMOKERS GOODS: Ruos et al. Seek Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------- IAN RUOS and FABIAN RUIZ, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. §216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. SMOKERS GOODS TOBACCO SHOP, LLC, d/b/a SMOKERS GOODS, SMOKERS GOODS TOBACCO SHOP No. 2, LLC, d/b/a SMOKERS GOODS, ARTURO POSADA JR., individually, and MARIA A. POSADA, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23332-UU (S.D. Fla., Aug. 9, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs customarily and regularly worked over 40 hours a week throughout his employment period with Smokers which did not pay any employee an overtime premium for any overtime hours worked during the relevant period, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: J. Freddy Perera, Esq. Valerie Barnhart, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. PERERA BARNHART, P.A. 12555 Orange Drive, Suite 268 Davie, FL 33330 Telephone 786 485 5232 E-mail: freddy@pererabarnhart.com valerie@pererabarnhart.com brody@pererabarnhart.com STAND UP: Court OKs Arbitration in Townsend FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned in the case captioned JAMES TOWNSEND, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. STAND UP MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL., Defendants. Case No. 1:18CV2884. (N.D. Ohio). This matter is before the Court on Defendants DePere Concepts, Inc., Stand Up Management, Inc., Cole Heeg and Brian Tidwell to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay all Proceedings. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants to go door-to-door to market the Defendants energy services to potential customers. The Plaintiffs were managed and supervised by Defendants DePere, Stand Up, Heeg and Tidwell. The Plaintiffs did not make sales as part of their duties. Plaintiffs were required to work more than 40 hours per week but were not paid at the statutory rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. According to the Defendants, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims because each Plaintiff executed a valid agreement with Defendants to resolve disputes through final and binding arbitration. These agreements further waived any rights Plaintiffs had to assert their claims on a class or collective basis. The Plaintiffs oppose the Motion, contending that the arbitration agreements only apply between one discrete Plaintiff and one Defendant. For instance, Plaintiffs Townsend and Pippen worked for Stand Up and Plaintiff Christian worked for DePere. Thus, even if the arbitration agreements are enforceable, they would only be enforceable as to the claims between the contracting parties. The Defendants move the Court to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)1) or 12(b)(6) or alternatively to compel arbitration. The FAA provides that an arbitration clause in a transaction involving commerce shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. In determining whether to grant motions to dismiss or stay proceedings and compel arbitration, courts must apply a four-pronged test: (1) whether the parties agreed to arbitrate (2) the scope of that agreement (3) if federal statutory claims are asserted, whether Congress intended those claims to be arbitrated and (4) whether to stay the remainder of the proceedings pending arbitration. Agreed to Arbitrate Before compelling an unwilling party to arbitrate, the court must engage in a limited review to determine whether the dispute is arbitrable; meaning that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties and that the specific dispute falls within the substantive scope of that agreement. In this case, the Court notes Defendants' Motion would more properly have been brought under Rule 12(b)(6), because the existence of a valid arbitration clause does not technically deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs do not contest that Heeg and Tidwell, as officers of DePere and Tidwell, are covered by the terms of the arbitration agreements and can compel arbitration on any claims arising out of Plaintiffs' employment with these companies. However, Plaintiffs contend that all the claims arising out of their employment relationship are not subject to arbitration because each Plaintiff was not a signatory to arbitration agreements with each Defendant. So, for example, while Plaintiff Pippen signed an arbitration agreement with Defendant DePere, Plaintiffs offer Pippen's paystubs showing he was paid by Stand Up. Therefore, because Defendants were joint employers of Plaintiffs, the existence of an arbitration agreement between one plaintiff and one defendant does not mean the Court can compel arbitration of that plaintiff's claims against a co-defendant with whom he did not sign an arbitration agreement. The Defendants respond that Plaintiffs must be compelled to arbitrate all their claims against all the movants because Plaintiffs allege they were employees of all Defendants as joint employers. Therefore, they are estopped from litigating in court their claims against Defendants with whom they have no arbitration agreement because they seek to hold all Defendants liable under a joint employer theory. The Plaintiffs further allege that even if the arbitration agreements are enforceable, the Court cannot compel Plaintiff Townsend to arbitrate his claims because his arbitration agreement fails to identify his employer. Townsend signed the arbitration agreement but the employer's name is left blank. Thus, according to Townsend, it presents an ambiguity which must be construed against the drafter. Defendants, and he must be permitted to proceed with his claims in the district court. Upon consideration of the motions, oppositions, briefs and evidence for the limited purpose of establishing arbitrability, the Court holds that the arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable. When considering whether the arbitration agreements are enforceable, the Court begins its analysis by noting that Plaintiffs do not challenge any of the agreements as unconscionable, were obtained by fraud, nor do they allege they were required to sign the agreements under duress. In fact, with the exception of Townsend, none challenge the fact that they signed arbitration agreements with at least one Defendant. Thus, none of the Plaintiffs, including the opt-in Plaintiffs, have alleged or asserted any plausible challenge to the enforceability of the arbitration agreements, at least with respect to the particular Defendant employer with whom they agreed to arbitrate their disputes. Here, Townsend's signed arbitration agreement does not identify his employer. The Court would ordinarily allow discovery to determine the employer's identity but because there is no dispute that the employer was Stand Up, no discovery is needed. Plaintiff Townsend specifically alleges in his Complaint that he was employed by Stand Up from October 2017 to September 2018. Defendants agree and further submit an affidavit and Townsend's signed receipt of his new hire paperwork with Stand Up demonstrating that Townsend was employed by Stand Up and that Stand Up was the employer with whom Townsend agreed to arbitrate. The arbitration agreement signed by Townsend is dated November 6, 2017. Thus, the identity of the missing employer name in Townsend's arbitration agreement is not a disputed material fact but is acknowledged by all parties to be Stand Up. Moving next to whether the arbitration agreements are enforceable, Plaintiffs make no such arguments in their opposition brief to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. However, after briefing was closed on Defendants' Motion, Plaintiffs subsequently moved the Court for an evidentiary hearing or trial on the issue of enforceability. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to produce arbitration agreements for the opt-in Plaintiffs and failed to produce arbitration agreements between all Plaintiffs and all Defendants. Plaintiffs have also failed to dispute that the arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable based on ordinary contract theories such as fraud, unconscionability or duress. All Plaintiffs, including those who filed consents, signed arbitration agreements that are enforceable and contain the arbitration clause as cited above. The party resisting arbitration bears the burden of proving that the claims at issue are unsuitable for arbitration. Here, it is undisputed that each Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement with at least one Defendant and that they were signed as a condition of employment. The agreements require both Plaintiffs and Defendant employers to arbitrate all their disputes. In the absence of any argument or evidence that the agreements are invalid or unenforceable between the signatories the Court finds them valid and enforceable on their face. Therefore, the Court must consider whether all Plaintiffs must be compelled to arbitrate their claims against all the Defendants. The arbitration agreements at issue all contain the same broadly worded arbitration clauses requiring all claims, disputes, controversies or disagreements of any kid whatsoever, arising out of Employee's employment with Employer shall be submitted to binding arbitration. This clause applies equally to any claims the Employee has against Employer's employees, officers, directors, agents suppliers and service providers. Here, the parties expressly agreed to waive any rights to bring claims arising out of employment disputes collectively. Because parties are free to waive such rights, the Court holds that Plaintiffs' have waived any rights to assert their FLSA and Ohio state law claims on behalf of a class or as a collective action against movants. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that all Defendants are joint employers of all the Plaintiffs under the FLSA and Ohio law. According to the Complaint, Defendants: operate out of the same office, have the same address and support staff and processes. Defendants share: operational control over the day-to-day functions of Plaintiffs, authority to set rates and methods of compensation, authority to control work schedules and employment conditions of Plaintiffs, authority and control over employment records and services of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further allege Defendants acted directly or indirectly in the interest of each other. Plaintiffs allege they were not paid the statutory rate for hours worked in a given week over forty hours and were sometimes paid less than minimum wage in certain weeks. Plaintiffs allege that with respect to the failures to pay overtime wages and minimum wages in violation of the FLSA and Ohio law, Defendants knowingly and willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of the FLSA and Ohio Wage Laws. Plaintiffs do not distinguish between the Defendants, but allege all Defendants engaged in the above acts and violated the FLSA and Ohio wage laws by knowingly, willfully and/or recklessly failing to pay overtime and minimum wages to Plaintiffs. Thus, Plaintiffs clearly contend Defendants acted in concert with the intent to deny Plaintiffs their statutory rights to overtime. Based on Plaintiffs' numerous allegations of joint misconduct by all named Defendants, the Court holds that Plaintiffs are equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration when they have asserted Defendants engaged in substantially interconnected and concerted misconduct. Each Plaintiff is a signatory to an arbitration agreement with at least one Defendant. Because Plaintiffs contend Defendants acted in concert to deny Plaintiffs their rights to statutorily determined compensation, the Court holds they must arbitrate their claims against the movants via arbitration as set forth in the Mandatory Arbitration of All Claims Policy. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants dispute they are joint employers but for estoppel purposes, Plaintiffs cannot assert their claims under the FLSA and Ohio law based on a joint employer theory in their Complaint but then challenge their joint employer allegations in order to defeat arbitration. The Court does not agree with Plaintiffs that a better course would be to grant conditional certification, send notice and then compel arbitration of those claimants who have arbitration agreements. Plaintiffs rely on Taylor v. Pilot Corp. 697 F. Appx. 854 (6th Cir. June 19, 2017) wherein the Sixth Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review a conditional certification order in Plaintiff's FLSA action under the FAA which allows for immediate appeals of denial of stays. Unlike the case before the Court, the Sixth Circuit in Taylor found that no plaintiff had signed an arbitration agreement and therefore, the Sixth Circuit lacked jurisdiction under the FAA to entertain an interlocutory appeal. Because each Plaintiff in this case did sign an arbitration agreement with at least one Defendant, Taylor has no precedential nor persuasive authority because its facts are distinct from those before the Court. The Court, having determined that Plaintiffs' must submit their claims against movants to binding arbitration, must now determine whether to stay or dismiss the action. Defendant Constellation has not moved to compel arbitration. Once a court determines a suit is referable to arbitration under the terms of a written agreement, the matter shall be stayed until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Consistent with this command from Congress, the Court will stay the present proceeding until arbitration is complete. Therefore, for these reasons, the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and orders Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims with movants. Because Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Evidentiary Hearing or Trial is untimely, it is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Opinion Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx8lt99d from Leagle.com. James Townsend, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Florzell Pippen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Dione Christian, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Shannon M. Draher, Nilges Draher,Hans A. Nilges , Nilges Draher & Robi J. Baishnab, Nilges Draher, 4580 Stephen Circle, NW. Canton, Ohio 44718. Stand Up Management, Inc., DePere Concepts, Inc., Brian Tidwell & Cole Heeg, Defendants, represented by Ryan J. Morley -- rmorley@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Shannon M. Byrne -- sbyrne@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, doing business as Constellation Energy, Defendant, represented by Doriyon C. Glass -- Doriyon.Glass@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, Michael J. Kozimor -- Michael.Kozimor@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis & Robert J. Bowes -- Robert.Bowes@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis. SUNRISE SENIOR: Tunstall Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. removed the case styled as ANTHONY TUNSTALL, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01077618-CU-OE-CJC (Filed June 18, 2019), from the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange, to United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 8, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06956 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Sunrise violated the California Labor Code. Sunrise Senior Living communities provide senior care services including assisted living, independent living, and memory care in the US, Canada, and the UK.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant are: Michele L. Maryott, Esq. Ashley Allyn, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Telephone: 949.451.3800 Facsimile: 949.451.4220 E-mailk: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com aallyn@gibsondunn.com TAIYAKI NYC: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------- Taiyaki NYC Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Taiyaki NYC Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07576 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019). Taiyaki NYC is a Japanese ice cream joint with origins in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Tel: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com TATCHA LLC: Dawson Files ADA Class Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------- Tatcha, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Leshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tatcha, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07613 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019). The Tatcha collection is inspired by Japanese beauty secrets passed down by generations that takes a different approach to skincare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal TENET HEALTHCARE: Maderazo Class Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------- Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a Texas district court has ordered the plaintiffs in Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., to advise the court if they will be dismissing the action or proceeding with the individually named plaintiffs. In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported class of registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San Antonio-area hospital systems alleged those hospital systems, including our Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San Antonio regional hospitals violated Section Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to such nurses. The suit sought unspecified damages (subject to trebling under federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees. In January 2019, the district court issued an opinion denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The plaintiffs' subsequent appeal of the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was denied on March 26, 2019. On April 30, 2019, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs' request for further review of the district court's ruling. The district court has ordered the plaintiffs to advise the court by August 6, 2019 if they will be dismissing the action or proceeding with the individually named plaintiffs. Tenet Healthcare said, "If necessary, we will continue to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs’ allegations." Tenet Healthcare Corporation operates as a diversified healthcare services company. The company operates in three segments: Hospital Operations and Other, Ambulatory Care, and Conifer. Tenet Healthcare Corporation was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. TRACE STAFFING: Harake Seeks Certification of Class Under FCRA -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff seeks to certify his Fair Credit Reporting Act case titled MOHAMMAD HARAKE, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRACE STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-00243-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.), as a class action for a national class of consumers. The class of consumers is defined as: * Background Check Class: All natural persons in the United States who: (1) were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by Trace Staffing (or caused to be procured by Trace Staffing) from Employment Screening Service for an employment purpose; (2) to whom Trace Staffing presented the disclosure form attached to Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint before procuring that report; (3) within two years of the filing of this lawsuit through the date the Class List is prepared.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com TRACTOR SUPPLY: Hornbeck Moves for Prelim. Approval of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Hornbeck, Monte Burgess, Dan Chevalier and Russ Mapes, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled SHAWN HORNBECK, et al. each on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, and SMITTY'S SUPPLY, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00523-NKL (W.D. Mo.), move the Court for an order preliminary approving the Parties' Settlement Agreement and Release. On or about July 29, 2019, the Parties entered into the Settlement Agreement and Release in this matter (the "Settlement Agreement"). The Settlement Agreement provides substantial relief to an estimated 10,000 Members of the proposed Settlement Class comprised of persons who have purchased Super S SuperTrac 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid ("SuperTrac 303") in the state of Missouri between May 25, 2013, and the present. The Plaintiffs also seek an order conditionally certifying, for settlement purposes only, the settlement class: "All persons and other entities who purchased Super S SuperTrac 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid in Missouri at any point in time from May 25, 2013 to present, excluding those who purchased for resale. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, including any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or controlled person of Defendants; Defendants' officers, directors, agents, employees and their immediate family members, as well as the judicial officers assigned to this litigation and members of their staffs and immediate families" (the "Settlement Class"). The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to: (a) appoint Tom Bender, Esq., and Dirk Hubbard, Esq., from the law firm Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC; Gene Graham, Esq.,, William Carr, Esq., and Bryan White, Esq., from the law firm of White, Graham, Buckley & Carr, LLC; and Clayton Jones, Esq., of the Clayton Jones Law Firm as counsel for the Settlement Class ("Class Counsel"); (b) designate named Plaintiffs Shawn Hornbeck, Monte Burgess, Dan Chevalier and Russ Mapes as representatives of the Settlement Class; (c) appoint RG/2 Claims Administration LLC to serve as the Settlement Administrator; (d) set a Final Fairness Hearing to be held before this Court to determine whether the terms and conditions forth in the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and should receive final approval; (e) stay, pending the Final Fairness Hearing, all proceedings in this action, other than proceedings necessary to carry out or enforce the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement; (f) approve the Long Form Class Notice, Summary Class Notice, Claim Form and Instructions, Repair/Parts/Specific Equipment Damage Claims Review Process, and the notice and settlement administration process set forth in Settlement Agreement; (g) approve the timetable and process for exclusion from the Settlement Class or objection to the Settlement by any Settlement Class Member; and (h) approve the timetable and process for Class Counsel to file their application for expenses and attorneys' fees.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas V. Bender, Esq. Dirk Hubbard, Esq. HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC 2600 Grand, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 421-0700 Facsimile: (816) 421-0899 E-mail: tbender@hab-law.com dhubbard@hab-law.com - and - Gene P. Graham, Jr., Esq. William Carr, Esq. Bryan T. White, Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY, & CARR, L.L.C 19049 East Valley View Parkway Independence, MO 64055 Telephone: (816) 373-9080 Facsimile: (816) 373-9319 E-mail: ggraham@wagblaw.com bcarr@wagblaw.com bwhite@wagblaw.com - and - Clayton Jones, Esq. CLAYTON JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW 405 Foxwood Dr. Raymore, MO 64083 Telephone: (816) 318-4266 Facsimile: (816) 318-4267 E-mail: clayton@claytonjones.com TRAVELCENTERS: Bid to Dismiss Ohio Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- TravelCenters of America Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company is seeking to dismiss a class action suit pending before the Ohio state court. On April 5, 2019, two plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against the company in Ohio state court alleging that certain credit and debit card receipts printed by the company included more information than permitted by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The complaint does not seek any actual damages, but plaintiffs seek statutory damages for the individual plaintiffs and members of the class, as well as declaratory relief, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. In June 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss. On July 5, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added a request for injunctive relief and on August 2, 2019, the company filed a renewed motion to dismiss. TravelCenters said, "We intend to vigorously defend against these claims. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain and we are not able to assess our exposure at this time." TravelCenters of America Inc. (TravelCenters), incorporated on October 10, 2006, operates or franchises travel centers, standalone truck service facilities and standalone restaurants. The Company also collects rents, royalties and other fees from its tenants and franchisees. The Company offers a range of products and services, including diesel fuel and gasoline, as well as nonfuel products and services, such as truck repair and maintenance services, full service restaurants, quick service restaurants (QSRs), and various customer amenities. The company is based in Westlake, Ohio. TRIHEALTH INC: Forman Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Fund ---------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Forman, Nichole Georg and Cindy Haney, individually and as representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries on Behalf of the TriHealth, Inc. Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs, v. TriHealth, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00613, (S.D. Ohio, July 26, 2019), seeks to enforce TriHealth's liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to compensate the retirement plan losses resulting from TriHealth's breaches of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs are members/beneficiaries of the TriHealth, Inc. Retirement Plan wherein TriHealth exercises discretionary authority or discretionary control over the 401(k) defined contribution pension plan that it sponsors and provides to its employees. Plaintiffs claim that between 2013 and 2017, the administrative fees charged to Plan participants is greater than 90 percent of its comparator fees when fees are calculated as cost per participant or when fees are calculated as a percent of total assets. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Sparks, Esq. STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA 150 E. Fourth Street, 4th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018 Telephone No.: (513) 621-2120 Facsimile No.: (513) 241-8259 Email: rrsparks@strausstroy.com - and - Jordan Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, P.A. 4473 N.E. 11th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Telephone No.: (954) 616-8995 Facsimile No.: (954) 206-0374 Email: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Tel: (865) 247-0080 Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Charles Crueger, Esq. Benjanim Kaplan, Esq. CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC 4532 North Oakland Avenue Whitefish Bay, WI 53211 Tel: (414) 210-3868 TYSON FOODS: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on its own behalf and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry products, filed a class action complaint against the company and certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of Illinois. Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. The consolidated actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. Since the original filing, certain putative class members have opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future. All opt out complaints have been filed in, or transferred to, the Northern District of Illinois and are proceeding on a coordinated pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions. The operative complaints, which have been amended throughout the litigation, allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United States antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. The plaintiffs also allege that defendants "manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the Georgia Dock." The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes. Decisions on class certification and summary judgment motions likely to be filed by defendants are currently expected in late calendar year 2020 and early 2021. If necessary, trial will occur after rulings on class certification and any summary judgment motions. On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs notified the company that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division issued a grand jury subpoena to them requesting discovery produced by all parties in the civil case. On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion to intervene and sought a limited stay of discovery in the civil action, which the court granted in part. Subsequently, the company received a grand jury subpoena from the DOJ seeking additional documents and information related to the chicken industry. The company is fully cooperating with the DOJ's request. Tyson Foods said, "The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has also initiated a civil lawsuit against us, certain of our subsidiaries, and several other poultry processing companies alleging activities in violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust laws. This lawsuit has been transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial proceedings." Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. TYSON FOODS: Fed Cattle Antitrust Litigation Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation. On April 23, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who directly sold to the named defendants any fed cattle for slaughter and all persons who transacted in live cattle futures and/or options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or another U.S. exchange, filed a class action complaint against the company and its beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., as well as other beef packer defendants, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy from January 2015 to the present to reduce fed cattle prices in violation of federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, and the Commodities Exchange Act by periodically reducing their slaughter volumes so as to reduce demand for fed cattle, curtailing their purchases and slaughters of cash-purchased cattle during those same periods, coordinating their procurement practices for fed cattle settled on a cash basis, importing foreign cattle at a loss so as to reduce domestic demand, and closing and idling plants. In addition, the plaintiffs also allege the defendants colluded to manipulate live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. This complaint was subsequently voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Other similar lawsuits were filed by ranchers in other district courts. All actions seeking relief by ranchers and futures traders have now been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota action and are consolidated for pre-trial proceedings as In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation. Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. TYSOON FOODS: Peterson Suit over Inflated Beef Price Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company faces an indirect consumer purchaser litigation styled as Peterson v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al. On April 26, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of beef for personal use filed a class action complaint against the company, other beef packers, and Agri Stats, Inc., an information services provider, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Agri-Stats was subsequently dismissed from the suit. The plaintiffs allege that the packer defendants conspired to reduce slaughter capacity by closing or idling plants, limiting their purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of cash cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers so as to reduce beef output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages under state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and the common law of approximately 30 states, as well as injunctive relief. The indirect consumer purchaser litigation is styled as Peterson v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al. Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. U.S. IMMIGRATION: Nightingale Seeks to Certify Two Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Zachary NIGHTINGALE; Courtney McDERMED; Cheryl DAVID; Pao LOPA; Maribel CARANDANG, the Plaintiffs, v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No. 3:19-cv-03512-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on October 2, 2019: 1. certifying classes: USCIS Class: "all individuals who filed, or will file, A-File FOIA requests with USCIS which have been pending, or will be pending, with USCIS for more than 30 business days without a determination"; ICE Referral Class: "all individuals who filed, or will file, A-File FOIA requests with USCIS that USCIS has referred, or will refer, to ICE and which have been pending, or will be pending, for more than 30 business days from the date of the initial filing with USCIS without a determination." 2. designating Zachary Nightingale, Courtney McDermed, Cheryl David, and Pao Lopa to represent the USCIS Class; 3. designating Nightingale, McDermed, David, and Maribel Carandang to represent the ICE Referral Class; and 4. appoint Plaintiffs' counsel to represent both classes. The Plaintiffs are challenging routine and systemic violations of their right to obtain timely access to immigration case files by two component agencies of Defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS), namely Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These immigration files, commonly known as A-Files, provide information that is essential to Plaintiffs’ and putative class members’ immigration cases, including their eligibility to apply for immigration benefits, to change their existing immigration status, to defend against removal, to work, and to travel freely.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: Trina Realmuto, Esq. AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1318 Beacon Street, Suite 18 Brookline, MA 02446 Telephone: (857) 305-3600 Facsimile: (202) 742-5619 E-mail: trealmuto@immcouncil.org - and - Stacy Tolchin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN 634 S. Spring St., Suite 500A Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 622-7450 Facsimile: (213) 622-7233 E-mail: Stacy@Tolchinimmigration.com - and - Matt Adams, Esq. Leila Kang, Esq. NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 957-8611 Facsimile: (206) 587-4025 E-mail: matt@nwirp.org leila@nwirp.org - and - Mary Kenney, Esq. Claudia Valenzuela, Esq. Emily Creighton, Esq. AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1331 G Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 507-7512 Facsimile: (202) 742-5619 E-mail: mkenney@immcouncil.org cvalenzuela@immcouncil.org ecreighton@immcouncil.org UNITED STATES: Removes Zhuravleva Suit to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The United States Polo Association removed the case styled IRINA ZHURAVLEVA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES POLO ASSOCIATION, and DOES 1-100 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00036327-CU-BT-CTL, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Aug. 9, 2019. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01497-JM-LL to the proceeding. U.S. Polo Assn. is the national governing body for the sport of polo in the United States. Since its establishment in 1890, U.S. Polo Assn. promotes, coordinates, and markets the sport of polo, including the use of its "U.S." The complaint alleges that U.S. Polo Assn. violated the California's Unfair Competition Law, violated California's Advertising Law, and violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant are: Mark S. Posard, Esq. Nicholas M. Krebs, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 696-6700 Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 E-mail: mposard@grsm.com nkrebs@grsm.com nkrebs@p-sm.com US CONFERENCE: Franchell Files Class Suit in NY for Personal Injury ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The case is styled as Lincoln Franchell and John Doe 1, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01006-DNH-TWD (N.D. N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019). The case type is stated as Diversity-Personal Injury. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is the episcopal conference of the Catholic Church in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larkin E. Walsh, Esq. Rex A. Sharp, P.A. 5301 west 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Tel: (913) 901-0505 Fax: (913) 901-0419 Email: bemmott@midwest-law.com - and - Rex A Sharp, Esq. Rex A. Sharp, P.A. 5301 west 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Tel: (913) 901-0505 Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com - and - Ryan Hudson, Esq. 5301 W. 75th St. Prairie Village, KS 66208 Tel: (913) 901-0505 Fax: (913) 901-0419 Email: bemmott@midwest-law.com - and - Sarah Bradshaw, Esq. Rex A. Sharp, P.A. 5301 west 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Tel: (913) 901-0505 Fax: (913) 901-0419 Email: bemmott@midwest-law.com USA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit by Puerto Rico Retirement Fund ----------------------------------------------------------- UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. USA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEPHEN P. HERBERT, PRIYANKA SINGH, STEVEN D. BARNHART, JOEL BROOKS, ROBERT L. METZGER, ALBIN F. MOSCHNER, WILLIAM J. REILLY, JR., WILLIAM J. SCHOCH, WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., CRAIG-HALLUM CAPITAL GROUP LLC, NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC., and BARRINGTON RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC., the Defendants, Case 2:19-cv-16597 (D.N.J., Aug. 12, 2019), is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates who purchased USAT common stock pursuant to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's May 23, 2018 secondary public offering. USAT's accounting issues during fiscal years 2017 and 2018 -- issues serious enough to require a restatement of the Company's previous financial statements -- were ongoing at the time of the Company's May 23, 2018 SPO, but the truth about the Company's ineffective internal controls over financial reporting and failure to recognize revenue in accordance with GAAP and their own policy would not come to light until several months later. The market price for USAT common stock was artificially inflated in the SPO, and Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered damages in connection with the purchase of USAT common stock in the SPO. USAT focuses on electronic payment technology. The Company is best known for its ePort cashless payment technology, which is designed to address the needs of the self-serve retail market. ePort technology can be found in food and beverage vending machines, commercial or multi-housing laundry operations, amusement and arcade machines, and various other self-service kiosks or point-of-sale terminals. USAT's ePort products and services facilitate cashless payments by customers via credit, debit, or mobile payment or digital wallet services.[BN] Attorneys for the University of Puerto Rico Retirement System are: Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq. Audra DePaolo, Esq. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP Park 80 Plaza West-One Saddle Brook, New Jersey 07663 Telephone: (201) 845-9600 - and - Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Elissa H. Hachmeister, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 USHEALTH ADVISORS: Odom Sues over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB ODOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC and USHEALTH GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case 4:19-cv-00631-P (N.D. Tex., Aug. 9, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by illegal telemarketing call to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants made their unauthorized calls without the recipients' consent and despite their inclusion on either the national or internal do-not-call lists of US Health Advisors. The calls were for the purpose of telemarketing and soliciting business from Plaintiff and members of the Classes. USHealth Group, Inc. is an insurance holding company that purports to focus on providing innovative health coverage for self-employed individuals and small business owners. Through its wholly owned subsidiary USHealth Advisors, LLC, it sells insurance underwritten by its wholly owned subsidiaries, Freedom Life Insurance Company of America and National Foundation Life Insurance Company.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Classes are: Jamshyd (Jim) M. Zadeh, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JIM ZADEH, P.C. 1555 Rio Grande Avenue Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 335-5100 Facsimile: (817) 335-3974 E-mail: jim@zadehfirm.com VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Veeco Instruments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend against a purported class action suit entitled, Wolther v. Maheshwari et al. On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Wolther v. Maheshwari et al., Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition (the "Wolther Action"). On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther Action. These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action, and a consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018. The consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute. Veeco is defending this matter vigorously. Veeco Instruments Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, sells, and supports semiconductor and thin film process equipment primarily to make electronic devices worldwide. Veeco Instruments Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Plainview, New York. VIRGINIA COMMUNITY: Moore Sues over Employee Stock Ownership Plan ----------------------------------------------------------------- JANICE A. MOORE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND A CLASS OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED PARTICIPANTS IN THE VIRGINIA COMMUNITY BANKSHARES, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, the Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA COMMUNITY BANKSHARES, INC., and VIRGINIA COMMUNITY BANK, INC., A. PIERCE STONE, H.B. SEDWICK, III, and RONALD S. SPICER, Case No. 3:19-cv-00045-GEC (W.D. Va., Aug. 12, 2019), seeks to recoup losses to the Virginia Community Bankshares, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, disgorge any profits through the use of Plan assets, and obtain other remedial and appropriate equitable relief to redress violations and enforce the provisions of Title I of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Ms. Janice A. Moore brings this class action against Defendants under ERISA, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated participants in, and beneficiaries of the ESOP. The ESOP was sponsored by Virginia Community Bankshares, Inc. for the benefit of the Holding Company's employees and employees of Virginia Community Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Holding Company. These claims arise out of transactions in which Defendants knowingly and intentionally engaged in ESOP transactions of Holding Company stock at prices that exceeded the fair market value of the Stock for their personal gain to the detriment of the Plan and its other participants, and additional breaches of Defendants' fiduciary duties to the Plan participants under ERISA. Between 2006 and 2008, the Defendants: (a) fraudulently established an inflated value for the Stock to be used for ESOP transactions; (b) violated ERISA by causing the ESOP to repurchase Stock from the accounts of former ESOP participants at the inflated value; (c) leveraged the ESOP's assets to finance such repurchases with one or more non-exempt loans payable to VCB; and (d) saddled the ESOP participants with annual debt payment obligations and associated releases of high-priced shares of Stock in violation of ERISA for the remaining life of the ESOP until the final loan payment was made in 2016, the lawsuit says. The majority of the remaining, substantial losses in Plan asset value, together with losses attributable to the release and allocation of fraudulently high priced shares of Stock under the illegal loan, and lost earnings and interest, in an aggregate amount to be specifically determined at trial and anticipated to approach or exceed $12 million, were the direct result of Defendants' numerous and egregious prohibited transactions and failures to honor their fiduciary duties to the ESOP participants. be commenced not later than "(1) six years after (A) the date of the last action which constituted a part of the breach or violation."[BN] Counsel for Janice A. Moore on Behalf of Herself and a Class of All Similarly Situated vParticipants in the Virginia Community Bankshares, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan are: Harris D. Butler, Esq. Zev H. Antell, , Esq. BUTLER ROYALS , PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 648-6814 E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com zev.antell@butlerroyals.com - and - Mark J. Krudys, Esq. THE KRUDYS LAW FIRM, PLC 919 East Main Street, Suite 2020 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 774-7950 Facsimile: (804) 381-4458 E-mail: mkrudys@krudys.com - and - Marie D. Carter, Esq. MARIE CARTER, PLC 122 Granite Avenue Richmond, VA 23226 Telephone: (804) 402-4003 E-mail: mdcarter@benefits-law.com - and - Jeffrey a. sanborn, Esq. 835 Summit View Lane Charlottesville, VA 22903 Telephone: (434) 825-7205 E-mail: jsanborn@sanborn-law.com VIVINT: Perrong Files Class FDCPA Suit in Utah ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivint. The case is styled as Andrew Perrong, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vivint and DSI Distributing doing business as: DSI Systems, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00568-CW (D. Utah, Aug. 14, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Vivint, Inc. is an American private smart home services provider in the United States and Canada. It was founded by Keith Nellesen and Todd Pedersen in 1999. In 2012, The Blackstone Group acquired Vivint for more than $2 billion. As of March 2019, Vivint had over 1.4 million customers in the U.S. and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared B. Pearson, Esq. PEARSON LAW FIRM 9192 S 300 W STE 35 SANDY, UT 84070 Tel: (801) 888-0991 Email: jared@pearsonlawfirm.org VM TRUCKING: Court Partly Affirms Summary Judgment in Morales Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CELSO MORALES and CARLOS HERNANDEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. V.M. TRUCKING, LLC, and GABRIEL MELTSER c/o V.M. TRUCKING, LLC, Defendants-Respondents, and TRUCKING SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC, and ROBERT LEFEBVRE c/o TRUCKING SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC, and CONTRACTOR RESOURCE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. A-2898-16T4 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed in part and reversed in part the Feb. 3, 2017 orders denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to Defendants V.M. Trucking and Gabriel Meltser, dismissing the Plaintiffs' putative class action. Plaintiffs Morales and Hernandez appeal from the Feb. 3, 2017 orders denying their motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to Defendants VMT and Meltser, dismissing their putative class action, which alleged violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("WPL"). The issues in the matter arise out of the Plaintiffs' association with VMT as truck drivers providing transportation services to VMT's customers and turns on whether the Pplaintiffs were employees subject to the requirements and protections of the WPL or independent contractors to whom the parties agree the WPL does not apply. In July 2015, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a complaint alleging the Defendants and their co-defendants, Trucking Support Services, LLC ("TSS"), Contractor Resource Solutions, LLC ("CRS"), and Robert Lefebvre, violated the WPL by misclassifying the Plaintiffs as independent contractors during their respective associations with VMT and deducting money from their paychecks each pay period ostensibly for payment for truck leases and associated fees. The Plaintiffs also asserted a cause of action alleging the Defendants and their co-Defendants were unjustly enriched by their retention of monies wrongfully deducted in violation of the WPL. The Defendants filed an answer, which included a counterclaim against the co-defendants for contribution and indemnification. The Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment, arguing the WPL was inapplicable to the Plaintiffs as a matter of law because the Plaintiffs were associated with VMT as independent contractors and not employees. Two weeks later, the Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and for class certification, asserting the undisputed facts established they were VMT's employees under the WPL and defendants violated the WPL by deducting various sums from their compensation and the compensation of others similarly situated. When a motion court is presented with cross-motions for summary judgment, it is required to consider each motion independently because a party does not relinquish the right to dispute the facts upon which an opposing party's motion is based merely by filing a cross-motion. The cross-motions in the case were centered solely on whether the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that the Plaintiffs were employees under the WPL and, if so, whether the Defendants improperly made deductions from the Plaintiffs' wages in violation of the WPL. Thus, although the parties submitted separate statements of material fact supporting their respective motions in accordance with Rule 4:46-2(a) and opposition and counter statements of fact in accordance with Rule 4:46-2(b), the parties' submissions as to each motion were essentially identical. Following oral argument on the motions, the court issued a written decision and separate orders granting the Defendants' summary judgment motion and dismissing the complaint, and denying the Plaintiffs' cross-motion. The court determined that the Plaintiffs were employees under the WPL because the Defendants failed to demonstrate that the Plaintiffs were not under their control in the performance of their work, that the Plaintiffs performed work outside of the usual course of the Defendants' business or performed work outside of the Defendants' places of business, and that the Plaintiffs had enterprises that existed independently of their relationship with the Defendants. The court further concluded, however, that the Defendants did not violate the WPL by making deductions from the Plaintiffs' compensation. More particularly, it found the Plaintiffs properly authorized the deductions for insurance, lease payments and UTICA dues under N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4, which allows employers to withhold or divert portions of employee wages under certain defined circumstances. The court therefore entered orders granting the Defendants summary judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' motion. The Plaintiffs appealed from the court's orders. They do not challenge on appeal the court's determination that they are employees under the WPL. Instead, they appeal only from the court's findings that the deductions from their compensation are authorized by N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4 and, therefore, the Defendants did not violate the WPL. Thus, the Plaintiffs argue the court erred by denying their summary judgment motion, and granting the Defendants' summary judgment motion. The Court holds that undisputed facts gleaned from the parties' submissions pursuant to Rule 4:46-2 do not permit a dispositive analysis of the Plaintiffs' status following the termination of their associations with defendants. For example, the record is devoid of any undisputed statements of material fact submitted in accordance with Rule 4:46-2 establishing the Plaintiffs joined the ranks of the unemployed following the termination of their associations with defendants. In addition, the Plaintiffs' tax returns permit a fact-finder to draw the reasonable inference that that they operated truck transportation operations independent of their associations with VMT. In any event, in our view, there are fact issues concerning the Plaintiffs' status following the termination of their relationships with defendants that preclude an award of summary judgment on the issue of whether the Defendant satisfied its burden under the third prong of the ABC standard. Hence, the motion court erred by finding otherwise. The Court is satisfied the motion court correctly determined the Plaintiffs were employees under the WPL. It finds that the Defendants' failures to sustain their burden under the first and second prongs of the ABC test provide separate but equally dispositive reasons supporting the court's determination. Next, the Plaintiffs challenge the motion court's determination that the undisputed facts established the Defendants did not violate the WPL by requiring deductions from their wages for insurance, lease payments and UTICA membership dues. They argue the WPL authorizes only certain limited deductions from employee wages, and the insurance, lease payments and UTICA membership dues deductions are not within the limited deductions permitted under the WPL. The Defendants argue that even if the Plaintiffs may be properly considered employees under the WPL, the undisputed facts establish that the deductions are authorized by the WPL as a matter of law. The Court finds that there is an insufficient base of undisputed material facts permitting a conclusion that the wage deductions for insurance were either lawful or unlawful under N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4(b). It therefore vacates the court's orders granting the Defendants summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claim that the deductions for insurance violated N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4 and denying the Plaintiffs' summary judgment on their claim that the insurance deductions violated N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4, and remands for further proceedings. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs' argument that the motion court erred by concluding the Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their claim that the deductions for UTICA membership dues are lawful under N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4(b)(7). It therefore reverses the motion court's order finding defendants are entitled to summary judgment on their claim that the deductions of UTICA membership dues are lawful under the WPL, and reverses the court's order denying the Plaintiffs summary judgment on their claim that the UTICA membership dues deductions are unlawful under the WPL. The Court is also convinced the motion court erred by finding that the truck lease payment deductions are lawful under subsection (b)(4) of N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4. It holds that N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4(b)(4) does not authorize or permit the deduction for the truck lease payments. The Court reverse the motion court's orders granting defendants summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claim the lease deductions violated the WPL and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their claim the lease deductions were unlawful under the WPL. Based on the foregoing, the Court affirmed the motion court's orders finding the Plaintiffs are employees under the WPL. It vacated the court's orders granting the Defendants summary judgment on their claim that the insurance deduction does not violate the WPL and denying the Plaintiffs' claim the insurance deduction violates the WPL and remand for further proceedings on that issue. It reversed the court's orders granting the Defendants summary judgment on their claims that the UTICA membership dues and lease payment deductions are lawful under the WPL and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their claim that the UTICA membership dues deduction and lease payment deductions violate the WPL. The Court remanded those claims for further proceedings on the issue of damages. On remand, the motion court will also consider and decide the Plaintiffs' request for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/UNZ61z from Leagle.com. Matthew Dennis Miller -- mmiller@swartz-legal.com -- argued the cause for appellants (Swartz Swidler, LLC, attorneys; Matthew Dennis Miller, on the briefs). Frederick Conrad Biehl, III, argued the cause for respondents (Soriano Henkel Biehl & Matthews, attorneys; Frederick Conrad Biehl, III, on the brief). VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in DSG Transmission Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned MIKE MADANI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant. Case No. 17-cv-07287-HSG. (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Mike Madani, Eric Walley, Richard DeVico, and Romsin Oushana1 brought this putative class action against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (VWGoA), Volkswagen AG, and Audi AG for, among other things, purported breaches of express and implied warranties, and violations of various consumer protection laws based on allegedly defective direct-shift gearbox (DSG) transmissions in 2010-2014 Audi S4, S5, S6, S7, and RS5 vehicles. The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint realleges nine causes of action: (1) Breach of Express Warranty (2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (3) Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) (4) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act) (5) Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (6) Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) California Business and Professions Code (7) Violation of the Declaratory Judgment Act (8) Unjust Enrichment; and (9) Equitable Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. The Defendant move to dismiss all causes of action. Breach of Express Warranty (Claim 1) As in the first amended complaint, Plaintiffs again contend that Defendant breached express written warranties issued with the sale of Class Vehicles, as well as a purported express warranty relating to Defendant's marketing of Class Vehicles as safe and reliable. Express Written Warranty As to the express written warranty, Plaintiffs reallege that every Class Vehicle is backed by a New Vehicle Limited Warranty (NVLW), which covers any repairs needed to correct defects in materials or workmanship. The NVLW lasts for 48 months or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first. Defendant also offer a Certified Pre-Owned Vehicle Warranty, which extends warranty coverage through 6 years or 100,000 miles. Plaintiffs contend that the alleged transmission defect violated Defendant's warranties. Defendant moves for dismissal on two bases. First, Defendant argues that the Court should again find the express written warranty claims of Plaintiffs Madani, Walley, and DeVico fail because the operative complaint does not allege that these Plaintiffs experienced transmission problems within the express warranty period. Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff Warchut's express warranty claim is time-barred. Plaintiffs Madani, Walley, and DeVico The Court previously dismissed the express written warranty claims of Plaintiffs Madani, Walley, and DeVico because these Plaintiffs admittedly never experienced transmission problems within their express warranty periods" and well-established Ninth Circuit and California case law forecloses any argument that they may nonetheless advance a claim for breach of the express written warranty on account of Defendants' alleged fraudulent concealment of the defects. Plaintiffs admit that the operative complaint in no way cures these defects as it relates to Plaintiffs Madani and Walley Plaintiff DeVico, however, contends that he has adequately stated a claim when viewing all alleged facts in the operative complaint in the light most favorable to him. Specifically, Plaintiff DeVico asserts that because his vehicle was a 2010 model, it is reasonable to infer that the NVLW lasted until 2014 (given that the NVLW was good up to 50,000 miles or 4 years and when Plaintiff DeVico purchased the 2010 car in 2016, it only had 44,000 miles on it. Setting aside whether Plaintiff DeVico might be entitled to "tolling and/or extending theories" under his theory of reasonable inferences to be drawn from facts as alleged in the operative complaint, Defendant highlights in its reply brief that judicially noticeable material preclude the core fact from which one could make any such inferences. Given that judicially noticeable facts demonstrate that the 2014 transmission replacement did not occur during the warranty period, there is no reasonable factual basis to support Plaintiff DeVico's theories, which all derive from that core factual starting point. Plaintiff Warchut Defendant contends that Plaintiff Warchut's express warranty claim is time-barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations. In response, Plaintiff Warchut only contends that allegations as to when he discovered the defect and that the discovery occurred less than four years before his claim was made are factual issues not ripe on a motion to dismiss. The Court rejects Plaintiff Warchut's effort to avoid the statute of limitations by manufacturing a factual issue, because when Warchut discovered the purported defect is undisputed based on allegations contained in the complaint. The operative complaint provides: Within a month of purchase, Plaintiff Warchut noticed his Class Vehicle would surge at low speeds and buck and lurch forward when parked. There is thus no reasonable factual basis to dispute that Plaintiff Warchut had actual knowledge of the alleged defect in his vehicle more than four years before the commencement of this action. Plaintiff Warchut's express warranty claim is thus time-barred. Express Marketing Warranty The second amended complaint realleges a breach of express warranty claim based on Defendant warranting that the Class Vehicles are safe and reliable while failing to disclose to Plaintiffs and Class Members any hint of the risks posed by the transmission defect, which renders the Class Vehicles dangerous and unreliable. The Court previously dismissed this exact theory of express warranty liability and Defendant contends that dismissal is equally warranted here. The operative complaint adds no new factual allegations from which the Court might reach a different conclusion on this theory of express warranty liability. Nor do Plaintiffs defend or otherwise respond to Defendant's argument in support of dismissal. Presented with no new argument or evidence, the Court finds that dismissal is warranted again. For these reasons the Court DISMISSES all express warranty claims except those brought by Plaintiffs Oushana and Chess, but only based on an alleged breach of the express written warranty. Implied Warranty (Claim 2) As in the first amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant breached an implied warranty that the Class Vehicles, which it designed, manufactured, and sold or leased to Plaintiffs and the Class or members of the California Subclass, were merchantable, fit and safe for their ordinary use, not otherwise injurious to consumers, and equipped with adequate safety warnings. The Court previously dismissed all then-named Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims because: (1) to the extent California law applies to any Plaintiff, they could not meet California's stringent privity requirement to support a claim because neither VWGoA nor any other then-named Defendant are an adjoining link with a Plaintiff in the relevant distribution chain and (2) to the extent New York or Texas law applies to certain Plaintiffs, those parties' claims were barred because New York and Texas permit clearly and conspicuously limiting implied warranties to the duration of express warranties, the NVLWs applicable to the relevant Plaintiffs' vehicles limited the implied warranties in this manner, and the relevant Plaintiffs only alleged to have experienced problems related to the purported transmission defect after the expiration of the NVLW. The Court again finds that dismissal is warranted regardless of which law applies. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Claim 3) All parties again agree that Plaintiffs' MMWA claim rises and falls with the express and implied warranty claims. Thus, those Plaintiffs who have failed to state a claim for breach of express or implied warranties also fail to state a claim under the MMWA. The Court DISMISSES all MMWA claims except as to Plaintiffs Oushana and Chess. Song-Beverly Act (Claim 4) After Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Song-Beverly Act claim as presented in the first amended complaint, Plaintiffs conceded that their claim as then pleaded was defective. The Court accepted Plaintiffs' concession and dismissed the claim with leave to amend. Plaintiffs Walley, DeVico, and Oushana Despite the opportunity to amend, the operative complaint presents identical factual allegations relevant to the Song-Beverly Act claims of Plaintiffs Walley, DeVico, and Oushana. But as Defendant highlights in its briefs, the Song-Beverly Act only applies to purchases made in California, meaning its protection is not available to Plaintiffs Walley and DeVico, who purchased their vehicles in Texas and New York. Given these threshold defects to which Plaintiffs do not respond dismissal of these Plaintiffs' Song-Beverly Act claims is warranted. Plaintiffs Madani, Warchut, and Chess Although Plaintiffs Madani, Warchut, and Chess each purchased their vehicles new and in California, Defendant contends that dismissal is warranted nonetheless because these Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred. Specifically, each purchased their vehicle no later than April 2013 and the relevant statute of limitations is four years. In response, Plaintiffs argue that (1) Madani's claim only accrued in 2017, when he first experienced the defect, and (2) although Chess and Warchut noticed the defect earlier, their claims were tolled by Defendant's active concealment of the defect. The Court first finds that Madani's claim is not time-barred. Under the Song-Beverly Act, a claim accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered. And as alleged in the operative complaint, Madani only first experienced issues with his vehicle associated with the alleged defect in 2017. Turning next to Plaintiffs Chess and Warchut, the question is whether Plaintiffs adequately pleaded facts to invoke equitable tolling on the basis of fraudulent concealment. Fraudulent Concealment Doctrine All told, a plaintiff alleging fraudulent concealment under California law must plead: (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he or she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact. In other words, plaintiffs pleading fraudulent concealment must allegewhen the fraud was discovered, the circumstances under which it was discovered, the circumstances indicating that they were not at fault for failing to discover it earlier, and the fact that they had no actual or constructive knowledge of facts sufficient to put [them] on inquiry. Plaintiffs also must plead why, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, they could not have discovered the defect earlier. Plaintiffs Warchut and Chess The Court finds that the operative complaint does not allege facts to support a finding of fraudulent concealment as to Plaintiffs Chess and Warchut. And the fatal defect concerns Plaintiffs Chess and Warchut pleading too much, rather than too little, as these Plaintiffs affirmatively allege facts showing they had actual or constructive knowledge of facts sufficient to put them on notice of the alleged DSG defect in their Class Vehicles in 2011. Plaintiff Warchut, for example, alleges that he experienced the very defects at issue in this case in 2011, knew the problems derived from the vehicle's transmission and refused to believe otherwise when his Audi dealer stated that his Class Vehicle's transmission issues were an artifact of the design of the vehicle. In other words, Warchut does not allege that, based on his Audi dealer's statements, he was misled to believe his vehicle was in working order, such that he had no reasonable knowledge of facts to at least put him on inquiry notice that a defect existed. Warchut instead alleges that he knew his Audi dealer's statements were inadequate at the time, and thus nothing said by his Audi dealer concealed material facts that would have otherwise put Warchut on constructive notice that a defect was present. Plaintiff Chess fares no better. Chess similarly alleges that he experienced the DSG defects in 2011, and knew the transmission was not working properly, but was told by his Audi dealer that there was nothing wrong with his vehicle. To the extent Plaintiff Chess knew his transmission was defective, he knew his dealer's statements were untrue. Put differently, the dealer's statement does not render meaningless Chess's knowledge of his vehicle's manifestations of the alleged defect, and his knowledge that the transmission was not working properly, at that time. And Chess provides no explanation for why that knowledge did not at least constitute constructive knowledge of relevant facts sufficient to put him on inquiry notice of the alleged defect. The Court DISMISSES all Song-Beverly Act claims except as to Plaintiff Madani. CLRA and UCL (Claims 5-6) The Court previously dismissed without leave to amend CLRA and UCL claims brought by Plaintiffs Walley, DeVico, and Oushana. With respect to Plaintiff Oushana in particular, the Court dismissed his CLRA and UCL claims because he stated a viable claim for breach of an express warranty and thus had an adequate remedy at law, barring claims for equitable relief, including claims for violations of California consumer protection statutes. The court in Luong, Luong v. Subaru v. American, Inc., No. 17-cv-03160-YGR, 2018 WL 2047646, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2018). acknowledged that California district courts have split on whether to bar CLRA and UCL claims for equitable relief when plaintiffs have alleged a claim that would provide an adequate remedy at law. It was ultimately persuaded that, at the pleading stage, dismissal is not warranted when considering "the broad remedial purposes of the California consumer protection statutes. Luong's reasoning is persuasive and supported by the California Supreme Court's most-recent decision to address the outer limits of CLRA and UCL's protection. In Loeffler v. Target Corp.,California's highest court explained that the CLRA and UCL's remedies are not exclusive, but are in addition to any other procedures or remedies for any violation or conduct provided for in any other law. 324 P.3d 50, 76 (Cal. 2014) In keeping with Loeffler's reasoning, the Court is persuaded that, at the pleading stage, theories of equitable remedies are not barred by a plaintiff adequately pleading theories supporting monetary relief. The Court accordingly denies Defendant's request to dismiss any Plaintiff's CLRA and UCL claims on this ground, and focuses instead on whether individual Plaintiffs otherwise adequately plead such claims. Plaintiffs Warchut and Chess The Court turns first to whether Plaintiffs Warchut and Chess have stated viable CLRA and UCL claims. And Defendant principally moves to dismiss their claims as time-barred. CLRA and UCL claims are governed by three- and four-year statues of limitations, respectively. And as also discussed above, Plaintiff Chess's claims are similarly time-barred due to his failure, for one, to plead why, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, he could not have discovered the defect at least in 2011. Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana Although the Court previously dismissed Plaintiff Oushana's CLRA and UCL claims without leave to amend due to the availability of an adequate remedy at law, the Court finds dismissal is no longer warranted on this ground, for the reasons discussed above. The Court thus reconsiders here whether Oushana's claims otherwise survive dismissal. And as to Plaintiff Madani, the Court previously dismissed his CLRA and UCL claims for failure to plead that Defendant had knowledge of the purported transmission defect before Madani's purchase. Knowledge Defendant again contends that Plaintiffs have failed to plead pre-sale knowledge to support CLRA and UCL claims. The operative complaint, however, includes new allegations that preclude dismissal on this ground. Specifically, the SAC alleges that in August 2009, prior to the sale of any Class Vehicle, including Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana's, Defendant recalled several of its vehicles with the same type of DSG transmission as is in the Class Vehicles, due to those vehicles experiencing similar transmission issues. Defendant counters that the 2009 recall does not establish pre-sale knowledge because it did not apply to Class Vehicles. But Plaintiffs allege that vehicles subject to the 2009 transmission recall had the same type of DSG transmission as Class Vehicles and suffered similar transmission malfunctions. Accepting these alleged facts as true, as the Court must do at this stage, it is at least plausible that Defendant had pre-sale knowledge of transmission defects in the Class Vehicles. Reliance Defendant further contends that dismissal is warranted because Plaintiffs fail to plead reliance. To prove reliance on an omission with respect to CLRA and UCL claims, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's nondisclosure was an immediate cause of the plaintiff's injury-producing conduct. A plaintiff may do so by simply proving that, had the omitted information been disclosed, one would have been aware of it and behaved differently. The standard for pleading reliance on account of an omission is low, and there are, of course, various ways in which a plaintiff can demonstrate that she would have been aware of a defect, had disclosure been made. But Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana plead no facts whatsoever to establish that they would have been aware of the safety defect, if it were disclosed. Despite this failure, Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana may readily cure this defect, such as by presenting evidence that they interacted with and received information from sales representatives at authorized [Audi] dealerships prior to purchasing their Class Vehicles, which the Ninth Circuit has held is sufficient to sustain a factual finding that Plaintiffs would have been aware of the disclosure if it had been made through the authorized dealerships. Because the Court finds Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana have failed to plead reliance to support their CLRA and UCL claims, dismissal is warranted. Because this defect is readily curable, and the Court has not previously dismissed any Plaintiff's CLRA and UCL claims on this ground, it finds that leave to amend as to these Plaintiffs is warranted. The Court accordingly DISMISSES all Plaintiffs' CLRA and UCL claims. Only Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana's claims are with leave to amend. Unjust Enrichment (Claim 8) The Court previously dismissed without leave to amend Plaintiffs DeVico and Walley's unjust enrichment claims because they conferred no benefit upon Defendants because they purchased their cars from third parties. And the Court dismissed Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana's claims because actions in quasi-contract cannot lie when an express contract between the same parties governs the subject matter in question. Despite the Court's prior holdings, Plaintiffs present no new argument in opposition to the pending dismissal motion that the Court did not previously reject. And because newly named Plaintiffs Chess and Warchut had materially similar express contracts with Defendant as Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana, dismissal of their unjust enrichment claims is warranted under the same logic. The Court thus dismisses all Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims. The Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. And the Court finds that leave to amend is largely unwarranted, as Plaintiffs have previously had the opportunity to amend the complaint to add the requisite particularity but failed to cure defects identified by the Court in the prior dismissal order. The only claims dismissed with leave to amend are Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana's CLRA and UCL claims, for the limited purpose of pleading reliance. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5ho7bg9 from Leagle.com. Mike Mandani & Eric Walley, Plaintiffs, represented by Gregory F. Coleman , Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Adam A. Edwards, Greg Coleman Law PC, 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100, Knoxville, TN 37929, pro hac vice, Crystal Gayle Foley -- cfoley@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy, Daniel Kent Bryson -dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson Mason LLP, Deborah R. Rosenthal -- drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, John Hunter Bryson -- hunter@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Lisa A. White -- lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Mark E. Silvey -- mark@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice & Mitchell M. Breit -- mbreit@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Lee Winterman -- cwinterman@hrllp-law.com- Herzfeld & Rubin LLP, Jeffrey Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- pro hac vice, Michael B. Gallub, Esq. -- MGallub@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Herzfeld and Rubin, pro hac vice & Homer B. Ramsey -- HRamsey@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Herzfeld Rubin. WELLS FARGO: Oct. 9 Final Settlement Approval Hearing in Sales Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a state court overseeing a class action litigation has scheduled a final settlement approval hearing for October 9, 2019. Federal, state, and local government agencies, including the Department of Justice, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the United States Department of Labor; state attorneys general, including the New York Attorney General; and prosecutors' offices, as well as Congressional committees, have undertaken formal or informal inquiries, investigations or examinations arising out of certain retail sales practices of the Company that were the subject of settlements with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney announced by the Company on September 8, 2016. These matters are at varying stages. The Company has responded, and continues to respond, to requests from a number of the foregoing. In October 2018, the Company entered into an agreement to resolve the New York Attorney General's investigation pursuant to which the Company paid $65 million to the State of New York. In December 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with all 50 state Attorneys General and the District of Columbia to resolve an investigation into the Company's retail sales practices, CPI and GAP, and mortgage interest rate lock matters, pursuant to which the Company paid $575 million. The Company has also engaged in preliminary and/or exploratory resolution discussions with the Department of Justice and the SEC, although there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these discussions. In addition, a number of lawsuits have also been filed by non-governmental parties seeking damages or other remedies related to these retail sales practices. First, various class plaintiffs purporting to represent consumers who allege that they received products or services without their authorization or consent have brought separate putative class actions against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and various other jurisdictions. In April 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement in the first-filed action, Jabbari v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to resolve claims regarding certain products or services provided without authorization or consent for the time period May 1, 2002 to April 20, 2017. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $142 million for remediation, attorneys' fees, and settlement fund claims administration. In the unlikely event that the $142 million settlement total is not enough to provide remediation, pay attorneys' fees, pay settlement fund claims administration costs, and have at least $25 million left over to distribute to all class members, the Company will contribute additional funds to the settlement. In addition, in the unlikely event that the number of unauthorized accounts identified by settlement class members in the claims process and not disputed by the claims administrator exceeds plaintiffs' 3.5 million account estimate, the Company will proportionately increase the $25 million reserve so that the ratio of reserve to unauthorized accounts is no less than what was implied by plaintiffs' estimate at the time of the district court's preliminary approval of the settlement in July 2017. The district court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on June 14, 2018. Several appeals of the district court's order granting final approval of the settlement have been filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Second, Wells Fargo shareholders brought a consolidated securities fraud class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging certain misstatements and omissions in the Company's disclosures related to sales practices matters. The Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this matter pursuant to which the Company paid $480 million. The district court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on December 20, 2018. Third, Wells Fargo shareholders have brought numerous shareholder derivative lawsuits asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims, among others, against current and former directors and officers for their alleged involvement with and failure to detect and prevent sales practices issues. These actions are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and California state court for coordinated proceedings. An additional lawsuit asserting similar claims pending in Delaware state court has been stayed. The parties have entered into settlement agreements to resolve the shareholder derivative lawsuits pursuant to which insurance carriers will pay the Company approximately $240 million for alleged damage to the Company, and the Company will pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. Preliminary approval of the settlements has been granted, and the federal court held a final approval hearing on August 1, 2019, and the state court scheduled a final approval hearing for October 9, 2019. Fourth, multiple employment litigation matters have been brought against Wells Fargo, including an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of 401(k) plan participants that has been dismissed and is now on appeal; a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of team members who allege that they protested sales practice misconduct and/or were terminated for not meeting sales goals that has now been dismissed, and the company has entered into a framework with plaintiffs’ counsel to address individual claims that have been asserted; various wage and hour class actions brought in federal and state court in California and Pennsylvania (which have been settled), and in New Jersey on behalf of non-exempt branch based team members alleging that sales pressure resulted in uncompensated overtime; and multiple single plaintiff Sarbanes-Oxley Act complaints and state law whistleblower actions filed with the United States Department of Labor or in various state courts alleging adverse employment actions for raising sales practice misconduct issues. Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company, provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. WELLS FARGO: Settlement of Institutional Investors Suit Okayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the New York state court approved a settlement agreement among the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs and the Company pursuant to which, among other terms, the Company paid $43 million to resolve a federal court complaint and a state court action. In November 2014, a group of institutional investors (Institutional Investor Plaintiffs), including funds affiliated with BlackRock, Inc., filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., alleging claims against the Company in its capacity as trustee for a number of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts (Federal Court Complaint). Similar complaints have been filed against other trustees in various courts, including in the Southern District of New York, in New York state court, and in other states, by RMBS investors. The Federal Court Complaint alleged that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee, caused losses to investors and asserted causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, notify investors of alleged events of default, and abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Plaintiffs sought money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. In December 2014 and December 2015, certain other investors filed four complaints alleging similar claims against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in the Southern District of New York (Related Federal Cases). In January 2016, the Southern District of New York entered an order in connection with the Federal Court Complaint dismissing claims related to certain of the trusts at issue (Dismissed Trusts). The Company's subsequent motion to dismiss the Federal Court Complaint and the complaints for the Related Federal Cases was granted in part and denied in part in March 2017. In May 2017, the Company filed third-party complaints against certain investment advisors affiliated with the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs seeking contribution with respect to claims alleged in the Federal Court Complaint (Third-Party Claims). In December 2016, the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs filed a new putative class action complaint in New York state court in respect of 261 RMBS trusts, including the Dismissed Trusts, for which Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. serves or served as trustee (State Court Action). A complaint raising similar allegations to those in the Federal Court Complaint was filed in May 2016 in New York state court by IKB International and IKB Deutsche Industriebank (IKB Action). In July 2017, certain of the plaintiffs from the State Court Action filed a civil complaint relating to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s setting aside reserves for legal fees and expenses in connection with the liquidation of eleven RMBS trusts at issue in the State Court Action (Declaratory Judgment Action). The complaint sought, among other relief, declarations that the Company is not entitled to indemnification, the advancement of funds, or the taking of reserves from trust funds for legal fees and expenses it incurs in defending the claims in the State Court Action. In May 2019, the New York state court approved a settlement agreement among the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs and the Company pursuant to which, among other terms, the Company paid $43 million to resolve the Federal Court Complaint and the State Court Action. The settlement also resolved the Third Party Claims and the Declaratory Judgment Action. The settlement did not affect the Related Federal Cases or the IKB Action, which remain pending. Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company, provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. WELLS FARGO: Still Faces Suit over Debit Card Order of Posting -------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit related to the Order of Posting. Plaintiffs filed a series of putative class actions against Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many other banks, challenging the "high to low" order in which the banks post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts. Most of these actions were consolidated in multi-district litigation proceedings (MDL proceedings) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The court in the MDL proceedings has certified a class of putative plaintiffs, and Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration of the claims of unnamed class members. The court denied the motions to compel arbitration in October 2016, and Wells Fargo appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In May 2018, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in Wells Fargo's favor and found that Wells Fargo had not waived its arbitration rights and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing to the Eleventh Circuit, which was denied in August 2018. Plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, and that petition was denied in January 2019. The case has returned to the district court for further proceedings. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company, provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. WHITESTONE REIT: Co-Lead Plaintiffs Appointed in Clark Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Whitestone REIT said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court in Clark v. Whitestone REIT, et al., has appointed co-lead plaintiffs. On April 16, 2019, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company, James C. Mastandrea, and David K. Holeman, entitled Clark v. Whitestone REIT, et al., Case 4:19-cv-01379. A second class action lawsuit was filed but was consolidated into the Clark case. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the individual defendants violated certain federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements in the Company's Forms 10-Q for the first three quarterly periods of the year ended December 31, 2018 as a result of the accounting errors that required the restatement of the company's consolidated financial statements for the first three quarterly periods of the year ended December 31, 2018. The purported class period runs from May 9, 2018 through February 27, 2019. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company and the individual defendants believe that the claims asserted in the lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these claims. On July 25, 2019, the presiding judge in the case conducted a conference hearing with plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel. At the July 25, 2019 status conference, the presiding judge appointed two claimants as co-lead plaintiffs and gave the plaintiffs 21 days to submit an amended complaint. On July 17, 2019, the Company received a demand letter from a purported shareholder containing allegations similar to those contained in the purported class action. Whitestone said, "The Company's counsel is in communication with the purported shareholder's counsel as to the date by which the Company should respond." Whitestone REIT is a fully-integrated real estate company that owns and operates commercial properties in culturally diverse markets in major metropolitan areas. Founded in 1998, the company is internally managed with a portfolio of commercial properties in Texas, Arizona and Illinois. The company is based in Houston, Texas. ZIMMER BIOMET: Shah Class Certification Bid Underway ---------------------------------------------------- Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al. On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming the company, one of its officers and two of its now former officers as defendants. On June 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those previously named, current and former members of the company's Board of Directors, one additional officer, and the underwriters in connection with secondary offerings of the company's common stock by certain selling stockholders in 2016. On October 6, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriters without prejudice. On October 8, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those current and former officers and Board members previously named, certain former stockholders of the company who sold shares of the company common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016. The company and its current and former officers and Board members named as defendants are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Zimmer Biomet Defendant group". The former stockholders of the company who sold shares of the company's common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016 are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Private Equity Fund Defendant group". The second amended complaint relates to a putative class action on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock between June 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The second amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions about the company's compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations and the company's ability to continue to accelerate its organic revenue growth rate in the second half of 2016. The defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on December 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed their omnibus response to the motions to dismiss on March 13, 2018 and the defendants filed their respective reply briefs on May 18, 2018. On September 27, 2018, the court denied the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The court granted the Private Equity Fund Defendant group's motion to dismiss, without prejudice. On October 9, 2018, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed a motion (i) to amend the court's order on the motion to certify two issues for interlocutory appeal, and (ii) to stay proceedings pending appeal. On February 21, 2019, that motion was denied. On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On June 20, 2019, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed its response. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief. Zimmer Biomet said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and we and the individual defendants are defending it vigorously." Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, and markets musculoskeletal healthcare products and solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. It operates through four segments: Spine, less Asia Pacific; Office Based Technologies; Craniomaxillofacial and Thoracic; and Dental. The company was formerly known as Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. in June 2015. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana. ********* 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 ***