/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190829.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 29, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 173 Headlines 25TH STREET SHOWPLACE: Delacruz Alleges Violation under ADA ABLE FINE ART: Picon Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ACUANT, INC: Kloss Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ADT INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suits Pending ADT INC: Fitzhenry TCPA Class Action vs. Unit Underway ADT INC: Settlement in Wireless Encryption Case Wins Final OK ADT INC: Unit Continues to Defend Villegas Suit in California ADT INC: Unit Faces Shuheiber Independent Contractor Class Suit ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Pending ALPHA RECOVERY: Nunez Files Class Suit under FDCPA in New York AMERICANPEARL.COM: Lee Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ANCHOR GENERAL: Vergara Suit Asserts Wage Abuse ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Wong Amended Complaint Pending ATLANTIC CREDIT: Ortiz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL: Ituah Seeks to Certify Rape Victims Class AXOGEN INC: Einhorn Case Management Report Due Sept. 2 BE AMAZED: Has Until Aug. 30 to Reply to Complaint in Lynch Suit BERNARDUCCI GALLERY: Picon Alleges Violation under ADA BLUE APRON: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in EDNY Still Pending BLUE APRON: Mediation in Cal. Class Suit Set for November 2019 BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Court Stays Wijesinha Class Suit BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Deal Reached in Hernandez Class Suit BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Landon Class Suit Ongoing BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Paxton-Reeser Accord Okayed, Case Dismissed BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Still Defends Potje Class Suit C.A.R.E. INC: Rainey Labor Suit Seeks Proper Wages CAPTAIN LAWRENCE: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Shin Asserts Breach of FDCPA CLEAR CHANNEL: GAMCO & Norfolk Suits Concluded COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Conner Files Class Suit under ADA CONSOL ENERGY: Still Defends Casey Suit in West Virginia CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Dillard Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York CORE-MARK INT'L: Cunha Files Class Suit in California CVS HEALTH: Anarkat et al Suit Moved to District of Rhode Island CVS HEALTH: Waterford Township Sues over Share Price Drop DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses D. Morgan's Suit DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses T. Lynn's Suit DEILY & GLASTETTER: Ortiz Alleges Violation under FDCPA DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Weller Suit DRAPER AND KRAMER: Kanacevic Suit Asserts BIPA Violation EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Goldman Files Class Suit in New York FACEBOOK, INC: Skipper et al Sue over Marketing of Ad Platform FCA US: Van Ness Sues over Defective Airbag Control Unit FENIX PARTS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class as Moot FIAT CHRYSLER: Hightman Suit Transferred to S.D. New York FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Marshall Alleges Violation under FDCPA FORD MOTOR: Fails to Truly Show Fuel Economy Ratings, Drake Says FORSTER & GARBUS: Summary Judgment in Mandelos FDCPA Suit Granted FORTERRA INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Class Suit Still Pending GLAMSQUAD INC: Slade Alleges Website not Blind-accessible GLOBAL CREDIT: Lugo Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Underway GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss US Treasury Securities Suit Underway GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend NY Securities Lending Suit HOME DEPOT: Violates Calif. Labor Code, Barragan Suit Asserts J. DIAMOND: Watson Seeks Overtime Wages for Field Supervisors JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Faces Suits over Precious Metals Futures JSTC, LLC: Thomas Seeks OT Pay for Delivery Associates KCI USA: Palmer Sues Over Illegal Automatically Dialed Calls KIDBOX LLC: Nisbett Files Class Suit in New York KITTLE HOUSE: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KROGER COMPANY:Vancour Seeks Overtime Pay for Employees LANGUAGE INTEGRATED: Velez-Cortes Seeks Overtime Wages for Workers LION OIL TRADING: Class Certification Sought in Fuller Suit M.L. ZAGER PC: Werzberger Asserts Breach of FDCPA MARK OF EXCELLENCE: Strong Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Drivers MARTIN'S FAMOUS: Smelser Suit Settlement Denied Without Prejudice MDL 2820: Claims in TAC Dicamba Herbicides Suit Narrowed MDL 2903: Hanson Suit over Rock 'N Play Sleeper Consolidated MDL 2904: Webb Suit v. Quest, et al over Data Breach Consolidated MDL INNOVATIVE: Zwiefel Seeks OT Pay for Welding Inspectors MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS: Holmes Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Taylor Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York MICHIGAN: Kensu Moves to Certify Class and Subclass of Inmates MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed MIDLAND CREDIT: Weinberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York MIDLAND FUNDING: Zirpoli Sues over Debt Collection Practices MIDWEST RECEIVABLE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Decision in Calif. Still Ongoing NATIONAL VISION: Amended Complaint Filed in Cal. Wage & Hour Suit NATIONAL VISION: Awaits Final Approval of 1-800 Contacts Accord NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending NORTHEAST SERVICE: Tenelema et al Seek OT Premiums for Laborers PG&E CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Stayed Amid Bankruptcy PG&E CORP: Lawsuits over 2018 Camp Fire Stayed under Chapter 11 PG&E CORP: Suits on 2017 Northern California Wildfires Still Stayed PITNEY BOWES: Still Defends Suit by City of Livonia Retiree Plan PORTABLE MUD: Walters Seeks Overtime Wages for Mechanics PRIDE HYUNDAI: White Files Suit in Mass. Over Unpaid Overtime Wages QUANTUM CORP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 14 RESTAURANT LEADERSHIP: Licea Suit Asserts ADA Breach SERVIS ONE INC: Padula Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois SLEEP NUMBER: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Fresno SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Requests for Rehearing in Smith Appeal Denied ST VINCENT COMMUNITY: Dorado Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas SYNERGY ONE: Raub Suit Moved to Southern District of California TEGNA INC: Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. Class Suit Ongoing TRANSGENOMIC INC: Settlement in Campbell Suit Has Prelim Approval TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in Norton Suit ULTA BEAUTY: Fernando Suit Removed to S.D. Calif. UNIT CORP: Chieftain Royalty Class Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma UNIT CORP: Class Certification Bid in Panola ISD Class Suit Denied UNIT CORP: Cockerell Oil Properties Class Suit Ongoing VENATOR MATERIALS: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit Pending VERSUM MATERIALS: Ventura Class Suit Remains Pending VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust's COI Class Suit Pending VOYA FINANCIAL: Bid to Nix Goetz Suit Still Pending at June 30 VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Faces Barnes COI Litigation WASTE PRO: Wright Seeks OT Pay for Waste Disposal Drivers WATERWORKS OPERATING: Delacruz Alleges Violation under ADA WAYPOINT RESOURCE: Dillard Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York WELLS FARGO: Hernandez Suit over Mortgage Loan Plans Dismissed YELP INC: Davis Seeks Certification of Shareholders Class ZIRTUAL STARTUPS: Macaluso Hits Misclassification, Unpaid Overtime ********* 25TH STREET SHOWPLACE: Delacruz Alleges Violation under ADA ----------------------------------------------------------- 25th Street Showplace Antique Center, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 25th Street Showplace Antique Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07807 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019). 25th Street Showplace Antique Center, Inc. is an Antique store 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 ABLE FINE ART: Picon Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------- Able Fine Art NY, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Able Fine Art NY, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07813 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019). Able Fine Art NY, Inc. is an Art museum 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 ACUANT, INC: Kloss Sues over Collection of Biometric Data --------------------------------------------------------- SHANICE KLOSS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. ACUANT, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH09538 (Ill. Cir., Aug. 16, 2019), seeks to stop Defendant's capture, collection, use, and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses various identity verification technologies, such as the Acuant FaceTM technology, to extract the biometric facial geometry templates of these individuals and compare such biometric information to their photo ID. This requires the individuals to upload a driver's license, photo ID, or passport and then a photo of themselves or otherwise undergo a scan of their facial geometry, often taken through a webcam. Acuant Face (TM) is sometimes combined with other systems including Idscan (TM), AssureID (TM), Review (TM), Ozone (TM), which all rely on extraction of biometric information. All of this allows for both identity verification and age verification of individuals by Defendant's customers via Defendant's technology. Using its Acuant Verification System Software, Defendant captures, stores and uses individuals' facial geometry and related biometric information without complying with BIPA's requirements. Unlike ID badges or time-cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- facial geometry is a unique and permanent biometric identifier associated with each individual. This exposes individuals to serious and irreversible privacy risks. If for example, a database containing scans of face geometry or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- like in ongoing and continuous data breaches -- consumers have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private information. BIPA defines a "biometric identifier" as any personal feature that is unique to an individual, including fingerprints, palm scans and facial geometry. "Biometric information" is any information based on a biometric identifier, regardless of how it is converted or stored.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are: Evan M. Meyers, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P .C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893- 7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com jsheikali@mcgpc.com ADT INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suits Pending ------------------------------------------------- ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motions to dismiss the class action suits entitled, In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation and Perdomo v ADT Inc., are pending. Five substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits related to the January 2018 initial public offering (IPO) of ADT Inc. common stock were filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018 and have been consolidated for discovery and trial and entitled In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation. The lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated shareholders and assert claims for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Securities Act"). The plaintiffs allege that the Company defendants violated the Securities Act because the registration statement and prospectus used to effectuate the IPO were false and misleading in that they allegedly misled investors with respect to litigation involving the Company, the Company's efforts to protect its intellectual property, and the competitive pressures faced by the Company. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in October 2018. In July 2019 the Florida state court denied the Company's motions to dismiss the complaint, but reserved its ruling on the motion to dismiss by the Company's outside directors and requested further briefing. A similar shareholder class action lawsuit entitled Perdomo v ADT Inc., also related to the January 2018 IPO, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May 2018, for which the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in January 2019 as directed by the Court. The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in March 2019. The motions are fully briefed and remain pending before the federal court. ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September 2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. ADT INC: Fitzhenry TCPA Class Action vs. Unit Underway ------------------------------------------------------ ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that ADT LLC is defending against a class action suit initiated by Mark Fitzhenry. On May 13, 2019, ADT was served in a putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class action lawsuit captioned, Mark Fitzhenry v. ADT LLC and Safe Streets USA LLC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff seeks to recover statutory damages allowed under the TCPA on behalf of himself and others similarly situated based on his receipt of a single telemarketing call allegedly made by or on behalf of a third-party ADT authorized dealer. ADT is being defended and indemnified by the authorized dealer. ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September 2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. ADT INC: Settlement in Wireless Encryption Case Wins Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------- ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a trial court has entered an order granting final approval of the settlement in the Wireless Encryption Litigation. The Company is subject to five class action claims regarding wireless encryption in certain ADT security systems. Jurisdictionally, three of the five cases are in Federal Court (in districts within Illinois, Arizona, and California), and both of the remaining two cases are in Florida State Court (both in Palm Beach County Circuit Court). Each of the five plaintiffs brought a claim under the respective state's consumer fraud statute alleging that The ADT Corporation and each of its consolidated subsidiaries prior to the consummation of the ADT Acquisition made misrepresentations and material omissions in its advertising regarding the unencrypted wireless signal pathways in certain security systems monitored by The ADT Corporation. The complaints in all five cases further allege that certain security systems monitored by The ADT Corporation are not secure because the wireless signal pathways are unencrypted and can be easily hacked. In January 2017, the parties agreed to settle all five class action lawsuits. In October 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. Notice to class members was issued in November 2017, and the claim submittal process has been completed. A fairness hearing regarding the settlement was conducted in February 2018, after which trial court stayed the settlement proceedings pending an appellate ruling on a related legal issue. The appellate court issued a ruling in early June 2019, and in July 2019 the trial court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September 2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. ADT INC: Unit Continues to Defend Villegas Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's subsidiary continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Villegas v. ADT. In June 2013, an ADT subsidiary was served with a class action complaint in California State Court entitled Villegas v. ADT. In this complaint, the plaintiff asserted that the ADT subsidiary violated certain provisions of the California Alarm Act and the Los Angeles Municipal Alarm Ordinance for its alleged failures to obtain alarm permits for its Los Angeles customers and disclose the alarm permit fee in its customer contracts. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for putative class members who were required to pay enhanced false alarm fines as a result of the ADT subsidiary not obtaining a valid alarm permit at the time of alarm system installation. The case was initially dismissed by the trial court and judgment was entered in the ADT subsidiary's favor in October 2014, which the plaintiff appealed. In September 2016, the California Appellate Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court. In November 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification and certified four subclasses of customers who received fines from the City of Los Angeles on or after May 31, 2010 for a false alarm and for not having an alarm system permit: a pre-March 2009 class of customers installed by the ADT subsidiary; a pre-March 2009 class of customers installed by ADT Authorized Dealers; a post-March 2009 class of customers installed by the ADT subsidiary; and a post-March 2009 class of customers installed by ADT Authorized Dealers. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September 2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. ADT INC: Unit Faces Shuheiber Independent Contractor Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that unit ADT LLC continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Jabra Shuheiber v. ADT, LLC. In August 2017, Jabra Shuheiber filed civil litigation in Marin County Superior Court on behalf of himself and two other individuals asserting wage and hour violations against the Company. The action is entitled Jabra Shuheiber v. ADT, LLC (Case Number CV 1702912, Superior Court, Marin County). Mr. Shuheiber was the owner/operator of a sub-contractor, Maximum Protection, Inc. ("MPI"), who employed the other two plaintiffs in the litigation. In August 2018, in response to the California Supreme Court's decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, counsel for Mr. Shuheiber provided the Company with a proposed amended complaint that modified the wage and hour claims such that they were brought on a class basis. The proposed class is not clearly defined but appears to be composed of two groups of individuals: 1) individual owners of sub-contractors who performed services for the sub-contractor; and 2) individuals with no ownership interest in a sub-contractor who were employed by the sub-contractor and provided services pursuant to a contract between the sub-contractor and the Company. In October 2018, the Company answered Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint and filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff's sub-contracting company for indemnification pursuant to the term of ADT's sub-contract. ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September 2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Alaska Air Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the appeal in the Flight Attendants class action suit remains pending. In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San Francisco wage and hour laws. The court certified a class of approximately 1,800 flight attendants in November 2016. The Company believes the claims in this case are without factual and legal merit. In July 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding Virgin America, and Alaska Airlines, as a successor-in-interest to Virgin America, responsible for various damages and penalties sought by the class members. On February 4, 2019, the Court entered final judgment against Virgin America and Alaska Airlines in the amount of approximately $78 million. It did not award injunctive relief against Alaska Airlines. The Company is seeking an appellate court ruling that the California laws on which the judgment is based are invalid as applied to national airlines pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and federal law and for other employment law and improper class certification reasons. The Company remains confident that a higher court will respect the federal preemption principles that were enacted to shield inter-state common carriers from a patchwork of state and local wage and hour regulations such as those at issue in this case and agree with the Company's other bases for appeal. For these reasons, no loss has been accrued. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Alaska Air Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company operates through three segments: Mainline, Regional, and Horizon. The company was founded in 1932 and is based in Seattle, Washington. ALPHA RECOVERY: Nunez Files Class Suit under FDCPA in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Recovery Corp. The case is styled as Aisha Nunez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alpha Recovery Corp, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04781 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Alpha Recovery Corp is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com - and - Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com AMERICANPEARL.COM: Lee Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- C.K. LEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICANPEARL.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07622 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019) is an action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all consumers in the United States who have received unsolicited and unconsented-to commercial text messages to their mobile phones from Defendant in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff has purchased products from American Pearl in the past but has not done so in over ten years. Plaintiff never consented to receiving promotional and marketing text messages on his mobile phone. In November of 2018, years after he purchased products, Plaintiff received the text promoting Defendant's Black Friday sales. The impersonal nature of the message sent to Plaintiff from a short code number shows that AMERICAN PEARL uses an auto dialer/texter to send its messages. Short code numbers are widely used in automated services. The Defendant does not send messages to its customers on an individual basis that requires human intervention for each message sent. Defendant's unsolicited messages and the process is automated. Other members of the class received the exact same messages at around the same time. The text message sent to Plaintiff was unwanted, annoying, and a nuisance, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of New York and a resident of New York County. AMERICANPEARL.COM, INC., is an online/department store with a principle executive office and address for service of process located at 576 5th Ave, STE 1102, New York, NY 10036.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 ANCHOR GENERAL: Vergara Suit Asserts Wage Abuse ----------------------------------------------- IRMA VERGARA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ANCHOR GENERAL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00042566-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Aug. 14, 2019) is a class action brought pursuant to Section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law. Plaintiff and the other class members were required to work more than 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week without overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, from approximately July 2015 to approximately January 2018. ANCHOR GENERAL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. is a California corporation and an employer whose employees are engaged throughout the State of California, including the County of San Diego.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021 ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Wong Amended Complaint Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arlo Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Wong v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., is pending. Beginning on December 11, 2018, purported stockholders of Arlo Technologies, Inc. filed six putative securities class action complaints in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, and one complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its executives and directors. Some of these actions also name as defendants the underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (IPO) and NETGEAR, Inc. The actions pending in state court are Aversa v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 18CV339231, filed Dec. 11, 2018; Pham v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19CV340741, filed January 9, 2019; Patel v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV340758, filed January 10, 2019; Perros v. NetGear, Inc., No. 19CV342071, filed February 1, 2019; Vardanian v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV342318, filed February 8, 2019; and Hill v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19CV343033, filed February 22, 2019. The action pending in federal court is Wong v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19-CV-00372, filed January 22, 2019 (the "Federal Action"). The complaints generally allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse sales trends ahead of its IPO, violating the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased Arlo common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering documents. In the six state court actions, the court initially issued an order deeming the cases complex and temporarily stayed discovery. The six state actions were then consolidated by the court (as consolidated, the "State Action"), and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 1, 2019. On June 21, 2019, the court stayed the State Action pending resolution of the Federal Action, given the substantial overlap between the claims. The court set a case management conference for January 17, 2020 so the parties can provide an update regarding the status of the Federal Action. In the Federal Action, four investors filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. On May 6, 2019, the court appointed a shareholder named Matis Nayman to serve as lead plaintiff and the law firm of Keller Lenkner LLC as lead counsel. On June 7, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by failing to adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse sales trends surrounding the Company's IPO. The amended complaint also names as defendants the underwriters in the IPO and NETGEAR, Inc. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 6, 2019. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), discovery is stayed until the court rules on the motion to dismiss. Arlo Technologies, Inc. provides smart connected devices to monitor the environments in real-time with a Wi-Fi or a cellular network Internet connection in the Americas, Europe, the Middle-East and Africa, and the Asia Pacific regions. Arlo Technologies, Inc. was incorporated in 2018 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. ATLANTIC CREDIT: Ortiz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Credit & Finance Inc. The case is styled as Jason Ortiz individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atlantic Credit & Finance Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04751 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. provides financial services. The Company offers unsecured and consumer distressed assets, as well as collection and management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL: Ituah Seeks to Certify Rape Victims Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ANISHA H. ITUAH by her Guardian, Angela McKay, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL, ALAN R. ISAACSON, CATHERINE NOTTEBART, and JOHN DOES No. 1-5, EMPLOYEES OF AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00011-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "all patients who have been subjected to sexual assault at Austin State Hospital within the relevant statute of limitations". According to the Plaintiff, the proposed class may be divided into two subclasses: a. "Female Victim Subclass" "all women who were sexually assaulted in Austin State Hospital"; and b. "Inadequate Investigation Subclass" "all patients who reported a sexual assault at Austin State Hospital but whose allegation was not adequately investigated by ASH because of ASH's negligent and discriminatory policies." Ms. Ituah seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. These ASH policies fail to properly investigate reports of assault, fail to hold perpetrators of assault at ASH accountable, and ultimately fail to protect current and future patients from being assaulted. In a vicious cycle, ASH's failure to investigate sexual assaults adequately prevents ASH from taking reasonable measures to prevent sexual assaults, which in turn leads to more sexual assaults that are not properly investigated, beginning the cycle again. Class representative Anisha Ituah was one victim of this cycle of sexual assault at ASH. On average once a week a patient at ASH facility reports being sexually assaulted. The overwhelming majority of ASH's investigations into these reports result in inconclusive determinations such as "unconfirmed." ASH's corporate representative testified that she was not aware of a single case in which basic investigative steps had been taken to preserve evidence essential to determining whether the alleged assault occurred. Specifically, ASH's corporate representative is unaware of ASH ever. The Plaintiff is a mentally disabled 32-year old woman with the approximate mental capacity of a 12-year-old girl. On the night of January 7, 2016, while she was involuntarily committed at ASH, another patient came into her room and raped her, the lawsuit says. As with other victims of sexual assault at ASH, her assault was the result of inadequate patient safety and sexual assault investigation policies, practices, and customs that discriminate against Ms. Ituah and other female victims of sexual assault at ASH on the basis of disability and sex.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Holt M. Lackey, Esq. Jay D. Ellwanger ELLWANGER LAW LLLP 8310-1 N. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 190 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 808-2260 Facsimile: (737) 808-2238 E-mail: jellwanger@equalrights.law hlackey@equalrights.law AXOGEN INC: Einhorn Case Management Report Due Sept. 2 ------------------------------------------------------ AxoGen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Case Management Report in the class action suit initiated by Neil Einhorn, is due September 2, 2019. On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff Neil Einhorn, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the United Stated District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging violations of the federal securities laws against Axogen, Inc., certain of its directors and officers ("Individual Defendants"), and Axogen's 2017 Offering Underwriters and 2018 Offering Underwriters (collectively, with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"), captioned Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc., et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false or misleading statements in connection with the Company's November 2017 registration statement issued regarding its secondary public offering in November 2017 and May 2018 registration statement issued regarding its secondary public offering in May 2018, and during a class period of August 7, 2017 to December 18, 2018. In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued false and misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company aggressively increased prices to mask lower sales; (2) that the Company's pricing alienated customers and threatened the Company's future growth; (3) that ambulatory surgery centers form a significant part of the market for the Company's products; (4) that such centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) that the Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the Company paid to generate sales; (6) that the Company's consignment model for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel stuffing; (7) that the Company offered purchase incentives to sales representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) that the Company's sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue to artificially inflate metrics; (9) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and backdating of revenue; (10) that the Company's key operating metrics, such as number of active accounts, were overstated; and (11) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Axogen was served on January 15, 2019. On February 4, 2019, the court granted the parties' stipulated motion which provided that Axogen is not required to file a response to the complaint until thirty days after Plaintiff files a consolidated amended complaint. On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, and on July 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's opposing papers were due by August 12, 2019. The parties were required to meet and confer by August 19, 2019, for the purposes of filing a Case Management Report by September 2, 2019. On or before 30 days after the Court's ruling on a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff must file a motion for class certification and Defendants must file an opposition 30 days later. Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, reimbursement of expenses and costs, including counsel and expert fees and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. AxoGen said, "The Company and Individual Defendants dispute the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the complaint." AxoGen, Inc. provides surgical solutions for physical damage or transection to peripheral nerves. The company provides its products to hospitals, surgery centers, and military hospitals in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other European countries, and internationally. AxoGen, Inc. is headquartered in Alachua, Florida. BE AMAZED: Has Until Aug. 30 to Reply to Complaint in Lynch Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DALLAS LYNCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. BE AMAZED SANDWICH CO., INC. d/b/a AND a/k/a CAPRIOTTI'S SANDWICH SHOP; MICHAEL SOLOMON, an individual; DOES 1 through 50; inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:18-cv-2425-APG-GWF (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada extended the Defendants' time up to and including Aug. 30, 2019 to answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint. The Complaint sets forth a purported wage and hour class action. The parties have exchanged two new settlement proposals since the last extension, and the Defendant will be making another offer that week. The parties believe time is better spent on settlement negotiations than expending their and the Court's resources on litigation. Therefore, the parties' stipulated, and Magistrate Judge Foley granted, that the Defendants will have an extension of time up to and including Aug. 30, 2019 to answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint. It's the seventh request for an extension of the deadline. A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/7DNu8C from Leagle.com. Dallas Lynch, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices & Kaine M. Messer -- kmesser@gabroy.com -- Gabroy Law Offices. Be Amazed Sandwich Co., Inc., also known as Capriotti's Sandwich Shop, Capriotti's Sandwich Shop & Michael Solomon, Defendants, represented by Scott M. Mahoney -- smahoney@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP. BERNARDUCCI GALLERY: Picon Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------------ Bernarducci Gallery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bernarducci Gallery, Inc. and Bernarducci.Meisel Gallery LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07828 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019). Bernarducci Gallery, Inc. is art gallery.[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 BLUE APRON: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in EDNY Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss a consolidated class action suit filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York remains pending before the Court. The Company is subject to a consolidated putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the Company's June 2017 initial public offering, or the IPO. The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain current and former officers and directors made material misstatements or omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus that caused the stock price to drop. Pursuant to a stipulated schedule entered by the parties, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 21, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a response on July 12, 2018 and defendants filed a reply on August 13, 2018. The motion to dismiss remains pending before the Court. The Company is also subject to two putative class action lawsuits filed in New York Supreme Court alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the IPO, which are substantially similar to the above-referenced federal court action. The parties have entered into stipulations staying the state court actions pending resolution of the motion to dismiss filed in the federal court action. The Company is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any of these lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New York, New York. BLUE APRON: Mediation in Cal. Class Suit Set for November 2019 -------------------------------------------------------------- Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the parties in two class action suits pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, are preparing for mediation scheduled for November 2019. The Company is subject to a lawsuit filed in California Superior Court under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of certain non-exempt employees in the Company's Richmond, California fulfillment center. The complaint was filed on October 16, 2017, and alleges that the Company failed to pay wages and overtime, provide required meal and rest breaks, provide suitable resting facilities and provide accurate wage statements, to non-exempt employees in violation of California law. Plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate class action lawsuit alleging largely the same claims, but covering a longer period, which is now pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company believes that it is likely that the two cases will be consolidated, and the parties are preparing for mediation scheduled for November 2019 in an attempt to resolve both cases. The Company is currently unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits or that adverse resolution of these lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New York, New York. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Court Stays Wijesinha Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a court has stayed the class action suit initiated by Shehan Wijesinha. On January 7, 2019, Shehan Wijesinha filed a purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"). It is alleged that Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU) called plaintiff's cell phone for telemarketing purposes using an automated dialing system, and that plaintiff did not give BVU his express written consent to do so. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class comprised of other persons in the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of the complaint, received similar calls from or on behalf of BVU without the person’s consent. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. On July 15, 2019, the court entered an order staying this case pending a ruling from the Federal Communications Commission clarifying the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system under the TCPA and the decision of the Eleventh Circuit in a separate action brought against a vacation ownership interests (VOI) company by a plaintiff alleging violations of the TCPA. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership company in the United States. It operates through two segments, Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Deal Reached in Hernandez Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the parties in the class action suit initiated by Oscar Hernandez and Estella Michael have mediated and agreed to settle the matter for an immaterial amount. On February 28, 2018, Oscar Hernandez and Estella Michael filed a purported class action litigation in San Bernardino Superior Court against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU). The central claims in the complaint, as amended during June 2018, include alleged failures to pay overtime and wages at termination and to provide meal and rest periods, as well as claims relating to non-compliant wage statements and unreimbursed business expenses; and a claim under the Private Attorney's General Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of approximately 660 hourly, non-exempt employees who worked in the state of California since March 1, 2014. An initial case management conference was held and discovery was stayed pending completion of mediation. In April 2019, the parties mediated and agreed to settle the matter for an immaterial amount. It is expected that the court will approve the settlement and the dismissal of the lawsuit after the settlement documents are executed. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership company in the United States. It operates through two segments, Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Landon Class Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------- Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare. On June 28, 2018, Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company and Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU) asserting claims for alleged violations of the Wisconsin Timeshare Act, Wisconsin law prohibiting illegal referral selling, and Wisconsin law prohibiting illegal attorney's fee provisions. Plaintiffs allegations include that the company failed to disclose the identity of the seller of real property at the beginning of its initial contact with the purchaser; that the company misrepresented who the seller of the real property was; that the company misrepresented the buyer's right to cancel; that the company included an illegal attorney's fee provision in the sales document(s); that the company offered an illegal "today only" incentive to purchase; and that the company utilize an illegal referral selling program to induce the sale of vacation ownership interests (VOIs). Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of all persons who, in Wisconsin, purchased from the company one or more VOIs within six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Bluegreen Vacations We believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership company in the United States. It operates through two segments, Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Paxton-Reeser Accord Okayed, Case Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a court has approved the settlement in and dismissed the class action suit initiated by Whitney Paxton and Jeff Reeser. On August 24, 2016, Whitney Paxton and Jeff Reeser filed a lawsuit against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. ("BVU") and certain of its employees (collectively, the "Defendants"), seeking to establish a class action of former and current employees of BVU and alleging violations of plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the “FLSA”) and breach of contract. The lawsuit also sought damages in the amount of the unpaid compensation owed to the plaintiffs. The court granted preliminary approval of class action in September 2017 to conditionally certify collective action and facilitate notice to potential class members be granted with respect to certain employees and denied as to others. In February 2019, the parties agreed to settle the matter for an immaterial amount. The court approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice on May 9, 2019. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership company in the United States. It operates through two segments, Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Still Defends Potje Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend against the class action suit initiated by Stephen Potje. On September 22, 2017, Stephen Potje, Tamela Potje, Sharon Davis, Beafus Davis, Matthew Baldwin, Tammy Baldwin, Arnor Lee, Angela Lee, Gretchen Brown, Paul Brown, Jeremy Estrada, Emily Estrada, Michael Oliver, Carrie Oliver, Russell Walters, Elaine Walters, and Mike Ericson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against the company which asserts claims for alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Florida False Advertising Law. In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the making of false representations in connection with the company's sales of vacation ownership interests (VOIs), including representations regarding the ability to use points for stays or other experiences with other vacation providers, the ability to cancel VOI purchases and receive a refund of the purchase price and the ability to roll over unused points, and that annual maintenance fees would not increase. The purported class action lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice after mediation. However, on or about April 24, 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their individual claims in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. Bluegreen Vacations said, "We intend to vigorously defend the action." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership company in the United States. It operates through two segments, Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC. C.A.R.E. INC: Rainey Labor Suit Seeks Proper Wages -------------------------------------------------- LEOTHA RAINEY, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.A.R.E., INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-12227 (E.D. La., Aug. 19, 2019) seeks recognition as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards. According to the complaint, the Defendants pursued a policy and/or practice of not paying Plaintiff and those similarly situated proper overtime amounts for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. This policy and/or practice included not calculating the proper rate of pay for overtime hours, and/or not paying time and a half for all overtime hours based on an employee's regular rate of pay. Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals were, on a regular and routine basis, instructed by Defendants to work in excess of 40 hours per week but were not always paid the correct rate of pay for both regular time and/or for overtime, for such work, but were instead: 1) sometimes not paid any overtime at all; 2) sometimes paid straight time for all hours of work; 3) sometimes were paid a lower rate of pay for regular hours; and 4) sometimes were paid an incorrect (lower) rate of pay for overtime hours which was erroneously calculated on an incorrect (lower) rate of "regular-hour" pay, says the complaint. Plaintiff is an employee of Defendant, CARE. CARE, INC. (Consulting and Advice for the Retired and Elderly) is a domestic corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John O. Pieksen, Jr., Esq. John Pieksen & Associates, LLC 829 Baronne Street, NO, LA 70113 Office: (504) 581-9322 Fax: (504) 581-7652 Email: jpieksen@cox.net CAPTAIN LAWRENCE: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Captain Lawrence Brewing, LLC. The case is styled as James Murphy and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Captain Lawrence Brewing, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07742 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Captain Lawrence Brewing Company is a craft brewery located in Elmsford, New York. The brewery is owned and run by head brewer Scott Vaccaro.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zare Khorozian, Esq. Zare Khorozian Law, LLC 1047 Anderson Avenue Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Phone: (201) 957-7269 Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Shin Asserts Breach of FDCPA ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio Services LLC. The case is styled as Ho Y Shin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry Portfolio Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01309 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 20, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cavalry Portfolio Services LLC is a debt collection agency located in Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com CLEAR CHANNEL: GAMCO & Norfolk Suits Concluded ---------------------------------------------- Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Debtors' plan of reorganization went effective, and the Norfolk Lawsuit and GAMCO II Lawsuit were each subsequently dismissed with prejudice. On August 27, 2018, a stockholder of the Company that had filed a derivative lawsuit against iHeartMedia and others in 2016 (GAMCO Asset Management Inc.) filed a putative class action lawsuit (the "GAMCO II Lawsuit") in the Delaware Chancery Court, captioned GAMCO Asset Management, Inc. v. Hendrix, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0633-JRS. The complaint names as defendants the Former Sponsor Defendants and the members of the Company's board of directors. The complaint alleges that minority shareholders in the Company during the period November 8, 2017 to March 14, 2018 were harmed by decisions of the Company's board of directors and the intercompany note committee of the board of directors relating to the intercompany note. The plaintiff sought, among other things, a ruling that the Company's board of directors, the intercompany note committee, and the Sponsor Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and that the Sponsor Defendants aided and abetted the Board's breach of fiduciary duty; and an award of damages, together with pre- and post-judgment interests, to the putative class of minority shareholders. On December 16, 2018, the Debtors, the Company, GAMCO Asset Management, Inc., and Norfolk County Retirement System entered into a settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"), which resolves all claims, objections, and other causes of action that have been or could be asserted by or on behalf of the Company, GAMCO Asset Management, Inc., and/or Norfolk County Retirement System by and among the Debtors, the Company, GAMCO Asset Management, Inc., certain individual defendants in the GAMCO Asset Management, Inc. action and/or the Norfolk County Retirement System action, and the private equity sponsor defendants in such actions. The Settlement Agreement provides for the consensual separation of the Debtors and the Company, including approximately $149.0 million of recovery to CCOH on account of its claim against iHeartCommunications in the Chapter 11 cases, an unsecured revolving line of credit in an aggregate amount not to exceed $200 million from iHeartCommunications (the "iHeart Line of Credit"), the transfer of certain of the Debtors' intellectual property to the Company, the waiver by the Debtors of the setoff for the value of the transferred intellectual property, mutual releases, the termination of the cash sweep under the existing Corporate Services Agreement, the termination of any agreements or licenses requiring royalty payments from the Company to the Debtors for trademarks or other intellectual property, the waiver of any post-petition amounts owed by the Company relating to such trademarks or other intellectual property, and the execution of a new transition services agreement and other separation documents. The Settlement Agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in connection with the confirmation of the iHeartMedia Chapter 11 Cases on January 22, 2019. On May 1, 2019, the Debtors' plan of reorganization went effective, and the Norfolk Lawsuit and GAMCO II Lawsuit were each subsequently dismissed with prejudice. Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc., an outdoor advertising company, owns and operates advertising display faces in the United States and internationally. It operates through two segments, Americas Outdoor Advertising and International Outdoor Advertising. The company was incorporated in 1995 and is headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of iHeartCommunications, Inc. COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Conner Files Class Suit under ADA ------------------------------------------------------ Colourpop Cosmetics, LLC 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. Colourpop Cosmetics, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04787 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019). ColourPop Cosmetics, also known as ColourPop, is a cosmetics brand based in Los Angeles, California. The company was founded in 2014 by siblings Laura and John Nelson. ColourPop products are available online through their website or at Ulta Beauty.[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 CONSOL ENERGY: Still Defends Casey Suit in West Virginia -------------------------------------------------------- CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend against the consolidated Casey class action suit in West Virginia federal court. Three nonunion retired coal miners have sued Fola Coal Company LLC, Consolidation Coal Company ("CCC") and CONSOL of Kentucky Inc. ("COK") (as well as the Company's former parent) in West Virginia Federal Court alleging ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care benefits. The Plaintiffs contend they relied to their detriment on oral statements and promises of "lifetime health benefits" allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs' employment and that they were allegedly denied access to Summary Plan Documents that clearly reserved the right to modify or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan subject to Plaintiffs' claims. Pursuant to Plaintiffs' amended complaint filed on April 24, 2017, Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated and seek to represent a class of all nonunion retirees who were associated with AMVEST and COK areas of operation. The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to vigorously defend this suit. A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of two nonunion retired coal miners against Consolidation Coal Company (CCC), CONSOL of Kentucky Inc. (COK), CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori in West Virginia Federal Court alleging ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care benefits. Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits" allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs’ employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan. Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the Company's former parent that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated. On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey. The Casey complaint was amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs, add defendant CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and eliminate defendant CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand the class of retirees. The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to vigorously defend this suit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous coal. It owns and operates its mining operations in the Northern Appalachian Basin. The company owns and operates the Pennsylvania Mining Complex (PAMC), which comprises three underground mines, including Bailey, Enlow Fork, and Harvey; and CONSOL Marine Terminal located in the port of Baltimore. CONSOL Energy Inc. was founded in 1864 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Dillard Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Yvonne Dillard individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04768 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com CORE-MARK INT'L: Cunha Files Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Core-Mark International, Inc. The case is styled as James E. Cunha, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Core-Mark International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Does 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC19578535 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco County, Aug. 20, 2019). The case type is stated as other non exempt complaints. Core-Mark Holding Company distributes fresh, chilled and frozen merchandise mainly to convenience stores in the United States. It also provides associated business services such as category management and management of promotions.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CVS HEALTH: Anarkat et al Suit Moved to District of Rhode Island ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Janak Anarkat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware; and City of Miami Fire Fighters and Police Officers Retirement Trust, the Plaintiffs, vs. CVS Health Corporation, Larry J. Merlo, David M. Denton, Jonathan C. Roberts, Robert O. "Rocky" Kraft, and Eva C. Boratto, the Defendants, and Levon Kasparian, Deborah McMahon, and Gary Harris, the Movants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01725 (Filed Feb. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (Providence) on Aug 16, 2019. The District of Rhode Island Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00437-JJM-PAS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge John J. McConnell. Jr. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired CVS Health securities between May 21, 2015 and February 20, 2019, both dates inclusive, 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 against the Defendants.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Brian Peter Calandra, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 - and - Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1625 N. Commerce Parkway Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (866) 849-7545 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Attorneys for the Defendants are George Anthony Borden, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5563 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 - and - Steven M. Farina, Esq. Amanda M. MacDonald, Esq. Elizabeth Wilson, Esq. Michael Mestitz, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 12TH Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5526 Email: sfarina@wc.com Attorneys for Levon Kasparian are: Phillip C. Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 275 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Attorneys for Deborah McMahon are: Lesley Frank Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Attorneys for the Gary Harris are: Shannon Lee Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 CVS HEALTH: Waterford Township Sues over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------- WATERFORD TOWNSHIP POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on behalf of All others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, LARRY J. MERLO, DAVID M. DENTON, EVA C. BORATTO, RICHARD M. BRACKEN, C. DAVID BROWN II, ALECIA A. DeCOUDREAUX, NANCY -ANN M. DePARLEM DAVID W. DORMAN, ANNE M. FINUCANE, JEAN PIERRE-MELLON, MARY L. SCHAPIRO, RICHARD J. SWIFT, WILLIAM C. WELDON, TONY L. WHITE, MARK T. BERTOLINI, FERNANDO AGUIRRE, FRANK M. CLARK, MOLLY J. COYE, ROGER N. FARAH, JEFFREY E. GARTEN, ELLEN M. HANCOCK, RICHARD J. HARRINGTON, EDWARD J. LUDWIG and OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00434 (D.R.I., Aug. 15, 2019), is a securities class action on behalf of all former Aetna shareholders who acquired CVS shares in exchange for their Aetna shares in connection with the CVS's acquisition of Aetna on November 28, 2018. To acquire Aetna, CVS would need to: (i) convince credit rating agencies that a $40 billion debt offering -- to fund the Acquisition's cash consideration -- would not overly burden CVS and jeopardize CVS's investment grade ratings, and (ii) convince Aetna's shareholders that the CVS stock consideration they would be receiving in the Acquisition was fairly and accurately priced. To execute the CVS stock component of the Acquisition, the Defendants prepared and filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4 with the SEC that was declared effective on February 9, 2018. The Offering Documents contained materially and/or misleading statements about CVS's compliance with Generally Accepted Principles, In particular, CVS falsely represented in the Offering Documents provided to investors that it had properly accounted for its $6+ billion goodwill asset, as reported in the "LTC unit" associated with CVS's 2015 acquisition of long-term care (LTC) pharmacies of Omnicare, Inc. Since November 28, 2018, Aetna has been a subsidiary of CVS. The acquisition was indicative of CVS's bold response to the expected entry by Amazon, Inc., into the pharmacy and healthcare space. In sum, Aetna as a "must have" for CVS. The Defendants announced that the acquisition was formally closed with Aetna shareholders receiving CVS stock valued at $80 per share. However, the full extent of CVS's Omnicare woes had not been fully disclosed to the market. In late February 2019, CVS announced a second multi-billion-dollar impairment charge to its Omnicare-related goodwill, this time a 2.2 billion impairment to be recognized in the fourth quarter of 2018. CVS cited "operational challenges" as a basis for this second massive charge. As a shocked ans dismayed market digested the second round of Omnicare-related bad news, the price of CVS shares slid the mid-$50s, where the stock has traded continuously for the last five months, substantially lower than its peers. For example, since February 20, 2019 CVS's share value has declined over 13% relative to healthcare-related funds -- Health Care Select Sector SPDR Fund and Vanguard Healthcare ETF -- the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Barry J. Kusinitz, Esq. BDG LAWYERS 155 South Main Street, Suite 405 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: 401 831 4200 Facsimile: 401 831 7053 E-mail: bksinitz@bdglawyers.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367 7100 Facsimile: (631) 367 1173 E-mail: srudman@rgdlaw.com mblasy@rgdlaw.com DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses D. Morgan's Suit --------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, issued an Order dismissing the Pro Se Civil Rights Complaint in the case captioned DAVION MORGAN, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS COUNTY JAIL FACILITY, Defendant. No. 3:19-cv-01513-C (BT). (N.D. Tex.). Plaintiff, an inmate in the Dallas County jail, and others filed a putative class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging the Dallas County jail is violating their rights by segregating inmates into housing units based on race. The Court determined Plaintiff and the other inmates should not be allowed to proceed as a class and ordered that the case be severed into individual actions to allow each inmate to represent himself. The Court further ordered each individual plaintiff to pay a filing fee of $400.00 or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee; nor did he file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court sent Plaintiff a notice of deficiency reminding him to pay the filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The deficiency notice was returned to the Court because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated in the Dallas County jail. Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any forwarding or alternate address. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. Here, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a current address, so the Court is unable to communicate with him and advise him of the requirement to pay the fee or file an appropriate motion. This litigation cannot proceed until Plaintiff provides the Court with his current address. The complaint should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyu52ptt from Leagle.com. Davion Morgan, Plaintiff, pro se. DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses T. Lynn's Suit ------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, issued an Order dismissing Pro Se Civil Rights Complaint in the case captioned TITUS LYNN, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS COUNTY JAIL FACILITY, Defendant. No. 3:19-cv-01502-C (BT). (N.D. Tex.). Plaintiff, an inmate in the Dallas County jail, and others filed a putative class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging the Dallas County jail is violating their rights by segregating inmates into housing units based on race. The Court determined Plaintiff and the other inmates should not be allowed to proceed as a class and ordered that the case be severed into individual actions to allow each inmate to represent himself. The Court further ordered each individual plaintiff to pay a filing fee of $400.00 or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee; nor did he file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court sent Plaintiff a notice of deficiency reminding him to pay the filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The deficiency notice was returned to the Court because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated in the Dallas County jail. Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any forwarding or alternate address. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua spontefor failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. Here, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a current address, so the Court is unable to communicate with him and advise him of the requirement to pay the fee or file an appropriate motion. This litigation cannot proceed until Plaintiff provides the Court with his current address. The complaint should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4dlt4pp from Leagle.com. Titus Lynn, Plaintiff, pro se. DEILY & GLASTETTER: Ortiz Alleges Violation under FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deily & Glastetter, LLP. The case is styled as Edwin Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Deily & Glastetter, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04784 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Deily & Glastetter, LLP is an Albany, New York-based law firm with a national client base and reputation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: (631) 335-1107 Email: mpash@verizon.net DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Weller Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Jeffrey L. Schmehl denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class in the lawsuit styled CHRISTOPHER WELLER v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Case No. 5:17-cv-02292-JLS (E.D. Pa.). The Plaintiff's Motions to Seal Documents and to Certify Class are denied with leave to renew after Magistrate Rice issues a decision following his evidentiary hearing pursuant to Gulf Oil v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (1981), according to the Order.[CC] DRAPER AND KRAMER: Kanacevic Suit Asserts BIPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Camil Kanacevic, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRAPER AND KRAMER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05509 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., Aug. 14, 2019) is a class action complaint against Defendant to stop the Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information pursuant to the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act ("BIPA"). This case concerns Defendant's conduct of capturing, collecting, storing, and using Plaintiff's and other workers' biometric information without regard to BIPA and the concrete privacy right and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA protects. The Defendant does this in the form of finger scans, which capture a person's fingerprint, and then Defendant uses that fingerprint to identity that same person in the future. In direct violation of the foregoing provisions, Defendant actively captures, collects, stores, and uses without obtaining informed written consent or publishing its data and retention and deletion policies, the biometrics of hundreds of its workers throughout the State of Illinois whose fingerprints are captured and stored for timekeeping purposes, says the complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Building Engineer from January 2011 to July 2016. Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Castiglione, Esq. Kasif Khowaja, Esq. The Khowaja Law Firm, LLC 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 356-3200 Fax: (312) 386-5800 Email: keith@khowajalaw.com mhilicki@khowajalaw.com - and - James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. Law Office of James X. Bormes, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 201-0575 Fax: (312) 332-0600 Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Goldman Files Class Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services LLC. The case is styled as Yochonon Goldman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04793 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit. Equifax Information Services LLC provides data solutions. The Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. Adam J. Fishbein, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Tel: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com FACEBOOK, INC: Skipper et al Sue over Marketing of Ad Platform -------------------------------------------------------------- KISHA SKIPPER, JAZMINE SPENCER, DEILLO RICHARDS, on behalf of themselves individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FACEBOOK, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-5081 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2019), contends that Facebook has created, implemented and/or maintained a pre-populated list of demographics, behaviors and interests that makes it possible for real estate brokers and landlords to exclude certain buyers or renters from ever seeing their ads. This action called "redlining" and Facebook's practice of redlining is illegal and prohibited under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), a statute promulgated to prohibit discrimination in housing markets in the United States. Facebook, under the auspices of being a social-networking site, mines, collects, purchases, and assembles into individual profiles countless terabytes of data in multitudes of categories (demographics data), about Facebook's approximately two billion active monthly users worldwide. Facebook uses its demographics data to permit real estate brokers and landlords to create, publish and send ads to certain groups of Facebook users. More importantly, Facebook also uses its demographics data to permit Facebook and its advertisers to avoid publishing, providing, or sending ads to Facebook users in certain protected classes. Facebook's Ad Platform allowed and/or facilitated omission of certain Facebook users based on their real or perceived personal characteristics, by purposefully and intentionally creating, developing, and/or using the "Exclude People" feature. The Ad Platform also permits advertisers to include only certain users with perceived "favored" personal characteristics, thereby excluding users who lack the favored personal characteristics. Facebook thus created and developed its Ad Platform with its anti-diversity Multicultural Affinity tool that Facebook and its advertisers have used to avoid publishing, providing or sending information or content to users in protected classes, while defendant published, provided, and/or sent the same information and content to other Facebook users who are not in protected classes, the lawsuit says. The FHA prohibits both publishers and advertisers from publishing tailored advertisements based on sex, familial status, disability, national origin, race and other protected classes.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members are: Michael D. Seplow, Esq. Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP 11543 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: 310-396-0731 Facsimile: 310-399-7040 E-mail: mseplow@sshhlaw.com amcglaze@sshhlaw.com - and - Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. David Honigman, Esq. Kathryn Eisenstein, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: 248-457-9200 Facsimile: (248)-457-9201 E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com dhonigman@manteselaw.com keisenstein@manteselaw.com - and - Wilmer Harris, Esq. Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP 715 Fremont Ave., Suite A, South Pasadena, CA 91030 Telephone: 626-441-4129 Facsimile: 626-283-5770 E-mail: wharris@sshhlaw.com - and - Patricia A. Stamler, Esq. Elizabeth Thomson, Esq. Matthew Turchyn, Esq. HERTZ SCHRAM PC 1760 South Telegraph Road, Ste 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: 248-335-5000 Facsimile: 248-335-3346 E-mail: pstamler@hertzschram.com lthomson@hertzschram.com mturchyn@hertzschram.com FCA US: Van Ness Sues over Defective Airbag Control Unit -------------------------------------------------------- Michael Van Ness, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FCA US LLC, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, MITSUBISHI MOTORS NORTH AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., ZF-TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., and TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-07153 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2019), alleges that an airbag manufacturer and automakers concealed a deadly airbag performance defect. The complaint contends that knowledge and information regarding the ACU Defect and the associated safety risk was in the exclusive and superior possession of Defendants, and was not disclosed to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes, who could not reasonably discover the defect through due diligence. Through pre-production testing, design failure mode analysis, wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits, post-collision inspections, vehicle owner questionnaires, and NHTSA investigations, inter alia, the Defendants were aware of the ACU Defect and fraudulently concealed the defect from Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes.[BN] Attorneys for Michael Van Ness are: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua Samra, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (415) 445-4020 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com adavis@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com - and - Peter Safirstein, Esq. Elizabeth S. Metcalf, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, 59 th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 201-2855 Facsimile: (212) 201-2858 E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com emetcalf@safirsteinmetcalf.com - and - Ex Kano S. Sams II, 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: sams@glancylaw.com FENIX PARTS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class as Moot ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as AMANDA BEEZLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. FENIX PARTS, INC. et al., the Defendants, Case No. l7-cv-7896 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Charles R. Norgle entered an order on Aug. 19, 2019, denying as moot Bernard, Weeks, and White's motion certify class and for appointment of class representatives, in light of the parties' representation to Magistrate Judge Cole on June 3, 2019, that this case has settled. Fenix Parts is an insurance quality automotive parts recycler with operations throughout the Eastern U.S.[CC] FIAT CHRYSLER: Hightman Suit Transferred to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case, Wendy Hightman on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Fiat Chrysler US LLC; Does 1 Through 10; and FCA US LLC , Case No. 3:18-cv-02205 (Filed, Sept 24, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Southern District of California, to the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Aug. 16, 2019. The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-07681-VSB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick. The case is a civil action challenging Chrysler Automobiles US LLC's breach of its Lifetime Limited Powertrain Warranties for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep vehicles sold and delivered on or after July 26, 2007, with a Lifetime Powertrain Warranty.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: David Christopher Wright, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: E-madcw@mccunewright.com - and - Douglas Carl Sohn, Esq. SOHN AND ASSOCIATES 16870 W. Bernardo Dr., Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (619) 237-7646 Facsimile: (858) 759-4299 E-mail: dsohn@sohnlaw.com Attorneys for FCA US LLC are: Edwin Mendelson Boniske, Esq. HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK, LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 236-1551 Facsimile: (619) 696-1410 E-mail: boniske@higgslaw.com - and - Kathleen Ann Wisniewski, Esq. Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 552-6337 Facsimile: (314) 552-7000 E-mail: kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Marshall Alleges Violation under FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery Services, Inc. The case is styled as Robin R. Marshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04788 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Financial Recovery Services (FRS) is a debt collection agency located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com - and - Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com FORD MOTOR: Fails to Truly Show Fuel Economy Ratings, Drake Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DILLON DRAKE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-12375-SFC (S.D. Fla., Aug. 12, 2019), is brought against Ford on behalf of all purchasers and lessees of Ford F-150 vehicles for its failure to accurately represent Environmental Protection Agency fuel economy ratings. Ford Motor Company is a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Dearborn Michigan. Ford conducts business in all 50 states, including Florida. Ford manufactures, sells, and warrants the Plaintiff's vehicle and those sold to members of the classes the Plaintiff seeks to represent.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Mike Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 E-mail: MMorgan@forthepeople.com FORSTER & GARBUS: Summary Judgment in Mandelos FDCPA Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELISA J. MANDELOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP and THE FORSTER GROUP, INC. Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-3821 (SJF)(GRB)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Susan J. Feuerstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On July 2, 2018, Mandelos commenced the putative class action against Defendants Forster & Garbus, LLP ("F&G") and The Forster Group, Inc. ("TFG"), alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff originally incurred the subject debt to Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. ("Citibank"), and fell behind on the payments owed at some unidentified time thereafter. The Debt was subsequently assigned or otherwise transferred to TFG for collection. On Dec. 28, 2011, a judgment was entered against the Plaintiff in the District Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, in a consumer credit action, The Forster Group, Inc. APO Citibank v. Mandelos, No. CV-036370-11/NA. Joel D. Leiderman, Esq., a senior associate attorney with F&G, avers, based upon his personal review of F&G's account collection notes concerning the Plaintiff maintained in the ordinary course of business, that the judgment: (i) was entered against the Plaintiff in the amount of $4,788.58; (ii) has been accruing interest at the rate of 9% per annum; and (iii) was in the total amount of $7,763.38 as of Oct. 8, 2018. Dorster makes similar factual averments. In an effort to collect the Debt, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff by letter dated July 6, 2017. The Letter, inter alia, sets forth a "Balance Due as of July 6, 2017," in the amount of $7,221.76; "provides a settlement offer;" and states, "If the above settlement offer is not accepted by you and if interest or other charges or fees accrue on this account, after the date of this letter, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater." The complaint alleges, inter alia, (i) that the Defendants had no authority to add interest to the debt, to add 'other charges' to the debt, or to add 'fees' to the debt; (ii) that the Letter would lead the least sophisticated consumer to believe that the Defendants had authority to add interest to the debt, to add 'other charges' to the debt, and to add "fees" to the debt; and (iii) that the Defendants, thus, violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e. Leiderman and Forster aver that in conjunction with the directives of TFG, F&G (i) is authorized to accept a sum less than the amount set forth in the Letter; and (ii) was authorized to collect post-judgment interest, costs and fees if the Plaintiff did not agree to enter into a lesser amount settlement. The Defendants now move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Initially, Judge Feuerstein finds that there is no genuine dispute that the Letter "provides a settlement offer." What the complaint challenges as false or misleading about the Letter is only the statement leading the least sophisticated consumer to believe that defendants had authority to add interest, "other charges" and "fees" to the Debt if the settlement offer was not accepted by the recipient. The Defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting affidavits of their members and/or employees clearly indicating that they were, in fact, authorized to collect post-judgment interest, costs and fees if the Plaintiff did not agree to enter into a lesser amount settlement. Accordingly, the Letter was not inaccurate in leading the least sophisticated consumer to believe that the Defendants had authority to recover post-judgment interest, fees and "other charges," and, thus, does not violate Section 1692e. Since the Letter accurately conveyed to the Plaintiff that post-judgment interest, fees and "other charges" were possible, i.e., that the amount of the debt stated therein might increase over time, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted and the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court will enter judgment in favor of defendants and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/7XIgtE from Leagle.com. Elisa J. Mandelos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Sanders -- csanders@sanderslawpllc.com -- Barshay Sanders, PLLC, David M. Barshay, Barshay Sanders, PLLC, Erica Carvajal, Sanders Law LLC & Jonathan Mark Cader, Barshay Sanders, PLLC. Forster & Garbus, LLP & The Forster Group, Inc., Defendants, represented by Robert L. Arleo -- RArleoESq@gmail.com -- Robert L. Arleo, Esq.. FORTERRA INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Class Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss by defendants in the IPO-related class action suit. Beginning on August 14, 2017, four plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against various defendants. On July 27, 2018, an order was entered consolidating the lawsuits into a single action (the "Securities Action"), and transferring the venue of the case from the Eastern District of New York to the Northern District of Texas. On September 17, 2018, an order was entered appointing Wladislaw Maciuga as lead plaintiff and approving his counsel as lead counsel. Pursuant to an agreed scheduling order, plaintiffs in the Securities Action filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint on November 30, 2018. The Securities Action is brought by two plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the initial public offering (IPO) and is brought against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, Lone Star and certain of its affiliates, and certain banks that acted as underwriters of the IPO (collectively, the "Securities Defendants"). The Securities Action generally alleges that the Company's registration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with the IPO (the "Registration Statement") contained false or misleading statements and/or omissions of material facts. Specifically, plaintiffs allege the Registration Statement (1) made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's ability to generate organic growth through cross-selling initiatives amongst the Company's various businesses while failing to disclose that the Company had not adequately integrated acquisitions, had not begun rolling out its cross-selling initiative, and that its businesses were submitting competing bids against one another, and (2) made false or misleading statements regarding the existence of certain accounting practices and alleged material weaknesses in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, including the existence of and accounting for bill and hold transactions, the lack of sufficient accounting personnel, the lack of effective internal controls to ensure costs were properly and accurately accrued, resulting in misstated costs and profits in the Company's 2016 financial statements, and the making of inventory accounting entries without adequate substantiation or documentation. The Securities Action asserts claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") and seeks (1) class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) damages suffered by plaintiffs and other class members, (3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, (4) reasonable counsel fees and expert fees, and other costs and expenses reasonably incurred, and (5) other relief the court deems appropriate. On February 15, 2019, the Securities Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims in the case based on plaintiffs' failure to state a claim. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on May 1, 2019, and the court has not yet ruled on the motion. Forterra said, "The parties have agreed to mediate the Securities Action, and the mediation is scheduled to occur in the third quarter 2019." Forterra, Inc. manufactures and sells pipe and precast products the United States, Canada, and Mexico. It operates through Drainage Pipe & Products; and Water Pipe & Products segments. Forterra, Inc. was founded in 2016 and is headquartered in Irving, Texas. GLAMSQUAD INC: Slade Alleges Website not Blind-accessible --------------------------------------------------------- LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. GLAMSQUAD, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07506 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2019), arises from Glamsquad's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Glamsquad, Inc., is a Delaware Foreign Business Corporation doing business in New York with its principal place of business located in New York City. Glamsquad.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to browse the various hair, makeup and nail services on demand that are available, make bookings for a specific day and time, select upgrades, make purchases of hair and makeup products, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com GLOBAL CREDIT: Lugo Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit & Collection Corp. The case is styled as Miguel Lugo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04786 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Global Credit & Collection Corp is one of the companies that engages in collection activities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com - and - Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 defendants in the class action suit related to GSE Bond Antitrust Suit remains pending. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the dealers named as defendants in numerous putative antitrust class actions relating to debt securities issued by Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation and Federal Home Loan Banks (collectively, the GSEs), filed beginning in February 2019 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 23, 2019, asserts claims under federal antitrust law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the secondary market for debt securities issued by the GSEs. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in unspecified amounts. Defendants moved to dismiss on June 13, 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: Bid to Dismiss US Treasury Securities Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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's motion to dismiss litigation related to the sale of U.S. Treasury securities is still pending. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017. The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29, 2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms in order to impede competition in the bidding process. The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an unspecified amount and restitution. Defendants moved to dismiss on February 23, 2018. 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: Continues to Defend NY Securities Lending Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 (Group Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.), continues to defend itself from an antitrust suit involving securities lending practices. The Company ("Group Inc."), Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action and three individual actions relating to securities lending practices filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in August 2017. The complaints generally assert claims under federal and state antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of electronic platforms for securities lending transactions. The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious interference with business relations and under state trade practices law and, in the second and third individual actions, unjust enrichment under state common law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble, punitive and other damages. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action on January 26, 2018. Defendants moved to dismiss the first individual action on June 1, 2018 and moved to dismiss the second individual action on December 21, 2018. Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied on September 27, 2018. 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. HOME DEPOT: Violates Calif. Labor Code, Barragan Suit Asserts ------------------------------------------------------------- DONNIE SANCHEZ BARRAGAN and ARACELI BARRAGAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-2019-00042161-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Aug. 12, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code by failing to provide the Plaintiffs and Class Members with accurate itemized wage statements at the end of each pay period. Home Depot is an active corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware. The Plaintiffs do not know the true names and/or capacities of the Doe Defendants. Home Depot is one of the largest home improvement companies in the United States. Home Depot owns and/or operates hundreds of retail stores throughout California, selling tools, construction products and services to California customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Shaun Markley, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org smarkley@nicholaslaw.org J. DIAMOND: Watson Seeks Overtime Wages for Field Supervisors ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE J. DIAMOND GROUP, INC., and WILFRED D BLOOD, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00646-O (N.D. Tex., Aug. 16, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, Plaintiff was not paid time-and-one-half of his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Rather, Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as exempt from the requirements of the FLSA and paid him primarily on a salaried basis and without regard to the number of hours Plaintiff actually worked. The Plaintiff Watson was employed by Defendants from approximately December 1, 2015 to December 30, 2018. While employed in this capacity, Plaintiff was employed as a "Field Supervisor" or "Sergeant" for Defendant TDG at a Fort Worth central location that supplies guards to other "post locations" in North Texas.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jay Forester, Esq. D. Matthew Haynie, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Faces Suits over Precious Metals Futures -------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself in lawsuits related to alleged manipulation of precious metals futures Various authorities, including the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, are conducting investigations relating to trading practices in the metals markets and related conduct. The Firm is responding to and cooperating with these investigations. Several putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Firm and certain current and former employees, alleging a precious metals futures and options price manipulation scheme in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. Some of the complaints also allege unjust enrichment and deceptive acts or practices under the General Business Law of the State of New York. The Court consolidated these putative class actions in February 2019. The Firm is also a defendant in a consolidated action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging monopolization of silver futures in violation of the Sherman Act. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase & Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New York. JSTC, LLC: Thomas Seeks OT Pay for Delivery Associates ------------------------------------------------------ ANDREA THOMAS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, vs. JSTC, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01528 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 16, 2019), alleges that JSTC failed to comply with applicable wage laws and to pay its non-exempt Delivery Associates for all the time they worked -- including overtime -- as was required to deliver hundreds of Amazon packages each day and meet Amazon's delivery needs, and seeks all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff and Collective Members are entitled to be paid overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek pursuant to the FLSA. The Defendant knowingly failed to compensate Plaintiff and Collective Members for all hours worked when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week and failed to pay proper overtime premiums at a rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly wage, the lawsuit says. JSTC is a Delivery Service Provider of Amazon.com LLC and Amazon Logistics, Inc. that employs individuals, such as Plaintiff and members of the proposed Collective, to deliver packages to Amazon customers (Delivery Associates). Amazon is one of the largest businesses engaged in the interstate shipment of goods in the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed FLSA Collective are: Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK P.A. P.O. Box 1870 Lady Lake, FL 32158 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Michaela L. Wallin, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net mwallin@bm.net kconnon@bm.net - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24 th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 Facsimile: (215) 567-2310 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com KCI USA: Palmer Sues Over Illegal Automatically Dialed Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ CATHERINE PALMER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KCI USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-03084 (D. Neb., Aug. 19, 2019) is a case involving activities conducted by Defendant in contacting individuals believed to be its debtors through use of automated calls and prerecorded messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the Federal Communications Commission. The Defendant violated the TCPA by making calls to Plaintiff and Class members using an "automatic telephone dialing system" and/or an "artificial or prerecorded voice" as described in the TCPA, without Plaintiff's and Class members' prior express consent within the meaning of the TCPA. Plaintiff, therefore, brings this action for injunctive relief and statutory damages to hold Defendant accountable for its illegal activities in utilizing automatically dialed calls to solicit payment from individuals it presumably (but wrongfully) believed to be debtors, says the complaint. Plaintiff Catherine Palmer is an individual citizen of the State of Nebraska residing in the City of Ewing. KCI touts that it is a leader in negative pressure wound therapy, providing solutions for both wound healing and surgical management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 803-1578 Fax: (561) 961-5684 Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60630 Phone: 312.283.3814 Fax: 773.496.8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com KIDBOX LLC: Nisbett Files Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------ Kidbox LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kidbox LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07775 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019). KIDBOX is a children's clothing retailer.[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 KITTLE HOUSE: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kittle House on the Hudson, LP. The case is styled as James Murphy and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kittle House on the Hudson, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07751 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kittle House on the Hudson, LP is a farm-to-table restaurant, that offers award winning wine cellar, and bed & breakfast at Lawrence Farms, Chappaqua NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zare Khorozian, Esq. Zare Khorozian Law, LLC 1047 Anderson Avenue Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Phone: (201) 957-7269 Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com KROGER COMPANY:Vancour Seeks Overtime Pay for Employees ------------------------------------------------------- CHAD VANCOUR, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. KROGER COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, and PEYTON'S SOUTHEASTERN, INC. d/b/a Peyton's Mid-South, a Tennessee Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00713 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 15, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages for Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours during workweeks between August 7, 2016 and the present. Because Defendants did not properly calculate Plaintiff's regular rate of pay, Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals were paid overtime at a rate lower than permissible under the FLSA, the lawsuit says. Mr. Chad Vancour was an employee of Peyton's Mid-South at all times relevant to the complaint. Kroger Company is a publicly traded company that owns grocery stores parts of their grocery supply-chain including Peyton's Southeast, Inc. Peyton's Southeast, Inc. is a subsidiary of Kroger and does business as Peyton's Mid-South. Peyton's Mid-South is a warehousing facility and distribution facility that distributes inventory to Kroger-owned grocery stores.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees are: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com - and - Nina Parsley, Esq. PONCE LAW 400 Professional Park Drive Goodlettsville, TN 37072 E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com LANGUAGE INTEGRATED: Velez-Cortes Seeks Overtime Wages for Workers ------------------------------------------------------------------ FERNANDO ERNESTO VELEZ-CORTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LANGUAGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-23426-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute. Velez-Cortes and those similarly situated regularly worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. But, the Defendant failed to properly compensate overtime wages for the workers. Instead, during the relevant time period, the Defendant paid workers the same hourly rate for all hours worked up to 40 hours, and no additional pay after those hours over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant provides quality document translations to international companies and interpretation services for conferences, meeting and trainings to a large multicultural network of clients, which includes private companies, government entities, NGOs, professional associations, meeting planners, production companies, and many more. To implement this work, the Defendant hired workers such as Velez-Cortes to perform skilled and manual labor to restore power lines in Puerto Rico.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: 954-WORKERS Facsimile: 954-327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@ForThePeople.com - and - Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com LION OIL TRADING: Class Certification Sought in Fuller Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CLARA FULLER, et al. v. LION OIL TRADING & TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01020-SOH-BAB (W.D. Ark.), moves for class action certification. Clara Fuller, of Kansas City, Kansas, appears pro se.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: G. Alan Perkins, Esq. PPGMR LAW PLLC 101 River Bluff Drive, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 603-9000 E-mail: alan@ppgmrlaw.com M.L. ZAGER PC: Werzberger Asserts Breach of FDCPA ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against M.L. Zager, P.C. The case is styled as Sarah Werzberger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.L. Zager, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-07805 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Law Office of Michael L. Zager, P.C., is a full-service, debt collection law firm with 38 years of experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com - and - Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com MARK OF EXCELLENCE: Strong Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Drivers --------------------------------------------------------------- ZAK STRONG, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. MARK OF EXCELLENCE PIZZA COMPANY d/b/a DOMINO’S; and DENNIS MAYHALL, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01967-G (N.D. Tex., Aug. 16, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's stores. According to the complaint, the Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks. Defendants operate numerous Domino's franchise stores.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: J. Forester, Esq. Matthew Haynie, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC www.foresterhaynie.com 400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 MARTIN'S FAMOUS: Smelser Suit Settlement Denied Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAVID SMELSER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. MARTIN'S FAMOUS PASTRY SHOPPE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01813 (MPS) (D. Conn.), Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied without prejudice the parties' (i) amended motion for approval of their settlement agreement and supporting materials, and (ii) amended motion for the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Plaintiff Smelser brought the action against Martin's on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals. He alleged that Martin's (1) failed to pay its distributors overtime wages as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Connecticut's wage laws; (2) made unauthorized deductions from its distributors' wages in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-71 et seq.; and (3) misclassified distributors as independent contractors under Connecticut law, thereby shifting its business costs onto its distributors and unjustly enriching itself. The Plaintiff brought his state claims as a putative class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and his federal claim as a putative collective action under FLSA. On August 24, 2018, the parties reported that the case had settled. They filed a motion for approval of their settlement agreement and supporting materials. Judge Shea held a telephonic status conference on Oct. 31, 2018, during which he identified several potential problems that might prevent him from approving the proposed settlement. The parties requested leave to file an amended settlement agreement and motion for approval. On Nov. 26, 2018, the parties filed their amended motion for approval and motion for the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Under the Agreement, Martin's would pay $155,000 into a settlement fund to be disbursed to collective group members who complete a release form to join the lawsuit. The Agreement specifies that the fund would be allocated as follows: First, named-Plaintiff David Smelser would receive a $2,500 service award. Second, collective group members who opt in would receive "straight damages." The amount that each collective group member would receive in the first disbursement is "listed on Confidential Exhibit 7," which the parties sought leave to file under seal. If fewer than all eligible collective group members opted in, any money remaining in the settlement fund would be reallocated to those individuals who did opt in, increasing their payments up to 20% beyond the initial disbursement. The Agreement provides that collective group members who opt in will covenant not to sue Martin's with respect to any Released Claims, and will be permanently and forever barred from suing or otherwise asserting any Released Claim against any of the Releasees. The Agreement defines "Released Claims" to include any and all wage and hour claims under federal, state, or local laws, including FLSA claims and claims for improper deductions, as well as any other claim allegedly arising from the Settlement Collective Members' alleged misclassification as independent contractors. The parties' proposed release form, however, suggests that collective group members who opt in would waive only FLSA claims related to unpaid overtime. The proposed form also suggests the release is limited to claims arising between May 2016 and May 2018, while the Agreement contains no such time limitation. Finally, the parties have not indicated whether they anticipate having collective group members file consent documents on the docket. Further, the Agreement suggests that the parties would not send notice of the lawsuit to collective group members until after the Court approves the settlement. Judge Shea finds that the proposed settlement agreement and supporting documents do not provide enough information to determine whether the settlement is fair and reasonable. First, the agreement and proposed notice to collective group members are unclear as to how much money each collective group member would receive and how that amount would be calculated. Second, the release-of-claims provision in the settlement agreement is contradicts the release that the parties propose to obtain from collective group members. Third, the procedures the parties propose to effectuate the settlement appear to be incompatible with the FLSA and the Court's obligation under Cheeks. The Judge cannot approve the proposed settlement. He notes two additional concerns to provide the parties with guidance should they choose to amend their proposal. First, the parties request that the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. As he has noted, if the parties wish that the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, the parties must place the terms of their settlement agreement on the public record and must provide the reasons for the Court's retention of jurisdiction. The Settlement Agreement notes that collective group members will receive "straight damages," but does not describe how damages will be calculated. It explains that "Individual FLSA Damages for each Settlement Collective Member are listed on Confidential Exhibit 7, but the parties sought leave to file that document under seal. As a result, the parties have not publicly disclosed the basis for, or the result of, their damages calculations, except, as noted, in the general and potentially misleading terms set forth in the proposed notice. It is unlikely that the Court would retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement that kept material information confidential in this manner. Second, the parties ask the Court to approve attorneys' fees for the Plaintiff's counsel totaling $175,000. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's counsel has filed a declaration in support of the request for attorneys' fees listing the hours each attorney worked and that attorney's base hourly rate. The number of hours the declaration lists is substantially different -- and irreconcilable -- with the version of the declaration filed in support of the parties' original motion for settlement approval. In light of this discrepancy, and the requirements for attorneys' fees in the Second Circuit, any amended application for attorneys' fees will be denied unless it includes contemporaneous billing records. For the reasons stated, Judge Shea denied without prejudice (i) the motion for settlement approval, and (ii) the motion to enforce judgment. The parties may file amended motions that address the foregoing defects, including any further rationale for sealing "Confidential Exhibit 7," within 21 days. A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Ruling is available at https://is.gd/KZrR1q from Leagle.com. David Smelser, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Eugene Hayber -- rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com -- The Hayber Law Firm, LLC, Dustin W. Massie -- dmassie@baillonthome.com -- Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, pro hac vice & Shawn J. Wanta -- sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, pro hac vice. Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew L. Levy -- alevy@mcneeslaw.com -- McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, Carol Steinour Young -- csteinour@mcneeslaw.com -- McNees Wallace and Nurick LLC, pro hac vice, Devin J. Chwastyk -- dchwastyk@mcneeslaw.com -- McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, pro hac vice & Joseph G. Fortner, Jr. -- fortner@halloransage.com -- Halloran & Sage LLP. MDL 2820: Claims in TAC Dicamba Herbicides Suit Narrowed -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BADER FARMS, INC. and BILL BADER Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO CO. and BASF CORP., Defendants, MDL No. 1:18md2820-SNLJ, Case No. 1:16cv299-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen M. Limbaugh, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). The Bader Plaintiffs claim their peach orchard was destroyed beginning in 2015 after Defendants Monsanto (a company that sells crop seed and herbicide) and BASF (a company that sells herbicide) conspired to develop and market dicamba-tolerant seeds and dicamba-based herbicides. They claim both the Defendants conspired to create an "ecological disaster," where Monsanto released its dicamba-tolerant seed in 2015 and 2016 with no corresponding dicamba herbicide. As a result, farmers illegally sprayed an old formulation of dicamba herbicide that was unapproved for in-crop, over-the-top, use and was "volatile," or prone to drift. Drifting dicamba would cause damage to neighboring, non-tolerant crops, forcing neighboring farmers to plant Monsanto's dicamba-tolerant seed defensively, and that increased demand for both defendants' new dicamba herbicide during the 2017 growing season. Numerous lawsuits have been filed against the Defendants based on these circumstances, and the cases filed in federal court have been consolidated into the In re Dicamba Herbicides Multi-District Litigation,1:18-MD-2820-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.) ("MDL"). The present case was filed on Nov. 23, 2016. The Plaintiffs have amended their complaint three times now, most recently after the Court's ruling on the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Master Crop Damage Complaint filed in the MDL. That Master Crop Damage complaint focuses on soybean growers in several states. The Bader Plaintiffs, although part of the MDL, did not join in the Master Crop Damage Complaint; the Bader case is following its own Case Management Order and is set for trial in January 2020. The TAC (1) added allegations that their peach orchard suffered further dicamba damage in 2018, rendering their peach operation no longer biologically or financially sustainable; (2) removed the claims for trespass and fraudulent concealment and added claims under Missouri Crop Protection Statutes; (3) added allegations pertaining to defendants' joint venture and pleaded joint venture liability as to each claim; and (4) added allegations to clarify that the Plaintiffs pursue their conspiracy claims under the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 876(a) and (b). Defendant Monsanto moves to dismiss claims for failure to warn (Counts II and IV), negligent training (Count V), violation of the Missouri Crop Protection Act (Counts VI and VII), civil conspiracy (Counts VIII and IX), and joint liability for punitive damages (as reflected in Counts X and XI). Defendant BASF moves to dismiss those same counts except the claims for failure to warn. Judge Limbaugh granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the TAC. He dismissed the Counts VI, VII, and IX. Both the Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under the Missouri Crop Protection Statutes, Sections 569.132.2 and 537.353 RSMo. The Judge finds that although Section 569.132 refers to the "loss of any crop," and that "any person who has been damaged by a violation of this section will have a civil cause of action under section 537.353," that latter section does not provide for a cause of action except for damage to "field crops." Although the statutes read together are ambiguous, the term "field crop" is not, and it appears the general assembly limited statutory recovery to "field crops" as opposed to a "any crop." Therefore, Counts VI and VII must be dismissed. As for the aiding and abetting count, described by the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 876(b), the Defendants insist that such a claim is not recognized in Missouri. The Judge finds that it appears that no Missouri Supreme Court case and just one Missouri court of appeals case affirmatively approves of the Section 876(b) cause of action. In Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. White, the court addressed the aiding-and-abetting claim in the context of encouraging an intoxicated driver to drive dangerously. The Court is uncertain whether or not the Missouri Supreme Court would adopt a Section 876(b) aiding-and-abetting cause of action under other circumstances or under the circumstances of the case in particular. As the Court indicated in its Memorandum and Order in the MDL on the Crop Damage Master Complaint motions to dismiss, the Judge is reluctant to extend state law beyond its traditional purview. Hence, the motions to dismiss Count IX is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/dLrc3U from Leagle.com. John S. Hahn, Special Master, pro se. Bader Farms, Inc. & Bill Bader, Plaintiffs, represented by Angela Marie Splittgerber -- angie@randleslaw.com -- RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Beverly Turina Randles -- bev@randleslaw.com -- RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Billy R. Randles -- bill@randleslaw.com -- RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP & Don M. Downing, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C. Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Ann E. Sternhell-Blackwell, BRYAN CAVE LLP, Christopher M. Hohn, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Daniel C. Cox, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Jan P. Miller, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Jan P. Miller, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Pro Hac Vice, Jeffrey A. Masson, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, John R. Musgrave, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, John J. Rosenthal, WINSTON AND STRAWN, LLP, Booker T. Shaw, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP & Kimberly M. Bousque, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP. BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alan L. Rupe -- Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS, LLP, Charles N. Insler -- cinsler@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, E. B. Chiles, IV -- cchiles@qgtlaw.com -- Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Jason D. Stitt -- Jason.Stitt@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, John P. Mandler -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP, John E. Tull, III -- jtull@qgtlaw.com -- Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Ross W. Johnson -- ross.johnson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP, Tarifa Belle Laddon -- tarifa.laddon@FaegreBD.com --, FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP, Thomas J. Magee -- tmagee@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Troy A. Bozarth -- tbozarth@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Carolyn A. Gunkel -- carolyn.gunkel@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP & Shane Alan Anderson -- shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP. MDL 2903: Hanson Suit over Rock 'N Play Sleeper Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, NANCY HANSON, the Plaintiff. vs. Fisher-Price, Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-00204 (Filed July 9, 2019) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, to U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Buffalo) on Aug. 16, 2019. The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01087-GWC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Geoffrey Crawford. The Hanson case is being consolidated with MDL 2903 in re: FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on August 1, 2019. According to the JPML, the actions share factual questions arising from allegations that FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that defendants' advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient. In its August 1, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the Western District of New York is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. This district has a strong connection to these cases. Fisher-Price is headquartered in East Aurora, New York, and the critical events and decisions underlying plaintiffs' claims regarding the RNPS occurred there. The Western District of New York thus presents a convenient and relatively accessible forum for this litigation. Centralization in the Western District of New York therefore allows the JPML to assign this litigation to an able jurist who has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an MDL. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford. The lead case is Case No. 1:19-md-02903-GWC.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Brian O. Marty, Esq. J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE, PC 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 South Washington Ave., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave, NW Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: CharlesL@cuneolaw.com MDL 2904: Webb Suit v. Quest, et al over Data Breach Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Matthew Webb, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, and OPTUM 360 LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04157 (Filed June 20, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 14, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16670 to the proceeding. The Webb 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 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: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Carey Alexander, Esq. Erin Green Comite, Esq. SCOTT + SCOTT LLP 405 Lexington Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com Attorneys for Quest Diagnostic Incorporated are: David Henry Hoffman, Esq. Daniel Cochran Craig, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP (CHICAGO) One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-2174 Attorneys for OPTUM 360 are: Patricia Brown Holmes, Esq. Rodney Perry, Esq. RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP 70 West Madison St., Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 471-8745 MDL INNOVATIVE: Zwiefel Seeks OT Pay for Welding Inspectors ----------------------------------------------------------- TROY ZWIEFEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MDL INNOVATIVE SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02335 (D. Colo., Aug. 15, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from MDL Innovative Services, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act According to the complaint, Zwiefel and the other employees like him regularly worked for MDLI in excess of 40 hours each week but MDLI 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, MDLI paid these employees a day rate with no overtime compensation. Zwiefel worked for MDLI as a W-2 employee from approximately July 2017 until March 2018. Specifically, Zwiefel worked as a Welding Inspector. MDLI provides services to the oil & gas and construction industries, "providing a full range of assistance including engineering, construction, and project management."[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Taylor Jones, 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.comt jones@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 MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS: Holmes Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Data Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Tara Holmes on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Medical Data Systems, Inc. doing business as: Medical Revenue Service, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01022-FJS-CFH (N.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Medical Data Systems, Inc. revenue cycle management services, offers accounting, bookkeeping, and related auditing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Arleo, Esq. Office of Robert L. Arleo 380 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10168 Phone: (212) 551-1115 Fax: (518) 751-1801 Email: robertarleo@gmail.com MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Taylor Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC. The case is styled as Rozell Taylor individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04750 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC operates as an accounts receivable management firm. The Company focuses on pre legal, legal, and dismissed bankruptcy collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com MICHIGAN: Kensu Moves to Certify Class and Subclass of Inmates -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Temujin Kensu and All Others Similarly Situated v. Michigan Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-10175-GAD-DRG (E.D. Mich.), moves for certification of: -- a class of all incarcerated individuals under the direction of the MDOC who were provided a diet which was inadequate to maintain normal health; and -- a subclass of incarcerated individuals under the direct supervision of the MDOC who were not provided a diet commensurate with medically documented special needs. Mr. Kensu contends that the Defendants' denials are violations of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith L. Altman, Esq. Solomon M. Radner, Esq. Albert J. Asciutto, Esq. EXCOLO LAW, PLLC 26700 Lahser Rd., Suite 401 Southfield, MI 48033 Telephone: (866) 939-2656 E-mail: kaltman@excololaw.com sradner@excololaw.com The MDOC Defendants are represented by: James T. Farrell, Esq. MI DEPT. OF ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, MI 48909 Telephone: (517) 373-6434 E-mail: farrellj@michigan.gov Defendant Trinity Services Group is represented by: Tabitha M. Bono, Esq. TKC HOLDINGS, INC. 1260 Andes Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63132 Telephone: (314) 216-2218 E-mail: tbono@tkcholdings.com - and - Bradford Moyer, Esq. PLUNKET COONEY 950 Trade Center Way, Suite 310 Kalamazoo, MI 49002 Telephone: (269) 382-5935 E-mail: bmoyer@plunkettcooney.com Defendant Aramark is represented by: Rhonda R. Stowers, Esq. PLUNKET COONEY Plaza One Financial Center 111 E. Court Street - Suite 1B Flint, MI 48502 E-mail: rstowers@plunkettcooney.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDI THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01190-LA (E.D Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Weinberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Alexander J. Weinberg individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04749 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short periods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Zirpoli Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ BENJAMIN ZIRPOLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01428-UN1 (M.D. Pa., Aug. 16, 2019), seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs against Defendants for their violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. According to the complaint, in March 2018, Defendants filed suit against Plaintiff in a Franklin County Magisterial District Court (the Lawsuit). The Defendants claimed Midland Funding purchased a loan Plaintiff was alleged to have opened with OneMain Financial (the Loan). After being served with the Lawsuit, Plaintiff paid to retain an attorney to defend the Lawsuit and entered a defense. Before the hearing, Defendants dismissed the Lawsuit. Since dismissal, Defendants continue to report the Loan to various consumer reporting agencies, including TransUnion and Equifax, in an ongoing attempt to collect the Loan from Plaintiff. The Defendants most recently reported the Loan to various consumer reporting agencies, including TransUnion and Equifax, in May of 2019. Additionally, around April of 2019, Defendants obtained and used Plaintiff's credit report from various consumer reporting agencies, including TransUnion. The Lawsuit and Defendants' credit reporting of the Loan constitute as unlawful attempts to collect on the Loan, and Defendants' procurement and use of Plaintiff's credit report was impermissible, because Defendants' were not lawfully permitted to purchase the Loan and cannot lawfully attempt to collect on the Loan, the lawsuit says. Midland Funding's sole business is the purchasing of defaulted consumer debt with the purpose of collecting on that debt for profit. Midland Credit's sole business is collecting debts that are purchased and owned by Midland Funding, including calling consumers and sending them letters.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Gary Lynch, Esq. Edwin Kilpela, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com Kevin Abramowicz - and - BCJ LAW LLC 186 42nd Street PO Box 40127 Pittsburgh, PA 15201 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 E-mail: kevina@bcjlawyer.com - and - John Keller, Esq. KELLER, KELLER BECK & ROSS LLC 1035 Wayne Ave Chambersburg, PA 17201 Telephone: (717) 762-3331 E-mail: jebkeller@kkbrlaw.com MIDWEST RECEIVABLE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA RODZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MIDWEST RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01191-WED (E.D Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Decision in Calif. Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs' appeal from the court's order granting the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings in a California class action lawsuit over the Company's initial public offering is still pending. On each of February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and April 4, 2016, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo (the "San Mateo Superior Court"), against Natera, its directors, certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their affiliates, and each of the underwriters of the Company's July 1, 2015 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the Company's IPO contained materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about the Company's business and prospects. Among other relief, the complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company removed these actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the actions were subsequently remanded back to the San Mateo Superior Court. The Company has appealed the remand and discovery has been stayed pending the appeal. The Company also filed a demurrer, or a request for dismissal as a matter of law, in the San Mateo Superior Court, which was granted on October 23, 2017. The San Mateo Superior Court demurred the claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, without leave to re-file, and granted the demurrer as to Section 11 of the Act with leave to re-file. Plaintiffs refiled an amended complaint on November 22, 2017. The Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the amended complaint on January 25, 2018, which the plaintiffs opposed. Hearings on the motion were held in May and July of 2018. On August 7, 2018 the judge granted the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on or about October 18, 2018 and their brief on or about March 29, 2019. Natera filed its brief in response on June 27, 2019. Natera said, "The Company intends to continue to defend the matter vigorously, but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome." Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc. in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California. NATIONAL VISION: Amended Complaint Filed in Cal. Wage & Hour Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- National Vision Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that an amended complaint has been filed in the California wage-and-hour related class action suit. In February 2019, the company was served with a lawsuit by a former employee who alleges, on behalf of himself and a proposed class, several violations of California wage and hour laws and seeks unspecified alleged unpaid wages, monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On March 21, 2019, the company removed the lawsuit from state court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court on April 18, 2019, and the Court denied this motion on July 8, 2019. On July 22, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On July 26, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation wherein the Company denied all claims in the amended complaint but joined the plaintiff in seeking a stay of further proceedings in the lawsuit based on the parties' agreement to attend early mediation in an effort to avoid further costs and expenses of protracted litigation. Mediation has been scheduled in the first quarter of 2020. National Vision said, "The Company continues to believe that the plaintiff's amended complaint lacks merit and will vigorously defend the litigation." National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. NATIONAL VISION: Awaits Final Approval of 1-800 Contacts Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- National Vision Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the company awaits final settlement hearing in the 1-800 Contacts Matter. In May 2017, a complaint (the "1-800 Contacts Matter") was filed against the Company and other defendants alleging, on behalf of a proposed class of consumers who purchased contact lenses online, that 1-800 Contacts, Inc. entered into a series of agreements with the other defendants, including AC Lens, the Company's subsidiary, to suppress certain online advertising and that each defendant thereby engaged in anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Company has settled the 1-800 Contacts Matter for $7.0 million, without admitting liability. Accordingly, the Company recorded a charge for this amount during the second quarter of fiscal year 2017. On November 8, 2017, the court in the 1-800 Contacts Matter entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement agreement, subject to a settlement hearing. Pursuant to this order, the Company deposited 50% of the settlement amount, or $3.5 million, into an escrow account, to be distributed subject to and in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement and any further order of the court. National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- National Vision Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that FirstSight's motion to dismiss the class action suit filed before the United States District Court for the Southern District of California is still pending. The company's subsidiary, FirstSight is a defendant in a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California that alleges that FirstSight participated in arrangements that caused the illegal delivery of eye examinations and that FirstSight thereby violated, among other laws, the corporate practice of optometry and the unfair competition and false advertising laws of California. The lawsuit was filed in 2013 and FirstSight was added as a defendant in 2016. In March 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss previously filed by FirstSight and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2017. In July 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated in part, and reversed in part, the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the district court seeking, among other claims, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees, and in November 2018, FirstSight filed a motion to dismiss. National Vision said, "We believe that the claims alleged are without merit and intend to continue to defend the litigation vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. NORTHEAST SERVICE: Tenelema et al Seek OT Premiums for Laborers --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE TENELEMA, VICTOR TENELEMA, FABIAN NAULA, and FERNANDO VALDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. NORTHEAST SERVICE INTERIORS, LLC, NORTHEAST INTERIORS SPECIALISTS LLC, NORDEST SERVICES LLC, FRANCO CALIENDO, and STEPHEN DEFLORIO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04729 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2019), seeks equitable and legal relief for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. Defendants employed Tenelema as a foreman from in or around 2003 until in or around July 2018. Throughout his employment, Tenelema regularly worked Mondays through Thursdays from approximately 6:00 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m.; and Fridays and Saturdays from approximately 6:00 a.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m., with a daily 15 minute morning break and 30 minute lunch break, for approximately 60.50 hours worked per week. The Defendants employed Naula as a demolition laborer from in or around January 2014 until on or around December 4, 2018. As a demolition laborer, his job duties included, inter alia, tearing down structures and removing debris from the job sites; cutting steel; removing floors; using a chipping hammer; and performing any other duty assigned by the job site foreman. Defendants employed Valdez as a demolition laborer from in or around 2010 until on or around June 3, 2019. While employed with Defendants, the Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL, and were entitled to receive overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs with overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Instead, the Defendants compensated Plaintiffs at their respective hourly rate of pay for all hours worked including all overtime hours.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Katherine Morales, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600 New York, NY 0016 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 E-mail: kymorales@katzmelinger.com PG&E CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Stayed Amid Bankruptcy -------------------------------------------------------------- PG&E Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the consolidated case styled In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation are automatically stayed pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its current and former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et al., respectively. The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions related to, among other things, vegetation management and transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public disclosures. The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. Both complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29, 2015 to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated both cases and the litigation is now denominated In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018. After the plaintiff requested leave to amend their complaint to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, the plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated complaint on December 14, 2018. Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a notice on February 1, 2019, reflecting that the proceedings are automatically stayed pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. On February 15, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a complaint in Bankruptcy Court against the plaintiff seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to extend the stay to the claims alleged against the individual officer defendants. On February 22, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled York County on behalf of the York County Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the "York County Action"). The complaint names as defendants certain current and former officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four public offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018. Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility is named as a defendant. The complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the note offerings related to, among other things, PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's vegetation management and wildfire safety measures. The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the federal Securities Act of 1933, and seeks unspecified monetary relief, attorneys' fees and other costs, and injunctive relief. On May 7, 2019, the York County Action was consolidated with In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation. On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint, which includes the claims asserted in the previously-filed actions and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, the Utility, certain current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters. The action remains stayed as to PG&E Corporation and the Utility, and PG&E Corporation and the Utility are currently seeking an order from the Bankruptcy Court to extend the stay to the officer, director, and underwriter defendants. PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers in northern and central California, the United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. PG&E CORP: Lawsuits over 2018 Camp Fire Stayed under Chapter 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- PG&E Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the lawsuits, some of which sought to be certified as class actions, regarding a November 2018 wildfire in California is still stayed as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases. According to the Company's 10-Q, PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's obligations with respect to such claims are expected to be determined through the Chapter 11 process. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility each filed voluntary cases under Chapter 11. On November 8, 2018, a wildfire began near the city of Paradise, Butte County, California (the "2018 Camp fire"), which is located in the Utility's service territory. Cal Fire's Camp Fire Incident Information Website as of July 9, 2019 (the "Cal Fire website") indicated that the 2018 Camp fire consumed 153,336 acres. On the Cal Fire website, Cal Fire reported 85 fatalities and the destruction of 13,972 residences, 528 commercial structures and 4,293 other buildings resulting from the 2018 Camp fire. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility each filed voluntary cases under Chapter 11. As of January 28, 2019, before the automatic stay arising as a result of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation and the Utility were aware of approximately 100 complaints on behalf of at least 4,200 plaintiffs related to the 2018 Camp fire, nine of which sought to be certified as class actions. The pending civil litigation against PG&E Corporation and the Utility related to the 2018 Camp fire, which is currently stayed as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, included claims under multiple theories of liability, including inverse condemnation, trespass, private nuisance, public nuisance, negligence, negligence per se, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent infliction of emotional distress, premises liability, violations of the Public Utilities Code, violations of the Health & Safety Code, malice and false advertising in violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs principally asserted that PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's alleged failure to maintain and repair their distribution and transmission lines and failure to properly maintain the vegetation surrounding such lines were the causes of the 2018 Camp fire. The plaintiffs sought damages and remedies that include wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, evacuation costs, medical expenses, establishment of a class action medical monitoring fund, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other damages. PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers in northern and central California, the United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. PG&E CORP: Suits on 2017 Northern California Wildfires Still Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------- PG&E Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the consolidated lawsuits related to the October 2017 multiple wildfires in Northern California is currently stayed as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 cases. Beginning on October 8, 2017, multiple wildfires spread through Northern California, including Napa, Sonoma, Butte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, Nevada, and Yuba Counties, as well as in the area surrounding Yuba City (the "2017 Northern California wildfires"). According to the Cal Fire California Statewide Fire Summary dated October 30, 2017, at the peak of the 2017 Northern California wildfires, there were 21 major fires that, in total, burned over 245,000 acres and destroyed an estimated 8,900 structures. The 2017 Northern California wildfires resulted in 44 fatalities. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility each filed voluntary cases under Chapter 11. As of January 28, 2019, before the automatic stay arising as a result of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation and the Utility were aware of approximately 750 complaints on behalf of at least 3,800 plaintiffs related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires, five of which sought to be certified as class actions. These cases were coordinated in the San Francisco County Superior Court. As of the Petition Date, the coordinated litigation was in the early stages of discovery. A trial with respect to the Atlas fire was scheduled to begin on September 23, 2019. The pending civil litigation against PG&E Corporation and the Utility related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires, included claims under multiple theories of liability, including inverse condemnation, trespass, private nuisance and negligence. This litigation, including the trial date with respect to the Atlas fire, currently is stayed as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases. The plaintiffs principally asserted that PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's alleged failure to maintain and repair their distribution and transmission lines and failure to properly maintain the vegetation surrounding such lines were the causes of the 2017 Northern California wildfires. The plaintiffs sought damages that include wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, evacuation costs, medical expenses, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other damages. The Company said, "PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's obligations with respect to such claims are expected to be determined through the Chapter 11 process. However, the Official Committee of Tort Claimants ("TCC") has submitted a motion to the Bankruptcy Court seeking relief from the automatic stay to enable certain plaintiffs to pursue their claims outside of the Chapter 11 process. PG&E Corporation and the Utility have opposed such motions." PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers in northern and central California, the United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. PITNEY BOWES: Still Defends Suit by City of Livonia Retiree Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, City of Livonia Retiree Health and Disability Benefits Plan v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al. In August 2018, the Company, certain of its directors, officers and several banks who served as underwriters, were named as defendants in City of Livonia Retiree Health and Disability Benefits Plan v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a putative class action lawsuit filed in Connecticut state court. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of those who purchased notes issued by the Company in connection with a September 13, 2017 offering, alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to make certain disclosures relating to components of its third quarter 2017 performance at the time of the notes offering. The complaint seeks compensatory damages and other relief. In addition, in December 2018 and then in February 2019, certain of the Company's officers and directors were named as defendants in two virtually identical derivative actions purportedly brought on behalf of the Company, Clem v. Lautenbach et al. and Devolin v. Lautenbach et al. These two actions, both filed by the same counsel in Connecticut state court, allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty relating to these same disclosures, and seek compensatory damages and other relief derivatively for the benefit of the Company. Pitney Bowes said, "Although litigation outcomes are inherently unpredictable, we believe these matters are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pitney Bowes Inc. offers customer information management, location intelligence, and customer engagement products and solutions in the United States and internationally. The company operates in three segments: Commerce Services; Small & Medium Business Solutions; and Software Solutions. The company was formerly known as Pitney Bowes Postage Meter Company. Pitney Bowes Inc. was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. PORTABLE MUD: Walters Seeks Overtime Wages for Mechanics -------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY WALTERS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PORTABLE MUD SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00193 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 15, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Portable Mud Systems violated the FLSA by employing Walters and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than 40 hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or were employed." Walters is employed by Portable Mud Systems employed as a mechanic from approximately June 2012 to May 2019. Portable Mud Systems is an oilfield services company specializing in solids control for land-based oil and gas drilling operations.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Melissa Moore, Esq. Bridget Davidson, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 PRIDE HYUNDAI: White Files Suit in Mass. Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC WHITE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PRIDE HYUNDAI OF LYNN INC.; PRIDE CHEVROLET, INC.; (d/b/a PRIDE MOTOR GROUP); and SUZANNE IOVANNA, Case No. 1977CV48B (Mass. Super., Aug. 12, 2019), seeks damages based on the Defendants' failure to pay wages, including overtime, under the Massachusetts Wage Laws. Pride Hyundai of Lynn Inc. is a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Lynn, Massachusetts. Pride Chevrolet, Inc. is a Massachusetts company with its principal place of business in Lynn, Massachusetts. Suzanne Iovanna is the President of Treasurer of Pride Hyundai of the Defendant Corporations. The Defendants do business under the name "Pride Motor Group." The Defendants operate an automobile dealership.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Gardner, Esq. Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq. GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C. One State Street, Fourth Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 390-7570 E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com nick@gardnerrosenberg.com QUANTUM CORP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- Quantum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement in the class action suit in California has been scheduled for November 14, 2019. In February 2018, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and two former executive officers (the "Class Action"). The lawsuits were consolidated on May 16, 2018. The Class Action plaintiffs sought unspecified damages for certain alleged material misrepresentations and omissions made by the Company in connection with its financial statements for its fiscal year 2017. On September 25, 2018, the Court granted permission to plaintiffs in the action to file an Amended Consolidated Complaint. Before the plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint, the parties met with a mediator to discuss a potential settlement of the case. On February 20, 2019, the parties reached a settlement in principal; under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $8.2 million to plaintiffs. The amount includes all of plaintiffs’ attorneys' fees, and the full amount will be paid by the Company’s directors and officers liability insurance carriers. The settlement liability has been included in other current liabilities and the receivable from the insurance carriers has been included in other current assets in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2019. A Stipulation of Settlement was signed by the Parties on June 28, 2019, and the Court granted preliminary approval on July 26, 2019. A hearing on final approval of the settlement has been scheduled for November 14, 2019. Quantum Corporation provides scale-out storage, archive, and data protection solutions for small businesses and multi-national enterprises in the Americas, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. Quantum Corporation was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. RESTAURANT LEADERSHIP: Licea Suit Asserts ADA Breach ----------------------------------------------------- SEAN LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RESTAURANT LEADERSHIP GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01550 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 19, 2019) seeks: (i) a declaration that Defendant's unlawful business practice of not offering assistance with respect Defendant's inaccessible soda fountain dispensers violate federal law; and (ii) an injunction requiring Defendant to either (a) implement a policy of affirmatively offering assistance to individuals with visual disabilities or (b) update or replace its fountain soda machines so that they are fully accessible by the blind or other vision-impaired individuals. Plaintiff regularly has occasion to dine at fast food restaurants. Federal law and California law require that such restaurants be fully accessible to sight-impaired individuals, including those such as Plaintiff who are blind and/or have a visual disability that requires the use of a white cane or guide dog for mobility. Plaintiff was denied full access to Defendant's facilities due to its use of inaccessible soda fountain dispensers and its failure to affirmatively offer or provide assistance to Plaintiff with the otherwise inaccessible soda fountain dispensers. As such, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and its implementing regulations (and consequently California state law) as Plaintiff was denied the full and equal access to and enjoyment of Defendant's goods, services, and facilities, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a legally blind individual. Defendant owns, operates, leases, and/or maintains 12 fast food hamburger restaurants under the trade name Jack in the Box in California including one restaurant located at 770 W. Ramona Expressway, San Jacinto, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Phone: 610-822-3700 Facsimile: 610-822-3800 Email: gwells@cwg-law.com - and - Eric D. Zard, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1350 Columbia St., Suite 603 San Diego, CA, 92101 Phone: 619-762-1905 Fax: 619-756-6991 Email: ezard@carlsonlynch.com SERVIS ONE INC: Padula Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Servis One, Inc. The case is styled as James R. Padula, Kathleen V. Padula, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Servis One, Inc. doing business as: BSI Financial Services, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05567 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 19, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Servis One, Inc., doing business as BSI Financial Services, Inc., provides financial services. The Company offers residential mortgage servicing, subservicing, default solutions, loan quality control, and business process outsourcing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Scott Davidson Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 x116 Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com SLEEP NUMBER: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Fresno ------------------------------------------------------ Sleep Number Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit pending before the Superior Court in Fresno County, California. On September 18, 2018, two former Home Delivery employees filed suit, now venued in Superior Court in Fresno County, California, alleging representative claims on a purported class action basis under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff class to that group. The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed or refused to adopt adequate practices, policies and procedures relating to wage payments, record keeping, employment disclosures, meal and rest breaks, among other claims, under California law. The Complaint seeks damages in the form of civil penalties and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and expressly disclaims the recovery of any purported individual specific relief or underpaid wages. Sleep Number said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds, bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Requests for Rehearing in Smith Appeal Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Southwestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Court of Appeals has denied all requests for rehearing in the appeal from a ruling in the case, Smith v. SEECO, Inc. et al. The Company has been a defendant in three certified class actions alleging that the Company underpaid lessors of lands in Arkansas by deducting from royalty payments costs for gathering, transportation and compression of natural gas in excess of what is permitted by the relevant leases. Two of the these class actions were filed in Arkansas state courts and the third in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Company denied liability in all these cases. Under the agreement for the sale of the equity in the Company's subsidiaries that operated in the Fayetteville Shale, the Company retained responsibility for these class actions. In June 2017, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company on all counts in Smith v. SEECO, Inc. et al., the class action in the federal court, whose plaintiff class comprises the vast majority of the lessors in these cases. The plaintiff had asserted claims for, among other things, breach of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and violation of certain Arkansas statutes. Following the verdict, the court entered judgment in favor of the Company on all claims. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, and the plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Independent of the plaintiff's appeal, several different parties sought to intervene in the Smith case prior to or shortly after trial, and have appealed the trial court's order denying their request to intervene. Oral argument occurred in January 2019. On April 23, 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order denying all requests to intervene in the case, and, in a separate order, affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Company on all claims. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied all requests for rehearing. In the second quarter of 2018, the Company entered into an agreement to settle another of the class actions, which has been pending in the Circuit Court of Conway County, Arkansas under the caption Snow et al. v. SEECO, Inc., et al. The settlement received final approval by the court during the third quarter of 2018, and the deadline to appeal the order approving the settlement passed without any appeals filed. The amount of the settlement is reflected in the Company's consolidated statement of operations for the second quarter of 2018 and was paid early in the fourth quarter of 2018. The third class action was dismissed in the second quarter of 2018. The Smith and the Snow cases cover all affected lessors, except a small percentage who opted out. Most of those have filed separate actions. The Company does not expect those cases to have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company. Additionally, it is not possible at this time to estimate the amount of any additional loss, or range of loss, that is reasonably possible. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Southwestern Energy Company, an independent energy company, engages in the exploration, development, and production of natural gas and oil in the United States. It operates through two segments, Exploration and Production, and Midstream. Southwestern Energy Company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Spring, Texas. ST VINCENT COMMUNITY: Dorado Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------- The case, Nicholas Dorado, Individually and on Behalf of all others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. St Vincent Community Health Services Inc., St Vincent Infirmary Medical Center, Catholic Health Initiatives Physician Services LLC, and First Initiatives Insurance Ltd, the Defendants, Case No. 60CV-19-04891, was removed from the Pulaski County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock) on Aug. 16, 2019. The Eastern District of Arkansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00573-DPM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Callis L. Childs, Esq. CHILDS LAW FIRM 243 Highway 64 East Conway, AR 72032 Telephone: (501) 327-1700 Facsimile: (501) 327-6066 E-mail: cchilds@tcworks.net - and - Frank H. Bailey, Esq. Sach D. Oliver, Esq. Timothy Ryan Scott, Esq. BAILEY & OLIVER LAW FIRM 3606 West Southern Hills Boulevard Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 202-5200 E-mail: fbailey@baileyoliverlawfirm.com soliver@baileyoliverlawfirm.com rscott@baileyoliverlawfirm.com - and - Jeffrey P. Leonard, Esq. W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC 2224 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 E-mail: jleonard@hgdlawfirm.com wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com Attorneys for the Defendants are: Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq. Gordon S. Rather, Jr., Esq. William Eric Berger, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Telephone: (501) 212-1234 Facsimile: (501) 376-9442 E-mail: gmarts@wlj.com grather@wlj.com eberger@wlj.com SYNERGY ONE: Raub Suit Moved to Southern District of California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Michelle Raub individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Synergy One Lending Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-02019-00032335-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the San Diego Superior Court- County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Aug. 16, 2019. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01543-MMA-MDD to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael M. Anello. Synergy One Lending is a San Diego based mortgage lender.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com Attorneys for the Synergy One Lending Inc.: Spencer .C Skeen, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com TEGNA INC: Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Tegna Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend against the class action suit entitled, Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc. et. al. In the third quarter of 2018, certain national media outlets reported the existence of a confidential investigation by the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) into the local television advertising sales practices of station owners. On November 13 and December 13, 2018, DOJ and seven broadcasters settled a DOJ complaint alleging the exchange of competitively sensitive information in the broadcast television industry. On June 17, 2019, the company and four other broadcasters entered into a substantially identical agreement with DOJ. The settlement contains no finding of wrongdoing or liability and carries no penalty. It prohibits the company and the other settling entities from sharing certain confidential business information, or using such information pertaining to other broadcasters, except under limited circumstances. The settlement also requires the settling parties to make certain enhancements to their antitrust compliance programs; to continue to cooperate with the DOJ's investigation and to permit DOJ to verify compliance. The company do not expect the costs of compliance to be material. Since the national media reports, numerous putative class action lawsuits were filed against owners of television stations (the Advertising Cases) in different jurisdictions. Plaintiffs are a class consisting of all persons and entities in the United States who paid for all or a portion of advertisement time on local TV provided by the defendants. The Advertising Cases assert antitrust and other claims and seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against the allegedly wrongful conduct. These cases have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc. et. al., filed on July 30, 2018. At the court's direction, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 3, 2019, that superseded the original complaints. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 5, 2019. In response, plaintiffs have indicated their intention to ask the court for permission to file another amended complaint, currently due on or before August 7, 2019. Tegna said, "Although we were named as a defendant in sixteen of the original complaints, the amended complaint did not name TEGNA as a defendant. We could still be named as a defendant, however, in this or other related suits." Tegna Inc., incorporated on February 23, 1972, is a media company. The Company provides stories, investigations and marketing services. It operates 47 television stations in 39 United States markets and owns four network affiliates. It also provides services to advertisers through solutions, including its over the top (OTT) local advertising network, Premion. TRANSGENOMIC INC: Settlement in Campbell Suit Has Prelim Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JESSE CAMPBELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSGENOMIC, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-3021 (D. Neb.), Judge John M. Gerrard of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska (i) approved the parties' Joint Stipulation Regarding Settlement Order; and (ii) granted the the Lead Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, Certification of the Settlement Class, and Approval of the Notice to the Class. Rule 23(a) states four threshold requirements applicable to all class actions: (1) numerosity (a class so large that joinder of all members is impracticable); (2) commonality (questions of law or fact common to the class); (3) typicality (named parties' claims or defenses are typical of the class); and (4) adequacy of representation (representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class). Those requirements are met in the case. The notice given in the case meets those requirements; it informs the class members of the action and their options, accurately characterized all the pertinent terms of the settlement agreement (including attorney fees and expenses), and affords the class members a reasonable opportunity to object. The notice will be sent directly to shareholders who purchased, sold, or held shares of Transgenomic stock during the relevant time period and notice by publication will also be provided identifying a website where further information can be obtained. In short, the notice satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 and due process. Accordingly, Judge Gerrard (i) approved the parties' Joint Stipulation, and (ii) granted the Lead Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion. For settlement purposes only, the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of all those who purchased, sold or held Transgenomic common stock during the period from and including April 12, 2017, the record date for Transgenomic's special stockholder meeting regarding the merger between Transgenomic and Precipio Diagnostics, LLC through and including June 30, 2017, the date the merger closed. If the settlement fails to become effective as defined in the Stipulation of Settlement or is terminated, then, in any such event, the Stipulation, including any amendment (except as expressly provided in the Stipulation), and the Order will be null and void, and without prejudice to any settling party, and may not be introduced as evidence or used in any actions or proceedings by any person or entity against the settling parties, who will be deemed to have reverted to their respective litigation positions in the litigation as of May 10, 2019. The Judge designated Jesse Campbell as the class representative, Monteverde & Associates PC as the settlement class counsel, and RG/2 Claims Administration as the claims administrator. He approved the form, substance, and requirements of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Proof of Claim and Release, and Summary Notice. The Claims Administrator will make reasonable efforts to identify all persons who are members of the class and not later than July 31, 2019, the Claims Administrator will cause a copy of the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release, substantially in the forms of filing 60-1 and filing 60-2, to be mailed by first class mail to all class members who can be identified with reasonable effort and to be posted on its website at https://www.rg2claims.com/. Not later than Aug. 21, 2019, the Claims Administrator will cause the Summary Notice to be published once over the PR Newswire. Not later than Oct. 28, 2019, the counsel for the Defendants and the settlement class counsel will jointly file with the Court an affidavit from a representative of the Claims Administrator confirming that notice has been accomplished. Nominees who held, purchased or acquired Transgenomic common stock for the benefit of another person during the time period from and including April 12, 2017 through and including June 30, 2017 will be directed to send the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release to the beneficial owners of Transgenomic common stock within 15 calendar days after receipt, or send a list of the names and addresses of the beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator within 15 calendar days of receipt, in which event the Claims Administrator will promptly mail the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release to the beneficial owners. All fees, costs, and expenses incurred in notifying class members will be paid from the Settlement Fund and in no event will any of the Defendants or related parties bear any responsibility for such fees, costs or expenses. All reasonable expenses incurred in identifying and notifying the class members as well as administering the Settlement Fund will be paid as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement. In the event the Court does not approve the Settlement, or it otherwise fails to become effective, neither the class representative nor any of his counsel will have any obligation to repay any amounts actually and properly incurred or disbursed pursuant to the Stipulation. Any person falling within the definition of the class may, upon request, be excluded or opt out from the class. Any such person must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion by first class mail postmarked no later than Oct. 4, 2019, made in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. The settlement class counsel will cause to be provided to the Defendants' counsel copies of all requests for exclusion and a list of all the class members who have requested exclusion, and any written revocation of requests for exclusion, as expeditiously as possible but in any event no later than Oct. 28, 2019. A Fairness Hearing will be held on Nov. 4, 2019, at 11:30 a.m. On July 22, 2019, the parties will file a declaration with the Court certifying that any notice required by the Class Action Fairness Act has been sent by United States mail to the appropriate governmental entities. No class member or any other person, will contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the Stipulation of Settlement, or, if approved, the order and final judgment approving it, or the order approving the plan of allocation, or any fees and expenses to be awarded to the counsel or the class representative, unless written objections and copies of any papers and briefs are sent on or before October 4, 2019, to: Monteverde & Associates PC 350 5th Ave, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10018 and U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska Robert V. Denney Federal Building, Room 586 100 Centennial Mall North Lincoln, NE 68508. All funds held by the escrow agent will be deemed and considered to be in the custody of the Court, and will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as they are distributed pursuant to the settlement or further orders of the Court. The class members who wish to participate in the Settlement will complete and submit the Proof of Claim and Release in accordance with the instructions contained therein. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all Proofs of Claim and Releases must be postmarked or submitted electronically no later than Oct. 29, 2019. All papers in support of the settlement, plan of allocation, and any application by lead counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses and payment of time and expenses to the Lead Plaintiff will be filed and served no later than Sept. 30, 2019, and any response will be filed and served no later than Oct. 28, 2019. A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/BYY0KL from Leagle.com. Jesse Campbell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Rowe -- drowe@krbklaw.com -- KINSEY, ROWE LAW FIRM, Juan E. Monteverde -- jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com -- MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES, pro hac vice & Miles D. Schreiner -- mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com -- MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES, pro hac vice. Transgenomic, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah S. Birnbach -- dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Emily S. Unger -- eunger@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, James J. Frost -- jfrost@mcgrathnorth.com -- MCGRATH, NORTH LAW FIRM, Massie P. Cooper -- massie.cooper@troutman.com -- TROUTMAN, SANDERS LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Tucker D. DeVoe -- tdevoe@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & William Evans, GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM. Paul Kinnon, Defendant, represented by Deborah S. Birnbach, GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, Massie P. Cooper, TROUTMAN, SANDERS LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Tucker D. DeVoe, GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & William Evans, GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice. Precipio, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah S. Birnbach, GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Emily S. Unger, GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, James J. Frost -- JKoehn@mcgrathnorth.com -- MCGRATH, NORTH LAW FIRM, Jay D. Koehn , MCGRATH, NORTH LAW FIRM, Mark F. Enenbach, MCGRATH, NORTH LAW FIRM, Tucker D. DeVoe, GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & William Evans, GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in Norton Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Troy Norton moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled TROY NORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01169-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff avers. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com ULTA BEAUTY: Fernando Suit Removed to S.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------- Ulta Beauty, Inc., removed on August 12, 2019, the class action lawsuit styled TARINI FERNANDO, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC. a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-2019-00034485-CU-OE-CTL, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01503-JM-LL to the proceeding. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Tarini Fernando filed her original Complaint for Damages in the Superior Court. She brings claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] Defendant ULTA BEAUTY, INC. is represented by: Lena K. Sims, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101-3577 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: lsims@littler.com - and - Julie A. Stockton, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 E-mail: jstockton@littler.com UNIT CORP: Chieftain Royalty Class Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------------- Unit Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Chieftain Royalty Company v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-16-230, District Court of LeFlore County, Oklahoma. On November 3, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Unit Petroleum Company styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum breached its duty to pay royalties on natural gas used for fuel off the lease premises. The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of Oklahoma citizens who are or were royalty owners in our Oklahoma wells. The company filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the claims asserted by the Plaintiff and the putative class are barred because they have already been asserted by the putative class in the Panola lawsuit and are subject to its reversal of class certification. The court denied the company's motion to dismiss and the company asked the court to certify its order so that it can be immediately appealed. That issue is still pending before the court. Unit Corp. said, "If we do not ultimately prevail on our claim of issue preclusion, we have several other defenses, including that the case cannot be properly certified as a class action because of the wide variety of circumstances that determine whether a royalty payment was wrongfully withheld. At this point, the issue of class certification has not been set before the court." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gas wells (for its own account as well as for other companies), exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering and transportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. Unit was founded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. UNIT CORP: Class Certification Bid in Panola ISD Class Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Unit Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the trial court overseeing the case, Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma, has denied the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification. Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly, Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma production. The company has asserted several defenses including that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. The company had also asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11, 2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a class of royalty owners slightly smaller than their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners entitled to royalties under certain leases in Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma. In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held where, besides the defenses described above, the company argued that the amended class definition is still deficient under the court of civil appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification. Closing arguments were held on December 2, 2014. On July 29, 2019, the trial court entered its order denying the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification. Once the trial court's order is appealable, the Plaintiffs' will have 30 days to appeal the decision. Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gas wells (for its own account as well as for other companies), exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering and transportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. Unit was founded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. UNIT CORP: Cockerell Oil Properties Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Unit Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. 16-cv-135-JHP, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 11, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Unit Petroleum Company styled Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. The company removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum wrongfully failed to pay interest with respect to untimely royalty payments under Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act. The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of royalty owners in our Oklahoma wells. Unit Corp. said, "We have asserted several defenses including that the case cannot be properly certified as a class action because of the wide variety of circumstances that determine whether a royalty payment was timely made or has accrued interest under Oklahoma law. At this point, the court has not taken any action on the issue of class certification." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gas wells (for its own account as well as for other companies), exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering and transportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. Unit was founded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. VENATOR MATERIALS: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Venator Materials PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants' motions to dismiss litigation related to the company's initial and secondary public offerings remain pending. On February 8, 2019 the company, certain of its executive officers, Huntsman and certain banks who acted as underwriters in connection with its initial public offering (IPO) and secondary offering were named as defendants in a proposed class action civil suit filed in the District Court for the State of Texas, Dallas County (the "Dallas District Court"), by an alleged purchaser of the company's ordinary shares in connection with its IPO on August 3, 2017 and the company's secondary offering on December 1, 2017. The plaintiff, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System, alleges that inaccurate and misleading statements were made regarding the impact to the company's operations, and prospects for restoration thereof, resulting from the fire that occurred at the company's Pori, Finland manufacturing facility, among other allegations. Additional complaints making substantially the same allegations were filed in the Dallas District Court by the Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis on March 4, 2019 and by Oscar Gonzalez on March 13, 2019, with the third case naming two of the company's directors as additional defendants. A fourth case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust on July 31, 2019, making substantially the same allegations, adding claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and naming all of the company's directors as additional defendants. The plaintiffs in these cases seek to determine that the proceedings should be certified as class actions and to obtain alleged compensatory damages, costs, rescission and equitable relief. The cases filed in the Dallas District Court have been consolidated into a single action. On May 8, 2019, the company filed a "special appearance" in the Dallas District Court action contesting the court's jurisdiction over the Company and a motion to transfer venue to Montgomery County, Texas and on June 7, 2019 the company and certain defendants filed motions to dismiss. On July 9, 2019, a hearing was held on the motions, but no ruling has been made following the hearing. Venator Materials PLC manufactures and markets chemical products worldwide. It operates through two segments, Titanium Dioxide and Performance Additives. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Stockton-On-Tees, the United Kingdom. VERSUM MATERIALS: Ventura Class Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Versum Materials, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit in California entitled, Inocencio Ventura v. Versum Materials, Inc. On April 2, 2019, a purported California class action lawsuit captioned Inocencio Ventura v. Versum Materials, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, containing various class action allegations under California state wage-and-hour laws, including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages and failure to provide meal and rest breaks, to persons employed in California as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees since April 2015, and other derivative claims, and seeking unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees. On July 9, 2019, the Plaintiff amended his complaint to add a cause of action under the Private Attorney General Act based on the underlying allegations. Versum Materials, Inc. develops, manufactures, transports, and handles specialty materials for the semiconductor and display industries in the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, China, Europe, and rest of Asia. The company operates through two segments, Materials, and Delivery Systems and Services (DS&S). Versum Materials, Inc. was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust's COI Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Voya Financial, Inc. is still defending itself in a cost of insurance litigation styled Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019. Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897) (filed July 26, 2018), is a putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that two specific types of universal life insurance policies only permitted the Company to rely upon the policyholder's expected future mortality experience to establish and increase the cost of insurance, but the Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors not only in the administration of the policies over time, but also in the decision to increase insurance costs beginning in approximately October 2015. Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract and seeks class certification. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On August 28, 2018, the Company filed its answer to the complaint with affirmative defenses. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in New York, New York. VOYA FINANCIAL: Bid to Nix Goetz Suit Still Pending at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Voya Financial, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case styled Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019. Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Delaware, No. 1:17-cv-1289) (filed September 8, 2017), is a putative class action in which plaintiff, a participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to represent other participants in the plan as well as a class of similarly situated plans that "contract with [Voya] for recordkeeping and other services." Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its fiduciary duty to the plan and other plan participants by charging unreasonable and excessive recordkeeping fees, and that "Voya" distributed materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative and fund fee disclosures to conceal its excessive fees. The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 4, 2018, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 8, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in New York, New York. VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Faces Barnes COI Litigation ------------------------------------------------- Voya Financial, Inc. continues to defend itself in a cost of insurance litigation styled Barnes v. Security Life of Denver, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019. Barnes v. Security Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-00718) (filed March 27, 2018), is a putative class action in which the plaintiff alleges that his insurance policy only permitted the Company to rely upon his expected future mortality experience to establish and increase his cost of insurance, but the Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors to do so. Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and conversion claims against the Company and also seeks declaratory relief. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the matter vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in New York, New York. WASTE PRO: Wright Seeks OT Pay for Waste Disposal Drivers --------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY WRIGHT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WASTE PRO USA, INC., and WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-62051-KMM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and other current and former similarly situated employees are Waste Disposal Drivers for the Defendants who were paid on a purported job/day rate for work performed. Due to Defendants' company-wide policies and procedures, Plaintiffs were deprived of wages for hours actually worked. Specifically, the Defendants did not pay a true day rate for any and all hours worked in a given day, but placed limitations on the number of hours worked before the "day rate" was paid. Further, Defendants also coupled the day rate with "other forms of compensation." Therefore, the Defendants violated the FLSA in both their calculation of the prevailing hour rate and only paying Plaintiffs "half-time" for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. Waste Pro provides waste removal services. The Company offers residential, roll-off dumpster, recycling, compaction equipment, transfer and landfill, and other related services. Waste Pro serves customers in the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Class Members are: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 867-4791 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Paul M. Botros, Esq. 600 N. Pine Island Road., Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5352 Facsimile: (954) 327-3017 E-mail: pbotros@forthepeople.com - and - Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com WATERWORKS OPERATING: Delacruz Alleges Violation under ADA ---------------------------------------------------------- Waterworks Operating Co., LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Waterworks Operating Co., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07799 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019). Waterworks Operating Co., LLC offers waterworks bathroom fittings, fixtures and accessories.[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 WAYPOINT RESOURCE: Dillard Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waypoint Resource Group, LLC. The case is styled as Yvonne Dillard individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Waypoint Resource Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04764 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Waypoint Resource Group, LLC (WRG) is a third-party collection agency based in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com WELLS FARGO: Hernandez Suit over Mortgage Loan Plans Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALICIA HERNANDEZ, EMMA WHITE, KEITH LINDNER, TROY FRYE, COSZETTA TEAGUE, IESHA BROWN, RUSSELL and BRENDA SIMONEAUX, JOHN and YVONNE DEMARTINO, ROSE WILSON, TIFFANIE HOOD, GEORGE and CYNDI FLOYD, DEBORA GRANJA, and DIANA TREVINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. C 18-07354 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted WFCWells Fargo & Co. ("WFC")'s motion to dismiss. WFC is a financial services company headquartered in San Francisco, California. The firm's primary operating subsidiary is Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Bank"). The Plaintiffs all had their mortgage loans serviced by the Bank when they faced various financial hardships and defaulted on their loans. Although they sought loan modifications, those applications were denied. At the time the Plaintiffs requested loan modifications, the Defendants participated in the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), through which mortgage lenders received stimulus funds in exchange for issuing loan modifications to qualified borrowers. Although the Plaintiffs met the program's threshold requirements for such a modification, the Defendants failed to offer them one. Instead, the Bank foreclosed on eleven of the named Plaintiffs and more than 500 other customers who could not make their monthly payments without a modification. Two Plaintiffs, Russell and Brenda Simoneaux, did not face foreclosure and ultimately paid off their mortgage. A 2010 investigation by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC") found numerous deficiencies in the Bank's mortgage modification and foreclosure practices, including that it failed to devote adequate oversight to its foreclosure processes, failed to ensure compliance with applicable laws, and failed to adequately audit its foreclosure procedures. The Bank and WFC each signed a consent order agreeing to correct these deficiencies. In its consent order, WFC was ordered to strengthen its oversight of the Bank's compliance with HAMP, ensure its audit and compliance programs were adequately staffed, and to improve the information and reports that it would regularly review. WFC's Board of Directors agreed. The Bank's Board of Directors, made up entirely of WFC board members, agreed to its consent order as well. However, in June 2015, the OCC found the Bank and WFC were still not compliant, and that the Bank failed to detect multiple systematic errors in the automated decision-making software it used to determine customers' eligibility for a mortgage modification. In October 2015, the Bank discovered a calculation "error" in a software tool it used to determine whether to issue a mortgage modification. This calculation error, which underlies the claims in this case, caused certain fees to be misstated and resulted in incorrect modification denials. The OCC issued a $70 million penalty. These errors were not disclosed until 2018. In total, 870 customers were incorrectly denied a loan modification, 545 of who lost their homes in foreclosure. According to the Plaintiffs, these repeated failures to implement adequate testing procedures -- as well as other high-profile scandals that have roiled the bank in recent years -- are emblematic of the Defendants' chronic and intentional lack of oversight. In December 2018, Plaintiff Hernandez filed the putative nationwide class action, asserting claims for negligence, conversion, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In response to a motion to dismiss, Hernandez filed an amended complaint in February 2019. The operative complaint added 15 new named Plaintiffs, added WFC as a new Defendant, and added nine additional claims for relief. WFC now moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The instant motion is brought only by WFC. The Bank moved separately to dismiss, which was granted in part and denied in part. The instant order only addresses the claims from the parties' Joint Response to the Court's June 3, 2019 Order. The Plaintiff alleges in its amended complaint that WFC "owns and controls" the Bank, and had "oversight responsibilities" for ensuring the Bank "tested and audited its mortgage modification operations." It further alleges all of the Bank's board members were WFC board members as well. Judge Alsup finds that although the fact that the Bank's board members are completely composed of WFC board members weighs towards the existence of control, such an allegation is insufficient on its own. Importantly, there is no allegation that WFC participated in or controlled the Bank's day-to-day operations regarding mortgage approval or servicing. As such, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged WFC's liability under an agency theory. The Plaintiff points to the same arguments it made for agency theory in demonstrating a unity of interests. The Order has already addressed these arguments. The allegations of control do not exhibit anything more than mere supervision. It will not address the second prong of the alter-ego test as the first prong has not been met. In sum, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that WFC is indirectly liable for the Bank's actions. The amended complaint alleges WFC failed to oversee and review the Bank's compliance with HAMP in the face of a consent decree which put WFC on notice. The Plaintiffs argue WFC's inaction, given the fact it had notice, could be considered reckless behavior. The Judge finds that the cases it cites to in support of this claim are unconvincing as they do not concern IIED claims. WFC's failure to act even with notice, as currently pled, cannot be deemed outrageous and reckless. The borrower-Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for IIED against WFC and the motion to dismiss this claim is granted. Since indirect liability does not apply, WFC's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' California's Homeowners Bill of Rights ("HBOR") claim against WFC is accordingly granted. The Judge holds that HBOR, Section 2924.17 provides, a mortgage servicer will ensure that it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower's default and the right to foreclose, including the borrower's loan status and loan information. The Plaintiffs have alleged that the Bank, not WFC is the mortgage servicer. To state a claim for unfair competition under Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant engaged in an "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." The statute is violated when a defendant's conduct violates any of the foregoing prongs. In the instant case, the Plaintiffs assert a Section 17200 claim based on the "unlawful" and "unfair" prongs. Again, although WFC's board was put on notice of the errors in the Bank's software, the Judge finds that its failure to act without any duty cannot plausibly be considered immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious regardless of any competitive advantage is may have gained or the extent of customers whose homes were foreclosed on. The motion to dismiss the claims under the "unfair" prong against WFC is thus granted. The Plaintiffs bring a claim for relief under the consumer protection statutes of five other states: the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and Consumer Debt Collection Act, Section 349(a) of New York's General Business Law, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. WFC moves to dismiss these claims by stating that WFC itself did not service the Plaintiffs' loans, deny them loan modifications, nor foreclose on their properties. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged among other claims that WFC failed to implement or maintain procedures to ensure the Bank was complying with HAMP or other applicable government requirements. As stated, WFC is not indirectly liable for the Bank's actions and a failure to act without any duty does not plausibly point to unfair and misleading business practices in violation of the state consumer protection laws. The motion to dismiss these claims against WFC is thus granted. Finally, the Plaintiffs offer five documents for judicial notice: (1) WFC's Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2018, (2) WFC's Form 10-Q for the period ending Sept. 30, 2018, (3) WFC's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2018, (4) In re: Wells Fargo & Co. Consent Order dated April 13, 2011, and (5) In re: Wells Fargo & Co. Order to Cease and Desist Issued Upon Consent Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act dated Feb. 2018. These documents are a matter of public record as they are publicly filed. WFC argues that none of the documents should be judicially noticed because a court cannot take judicial notice of such documents for the truth of the matter asserted therein. The Judge holds that this statement is not entirely correct as party admissions may be judicially noticed for the truth of the matter if requested by the opposing party. In the case, the 2018 SEC filings, which were written by WFC, and the consent orders, which were signed and accepted by WFC's board, may be judicially noticed in their entirety for their contents because they are party admissions. The Order accordingly grants judicial notice as to all of the documents requested. For the reasons stated, Judge Alsup granted WFC's motion to dismiss the mentioned claims solely against it. The case against the Bank will go forward. The Court is of the view that further leave to amend in regards to WFC would be futile. A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/6xkirm from Leagle.com. Alicia Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Richard M. Paul, III, Paul LLP, pro hac vice, Ashlea Gayle Schwarz, Paul LLP, pro hac vice, Laura Catherine Fellows, Paul LLP, 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300, Kansas City, MO 64106, pro hac vice, Linda Pham Lam -- Llam@lewisfeinberg.com -- Lewis Feinberg Lee & Jackson, P.C. & Michael Lawrence Schrag -- mls@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP. Diana Trevino, Coszetta Teague, Yvonne Demartino, Iesha Brown, George Floyd, Troy Frye, Russell Simoneaux, Tiffanie Hood, Rose Wilson, Emma White, Cyndi Floyd, John Demartino, Keith Lindner, Brenda Simoneaux & Debora Granja, Plaintiffs, represented by Laura Catherine Fellows, Paul LLP, pro hac vice, Linda Pham Lam, Lewis Feinberg Lee & Jackson, P.C. & Michael Lawrence Schrag, Gibbs Law Group LLP. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Kobi Kennedy Brinson -- kbrinson@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn, LLP, pro hac vice, Stacie Corbett Knight -- sknight@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice & Morgan E. Stewart -- mstewart@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP. Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice & Morgan E. Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP. YELP INC: Davis Seeks Certification of Shareholders Class --------------------------------------------------------- Lead Plaintiff Jonathan Davis seeks an order certifying the matter captioned JONATHAN DAVIS and ROEI AZAR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. YELP, INC., JEREMY STOPPELMAN, LANNY BAKER, and JED NACHMAN, Case No. 3:18-cv-00400-EMC (N.D. Cal.), as a class action. The proposed class is defined as: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the shares of Yelp, Inc. common stock between February 10, 2017 and May 9, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are Defendants; the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times; members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Mr. Davis also asks the Court to appoint him as Class Representative, and to appoint Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Holzer & Holzer LLC as Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on November 14, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Lead Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua L. Crowell, Esq. Stan Karas, Esq. Christopher R. Fallon, Esq. Natalie S. Pang, 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: jcrowell@glancylaw.com skaras@glancylaw.com cfallon@glancylaw.com npang@glancylaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. Luke R. Kennedy, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com lkennedy@holzerlaw.com ZIRTUAL STARTUPS: Macaluso Hits Misclassification, Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTI MACALUSO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZIRTUAL STARTUPS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03616-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 19, 2019) is a case challenging the policies and practices of Defendant that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant, in violation of the FLSA, classifies most of its virtual assistants as so-called "independent contractors." Through this misclassification, Defendant knowingly, willfully, and deliberately fails to compensate Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective overtime compensation at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiff Kristi Macaluso has been employed by Defendant Zirtual as a virtual assistant since approximately June 2017 to August 2019. Zirtual is a Columbus, Ohio-based company providing virtual assistants to companies and individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: (216) 912-2221 Fax: (216) 350-6313 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***