/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190906.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, September 6, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 179 Headlines AETNA INC: Court Enters Stipulated Protective Order in KCC Suit AFNI INC: Vlasak Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco ALL NATION HOME: Parties File Joint Stipulation to Resolve Suit ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal in Testosterone Replacement Suit Ongoing AMERICAN CORADIUS: Taylor Sues Over Confusing Collection Letter AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: Settlement in Employees Suit Finally Approved ART OF BEAUTY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ASSOCIATED PHARMACIES: Insurer Removes Case to N.D. Alabama AVERY TECHNICAL: Robertson Seeks Proper Wages BAPTIST HEALTH: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay for Medical Staff BEST COURIER: Swickheimer Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers BOOMBAH INC: Faces Nixon Suit in Southern District of New York CAPITAL ONE: Baisden et al. Sue over Breach of Personal Data CAPITAL ONE: Potts Sues over Data Breach CENTRAL RESEARCH: Certification of Class Sought in Vlasak Suit CENTRAL RESEARCH: Court Stays Bid for Class certification CENTURYLINK INC: Agrees to Settle Sales Practices & Securities Suit CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Graham Class Suit Challenges Sale to NexPoint CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought DAUPHINS LLC: Agrees to Certification of Class in Boothe Suit DIAMOND SUPPLY: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DISCOUNT FILTERS: Livingstone Sues Over TCPA Violation DOMINION DENTAL: Henshaw et al Sue over Data Breach DOOR XPRESS CORP: Rios Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages DOORDASH INC: McGrath Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages EAGLE TEAM: Williams Seeks Proper Overtime Wages ELECTRICAL BUILDERS: Raykovitz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ELECTRONIC RECYCLERS: Removes Gilman Case to E.D. California EMC INSURANCE: Iowa State Court Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed EN ENGINEERING: Rossman Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ENBRIDGE INC: Robertson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages FIFTH THIRD: Dismissal in Early Access Cash Advance Suit Reversed FIS OPERATIONS: Jordan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages FORD MOTOR: Van's Class Cert. Bid Denied; Hearing Set for Sept. 12 FUNKO INC: Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit in Washington Granted FUNKO INC: Kanugonda Class Action Underway GENERAL MOTORS: Diesel Truck Owners Sue Over Defective Fuel Pump GET TOGETHER: Lynn Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages GLOBE LIFE: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Joh Class Suit GLOBE LIFE: Dismissed from Golz Class Action GLOBE LIFE: Putros Class Suit Against Unit Ongoing GLOBE LIFE: Unit Still Faces Hamilton Class Action in California GORDON REED: Alaniz Moves for Class Certification and Notice GOVBERG LLC: Diaz Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act HARRIS & HARRIS: Bayeg Hits Biometrics Data Sharing HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES: Voyager Sues Over HDD Assembly Price-fixing HOMEADVISOR INC: Newell Sues Over Automated Telemarketing Calls IDEMIA IDENTITY: Rueda Wins Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement ITALIANTOUCH USA: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JUUL LABS INC: Quercia Files Suit Over e-Cigarette Side-effects JUUL LABS: Phillips Sues Over Fraudulent Scheme KOHLS DEPARTMENT: Third Circuit Appeal Initiated in Gordon Suit L'OREAL USA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Borchenko Class Suit LANE BRYANT: Tatum-Rios Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Cert. Ruling in Mason Suit Upheld MDL 2551: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order for Ewen Suit MDL 2902: 14 Merck Sharp & Dohme Patent Lawsuits Moved to Delaware MDL 2905: 12 Defective Airbag Suits Moved to Central California MDL 2905: Underwood v. Kia over Defective Airbag Moved to Calif. MDL 2908: Court Deems as Moot Boeing's Bid to Transfer 66 Suits MERRILL LYNCH: Valelly Files Suit for Unjust Enrichment MIDLAND CREDIT: Porricelli Sues Over FDCPA Violation MIKE ROVNER: Williamson Seeks Unpaid Wages for Carpenters MISSISSIPPI: Hosemann Appeals Ruling in Hopkins Suit to 5th Cir. NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Enriquez and Manna Suits Consolidated NAVIENT CORP: DeWitt Seeks to Certify 3 Classes and 3 Sub-Classes NEW YORK: BOD Files 23 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class of Medicaid Recipients NEW YORK: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Slade Says NEWMARK SOLUTIONS: Denied Construction Workers Overtime Pay NHK GROUP: CMP Files Sues Over Hard Drive Assembly Price-fixing NOBLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Dezzutti Seeks Overtime Wages for Laborers OSMOTICA PHARMA: Shumacher & Tello Suits Consolidated P&Y OPERATIONS: Pedrera Seeks Unpaid Half-Time Overtime Wages PASCHALL TRUCK: Certification of Class Sought in Carter Suit PERSONNEL STAFFING: Calderon Seeks OK of $279K Class Settlement PIN UPS: Ortiz Hits Misclassification, Seeks Unpaid Wages PSE&G: Faces Forrest Hill Suit in District of New Jersey PTZ INSURANCE: Legg's Class Cert. Bid Stricken Without Prejudice RAYTHEON COMPANY: Faulkner Files Suit Over United Tech Merger Deal REAL VALUE PRODUCTS: Camp Drug Store Seeks Certification of Class RELIANCE TRUST: Casey Files Motion to Compel Stout ROBERT CLERGERIE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RUSH AUTO RECYCLERS: Pizer Suit Removed to Arizona Dist. Ct. SANTA BARBARA TRANS: Diaz Suit Moved to Calif. Central District SBE ENT HOLDINGS: Heckman Moves to Certify Class of Customers SHIPT, INC: Turner et al. Seek Minimum & OT Wages for Shoppers SOKO GLAM: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STATE OF NEW YORK: Sughrim Files Suit in S.D. New York STELLA & DOT: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STOVER DIAGNOSTICS: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SWANSON HEALTH: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TECHNIPFMC PLC: Continues to Defend Prause Class Suit in Texas TEQUILLA CORPORATION: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Okla. Firefighters Suit Set for May 2021 TRINITY COURIERS: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA TROPICAL FOODS: Cordova Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages TURKEY HILL: Kane Files Product Mislabeling Class Action UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Galvez SIJS Suit UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Teamsters Local 456 Suit Pending VICTORIA'S SECRET: Lee Suit Removed to C.D. California WESTWARD MANAGEMENT: Channon et al Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois WILCO LIFE: Anderson Suit Stayed Pending 11th Cir. Appeal Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: AERCO International Withdraws Appeal in Ciano Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Withdraws Appeal in Isernia Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,400 Pending Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment Favoring ACL, et al. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $102.3MM Reserve at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion Paid $38MM to Honeywell in 2Q 2019 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Won't Face SEC Charges re Accounting ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had $835.8MM Liability at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 24,000 Claims Pending at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Klopman-Baerselman Claims vs. Cost Less Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Klopman-Baerselman to Amend Notice of Deposition ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kodak Escapes Insurer's Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Still Faces 575 Lawsuits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Louis Jurors Award Former Mechanic $8.4MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Appeals New Burden in Calif. Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,540 Fibro Cases at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 366 Pending Cases at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weil Atty Closing Remarks in J&J Talc Trial Struck ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Had 800 PI Suits at June 30 ********* AETNA INC: Court Enters Stipulated Protective Order in KCC Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, has entered the parties' Stipulated Qualified Protective Order in the case, KCC CLASS ACTION SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. AETNA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-CV-1018-JFW-JEM (C.D. Cal.). A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/1EPfYS from Leagle.com. KCC Class Action Services, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Rene Ramos -- ramosc@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Blaine C. Kimrey -- bkimrey@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price PC, pro hac vice, Bryan K. Clark -- bclark@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price PC, pro hac vice, Deborah Anne Hedley -- dhedley@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price LLP, Jeanah Park -- jpark@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price PC, pro hac vice & Marie Elise Christiansen -- mchristiansen@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price LLP. Aetna, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brandon P. Reilly -- breilly@manatt.com -- Manatt Phelps and Phillips LLP, Craig Steven Rutenberg -- crutenberg@manatt.com -- Manatt Phelps and Phillips LLP, Donna L. Wilson -- dlwilson@manatt.com -- Manatt Phelps and Phillips LLP, Kishan Hasmukh Barot -- KBarot@manatt.com -- Manatt Phelps and Phillips LLP & Matthew P. Kanny -- mkanny@manatt.com -- Manatt Phelps and Phillips LLP. AFNI INC: Vlasak Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco ------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Vlasak moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit captioned JENNIFER VLASAK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AFNI, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01209 (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 avers. 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 contends. 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 ALL NATION HOME: Parties File Joint Stipulation to Resolve Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit styled DENIQUIA STEVENS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. ALL NATION HOME HEALTHCARE, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02364-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), file with the Court their stipulation and proposed order for conditional certification, notice, due diligence exchange and mediation. The Parties believe they can avoid substantial litigation costs by entering into certain stipulations, exchanging due diligence materials, and negotiating a global settlement. Therefore, subject to the Court's approval, the parties stipulate and consent to the entry of the stipulation as an order of the Court. The stipulated matters consist of (1) conditional certification of the case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated, as defined, (2) provisions regarding the distribution of notice to potential opt-ins, (3) informal exchange of documents and information between the parties enabling them to conduct due diligence regarding the claims and issues, and (4) the exploration of settlement. The Parties stipulate that this case may be conditionally certified by the Court as a collective action under Section 216(b) on behalf of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, defined as: All former and current Home Health Aides, or similar home care providers with different job titles, who worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks during the period of three (3) years preceding the Complaint filing date and through the present (the "Collective Class Members"). The Parties will jointly file a proposed plan for notice which shall include (i) the form of the proposed notice, (ii) the compilation of a roster of present and former employees to whom the notice will be sent, and (iii) logistical details of the distribution. First, however, the Parties ask the Court to postpone notice so that the proposed due-diligence exchange and settlement discussions can take place. If the discussion is unsuccessful, the Parties will engage the services of a mediator. If the Parties are ultimately unable to settle this case, they will jointly ask the Court to approve a notice informing potential opt-ins of this case and enabling them to participate. For purposes of due diligence, the Parties will exchange documents and information on or before October 31, 2019, as follows: (a) the Defendant will provide, in Excel format, a spreadsheet identifying, by dates of employment, all Collective Class Members during the period beginning three years preceding the filing of this stipulation and the present; and (b) the Defendant will provide, in Excel format, time, payroll and other data for all Collective Class Members, showing their base hourly wages for each workweek, the amount of regular and overtime hours worked during each workweek, and the amount and dates of wages paid. Following the due diligence exchange, the Parties will engage in settlement discussions. If those discussions are unsuccessful, the Parties will engage in mediation with a mediator selected by mutual consent. The Parties agree that applicable statutes of limitations shall be tolled from the date of the filing of this stipulation and proposed order.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage St. NW, Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Christopher J. Lalak, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 614 West Superior Ave., Suite 1148 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 E-mail: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Philip W. Gerth, Esq. THE GERTH LAW OFFICE, LLC 465 Waterbury Court, Suite A Columbus, OH 43230 Telephone: (614) 856-9399 E-mail: philipgerth@gerthlaw.com ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal in Testosterone Replacement Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the appeal in Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action remains pending. Subsidiaries of the Company were named in a class action complaint filed on behalf a putative class of third-party payers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company's subsidiaries violated various laws including the federal the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)statute and state consumer protection laws in connection with the sale and marketing of Androderm(R). The class plaintiffs seek to obtain certain equitable relief, including injunctive relief and an order requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and to recover damages and multiple damages in an unspecified amount. While the lawsuit is ongoing, the court has denied plaintiff's class certification motion. On February 14, 2019, the court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case in its entirety. On June 12, 2019, plaintiffs/appellants filed their opening brief in the Seventh Circuit. Appellees' Seventh Circuit brief was filed on July 17, 2019. Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical, and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. AMERICAN CORADIUS: Taylor Sues Over Confusing Collection Letter --------------------------------------------------------------- Rozell Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Coradius International, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04890-LDH-VMS (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 27, 2019) seeks to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted Plaintiff by letter dated August 28, 2018. The Letter conveyed information regarding the alleged Debt. A debt collector has the obligation not just to convey the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, but also to convey such clearly and such explicitly. According to the complaint, the Letter fails to identify by name and label any entity as "current creditor," "account owner," or "creditor to whom the debt is owed." Instead, the Letter sets forth three disparate entities: "Synchrony Bank"; "PayPal Credit"; and "Bill Me Later, Inc." The Letter further states, "This account has been placed with our office for collection." The Letter fails to indicate who placed the account with Defendant, notes the complaint. It fails to indicate who the Defendant represents and who the Defendant's client is. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be confused as to whether the creditor to whom the debt is owed is "Synchrony Bank," "PayPal Credit," "Bill Me Later, Inc.," or Defendant. The Defendant violated the FDCPA as it failed to clearly and explicitly convey the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, says the complaint. Plaintiff Rozell Taylor is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt. Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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) 706-5055 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: Settlement in Employees Suit Finally Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the settlement agreement in the retired employees' suit has been finally approved. In February 2017, the Corporation, its indirect subsidiary Akers National Roll Company, as well as the Akers National Roll Company Health & Welfare Benefits Plan were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiffs (currently retired former employees of Akers National Roll Company and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO) alleged that the defendants breached collective bargaining agreements and violated the benefit plan by modifying medical benefits of the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees. The defendants moved to dismiss the case, and plaintiffs petitioned the court to compel arbitration. On June 13, 2017, the District Court compelled arbitration and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. Defendants appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on June 21, 2017. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision to compel arbitration on August 29, 2018. The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied. Rather than litigating the merits of the case at the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the Corporation reached a settlement agreement in principle with the plaintiffs, which approved by the court on July 22, 2019. Ampco-Pittsburgh said, "As expected, the final resolution of this settlement agreement did not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources." Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation manufactures engineered equipment. The Company produces finned tube heat exchange coils, large standard and custom air handling systems, centrifugal pumps, feed screws, hardened steel rolls, and heat transfer rolls. Ampco's products are used in the construction, power generation, refrigeration, chemical processing, marine defense, and steel industries. The company is based in Carnegie, Pennsylvania. ART OF BEAUTY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Art of Beauty Company, Inc. et al. The case is styled as Linda Slade individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Art of Beauty Company, Inc. doing business as: Zoya.com, Zoya Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07952 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zoya makes the world's longest wearing natural nail polish and nail care treatments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com ASSOCIATED PHARMACIES: Insurer Removes Case to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------------------- Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company removed the case captioned AMERICAN ASSOCIATED PHARMACIES; and ASSOCIATED PHARMACIES, INC., the Plaintiffs, vs. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. CV-2019-900154 (Filed July 9, 2019), from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Aug. 13, 2019. The Northern District of Alabama Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01295-CLS to the proceeding. Philadelphia Indemnity issued an insurance policy to AAP, Policy No. PHSD662532, effective dates September 1, 2011 – September 1, 2012. Policy No. PHSD662532 provides claims-made coverage. In 2012, a lawsuit styled State of West Virginia v. Associated Pharmacies, Inc., et al, was filed against API in the Circuit Court of Boone County, WV, Civil Action No. 12- C-141. Philadelphia Indemnity provided coverage for this suit. This suit was settled with Philadelphia Indemnity funding the settlement. AAP and API contend approximately $4,000,000 in policy limits remain on Policy No. PHSD662532. Philadelphia Indemnity issued an insurance policy to AAP, Policy No. PHSD1276309, effective dates September 1, 2017 - September 1, 2018. Policy No. PHSD1276309 provides claims-made coverage. Policy No. PHSD1276309 contains a REGULATORY SUBLIMIT endorsement. AAP and API contend the 2018 Opioid Suits arise out of the same alleged Wrongful Act or series of the same, similar or related Wrongful Acts as the 2012 lawsuit, State of West Virginia v. Associated AAP and/or API have subsequently been named in approximately 60 additional opioid-related lawsuits that are part of the MDL. These suits are cumulatively referred to as the "2018 Opioid Suits." The Plaintiffs have been damaged as a direct and proximate result of this civil conspiracy, and Plaintiffs demand compensatory damages and punitive damages.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Keith Jackson, Esq. RILEY& JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Drive Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-5000 - and - Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq. Shayna E. Sacks NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC 360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 - and - Theodore Lawson, Esq. JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 716 Richard Arrington Blvd. North, Room 280 Birmingham. AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 325-5688 AVERY TECHNICAL: Robertson Seeks Proper Wages --------------------------------------------- ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AVERY TECHNICAL RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02408 (D. Colo., Aug. 23, 2019) is a collective action seeking to recover additional overtime wages and other damages owed to workers. Avery Technical Resources, Inc., pays its hourly employees a daily per diem in addition to an hourly rate of pay. The per diem represents compensation that is primarily for the benefit and convenience of Avery hourly employees. As a result, the Fair Labor Standards Act requires that this type of compensation be included in the calculation of the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. Because the per diem was not used in calculating the regular rate of pay, Avery hourly employees were not properly compensated at the FLSA overtime rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a single week, notes the complaint. Plaintiff Zachariah Robertson worked for Avery as an hourly-employee during the relevant statutory time period. Avery is an oilfield service company operating that "provides quality inspection and project management services in today's energy industry".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com BAPTIST HEALTH: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay for Medical Staff ---------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA SMITH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. BAPTIST HEALTH and PARKWAY HEALTH CENTER, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:19-cv-00600-BRW (E.D. Ark., Aug. 26, 2019), seeks for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The case is a collective action brought by Plaintiff Melissa Smith, individually and on behalf of all employees who performed work at varying rates of pay for Defendants at any time within a three-year period preceding the filing of the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants within the past three years as an hourly-paid employee. The basic duties of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees included, but were not limited to, administering medicine; responding to patient requests such as help with daily chores; treatments for injuries; daily rotating assignments such as cleaning wheelchairs or cleaning the dining room. The Defendants have deprived Plaintiff and all others similarly situated of a proper overtime premium for all hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week, the lawsuit says. Baptist Health owns and operates Defendant Parkway Health Center in Little Rock, Arkansas.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Josh Sanford, Esq. Stephen Rauls, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com BEST COURIER: Swickheimer Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers -------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SWICKHEIMER, 5028 Nelson Dr. Southbloomfield, Ohio 43103, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BEST COURIER, INC. c/o Statutory Agent David A. Grogg 6855 Greenleaf Dr. Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 and JOE ECKART 1200 Technology Drive Columbus, OH 43230, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03706-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 26, 2019), challenges the policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act. Although Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective and Ohio Class to work more than 40 hours per workweek, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective and Ohio Class overtime at a rate of one and one half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. As a result, Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective and Ohio Class were not paid overtime for their overtime hours worked as required by the FLSA and Ohio law. Best Courier is engaged in the business of delivering packages and materials for immediate service, medical, inter-company, and mail service clients. Best Courier has engaged in that business for more than 30 years. Best Courier utilizes delivery drivers to make these deliveries.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (216) 350-6313 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com BOOMBAH INC: Faces Nixon Suit in Southern District of New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boombah Inc. The case is captioned as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Boombah Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07618-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019). The suit alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick. Boombah Inc. retails apparels and footwear. The Company offers shirts, pants, trousers, belts, hats, socks, shoes, necklaces, bags, gloves, and other related products. Boombah operates in the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Telephone: (516) 807-1748 E-mail: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com CAPITAL ONE: Baisden et al. Sue over Breach of Personal Data ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE BAISDEN; NATALIE ROSSI; SCOTT ROSSI; and PATRICIA MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CAPITAL ONE N.A.; and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA) N.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00623 (W.D. Wis., Aug. 7, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for their failure to safeguard the Plaintiffs and the class' sensitive personal information. On March 22 and 23, 2019, Capital One's data stored on the third-party data storage service was accessed by someone who was not authorized to access that data. This person, a 'hacker' identified online by the username "erratic," used computer commands to obtain information about the types of data Capital One stored on the servers, and to extract data from Capital One's files on those servers. The user, "erratic" was successfully able to obtain this information. Evidence that this had been done was able to be located after the actions were taken. Capital One would not discover these actions until July 17, 2019. As a result of Capital One's failure to detect the data breaches, and then failure to promptly notify affected individuals, and failure to specify which information related to which applicants had been compromised, and failure to provide specific remedies for affected individuals, the Plaintiffs and the class members they represent are unable to determine whether they are affected, and to what degree, and accordingly have to take steps to protect themselves even if ultimately they learn that their data was not leaked as a result of this breach. Capital One Financial Corporation provides commercial banking services. The Bank accepts deposits and offers personal credit cards, investment products, loans, and online banking services. Capital One serves customers in the State of Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Briane F. Pagel, Esq. Dixon R. Gahnz, Esq. Daniel P. Bach, Esq. Terrence M. Polich, Esq. LAWTON & CATES, S.C. 345 W. Washington Ave. Ste. 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 282-6200 Facsimile: (608) 282-6252 E-mail: bpagel@lawtoncates.com dgahnz@lawtoncates.com dbach@lawtoncates.com tpollich@lawtoncates.com CAPITAL ONE: Potts Sues over Data Breach ---------------------------------------- STEPHANIE POTTS, the Plaintiff, vs. CAPITAL ONE, N.A. and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01001-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019), seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from Defendants, arising from a data breach announced to the public on July 29, 2019. From approximately March 12 to July 17 of 2019, the sensitive financial and personal data of an unknown number of customers was compromised as a result of Capital One's failure to adequately secure individual's personal and financial information on its systems. During that period of time, an unauthorized person, identified as Paige Thompson of the State of Washington, intruded upon servers controlled by Capital One through a vendor of Capital One called Amazon Web Services, Inc. ("AWS"), division of Amazon, which provides cloud computing services to Capital One. Ms. Paige worked for AWS as a systems engineer from 2015 to 2016. Ms. Thompson, who communicates online under the name 'ERRATIC,' was arrested on July 29, 2019 and is accused of the data breach by the FBI. She was able to intrude into Capital One's servers and exfiltrate customers' sensitive financial and personal data. . According to Capital One, 106 million people had their personal information stolen, including 100 million U.S. residents and 6 million Canadian residents who had, or applied for, Capital One accounts. The breach exposed 40,000 Social Security numbers and about 80,000 linked bank account numbers. The scope of the breach is massive. The bank says it became aware of it on July 19, the lawsuit says. While Ms. Thompson was the perpetrator of the breach, its occurrence was inevitable. Capital One's systemic incompetence and a longstanding, lackluster approach to data security has existed within the company for years and is ingrained in its culture from the top down. Capital One's failure to seriously address data security persisted despite warnings by outside cybersecurity experts, the occurrence of other data breaches at Capital One and other numerous, high-profile data breaches at other major American corporations, including Equifax, all of which should have alerted Capital One of the need to revamp and enhance its inadequate data security practices. Capital One is a national bank incorporated in the State of Virginia with its principal place of business in McLean, Virginia.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1835 Market Street Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 - and - Chad A. Jerome, Esq. O'CONNELL & ARONOWITZ, P.C. 54 State Street, 9th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 462-5601 Facsimile: (518) 462-2670 CENTRAL RESEARCH: Certification of Class Sought in Vlasak Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Vlasak moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled JENNIFER VLASAK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CENTRAL RESEARCH, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01207-WED (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 asserts. 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 contends. 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 CENTRAL RESEARCH: Court Stays Bid for Class certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JENNIFER VLASAK, the Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL RESEARCH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-1207 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order on Aug. 27, 2019, granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification. On August 20, 2019, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, she filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. The plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation." The plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification is granted. The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco.[CC] CENTURYLINK INC: Agrees to Settle Sales Practices & Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, the company has agreed to settle the consolidated suit entitled, In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation, for payments of $15.5 million to compensate class members and of up to $3.5 million for administrative costs. In June 2017, a former employee filed an employment lawsuit against the company claiming that she was wrongfully terminated for alleging that the company charged some of its retail customers for products and services they did not authorize. Starting shortly thereafter and continuing since then, and based in part on the allegations made by the former employee, several legal proceedings have been filed. In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class action, was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the company charged some of its retail customers for products and services they did not authorize. A number of other complaints asserting similar claims have been filed in other federal and state courts, as well. The lawsuits assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Also in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the company failed to disclose material information regarding improper sales practices, and asserting federal securities law claims. A number of other cases asserting similar claims have also been filed. Beginning June 2017, the company also received several shareholder derivative demands addressing related topics. In August 2017, the Board of Directors formed a special litigation committee of outside directors to address the allegations of impropriety contained in the shareholder derivative demands. In April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its review of the derivative demands and declined to take further action. Since then, derivative cases were filed. Two of these cases, Castagna v. Post and Pinsly v. Post, were filed in Louisiana state court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita. The remaining derivative cases were filed in federal court in Louisiana and Minnesota. These cases have been brought on behalf of CenturyLink against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company and seek damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The consumer putative class actions, the securities investor putative class actions, and the federal derivative actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation. CenturyLink said, "Subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, we have agreed to settle the consumer putative class actions for payments of $15.5 million to compensate class members and of up to $3.5 million for administrative costs. We have accrued for those amounts." CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana. CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al. CenturyLink and certain CenturyLink board members and officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink shareholders as a result of the transaction. It alleges that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3 shareholders failed to disclose material information of several kinds, including information about strategic revenue, customer loss rates, and customer account issues, among other items. The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory damages, and other equitable relief. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana. CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Graham Class Suit Challenges Sale to NexPoint ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM GRAHAM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONDOR HOSPITALITY TRUST, INC., J. WILLIAM BLACKHAM, THOMAS CALAHAN, NOAH DAVIS, DAPHNE J. DUFRESNE, DANIEL R. ELSZTAIN, MATIAS IVAN GAIVIRONSKY, DONALD J. LANDRY, BRENDAN MACDONALD, BENJAMIN WALL, CONDOR HOSPITALITY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NHT OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, LLC, NHT OPERATING PARTNERSHIP II, LLC, NHT REIT MERGER SUB, LLC, and NEXPOINT HOSPITALITY TRUST, Case No. 1:19-cv-01552-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 20, 2019), arises out of the Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to NexPoint Hospitality Trust through its operating partnership, NHT Operating Partnership, LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary NHT REIT Merger Sub, LLC. The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on July 22, 2019, and the deal is valued at approximately $318 million and is expected to close in the in the fourth quarter of 2019. The Plaintiff, a shareholder of the Company, alleges that the Defendants have violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by causing a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement to be filed, which recommends that Condor shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the sales process, financial projections prepared by Condor management, as well as the financial analyses conducted by KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Condor's financial advisor. Condor is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland and has its principal executive offices located in Bethesda, Maryland. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Condor. Condor, formed in 1994, is a real estate investment trust that owns upscale hotels in the top metropolitan statistical areas. Condor's hotels are franchised by Marriott International, Hilton Hotels Corporation, InterContinental Hotels Group and Choice Hotels International, Inc. The hotels are owned by Condor's operating partnership, Condor Hospitality Limited Partnership, and Condor acts as general manager. As of December 31, 2018, Condor held sixteen hotels in eight states, and one hotel owned through a joint venture. NexPoint Hospitality Trust is an unincorporated real estate investment trust established under the laws of Ontario. NHT Operating Partnership, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. NHT Operating Partnership II, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company. Condor Hospitality Limited Partnership is a Virginia limited partnership. NHT REIT Merger Sub, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and is a wholly owned subsidiary of NHT Operating Partnership, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq. ROWLEY LAW PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 400-1920 Facsimile: (914) 301-3514 E-mail: info@rowleylawpllc.com CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN FASTRICH, UNIVERSAL INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., and REGINALD J. GOOD, the Plaintiffs, vs. CONTINENTAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN FINANCIAL RESOURCE, INC., AMERICAN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., LOYAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and AMERICAN RETIREMENT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00615-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are: James P. Booker, Esq. Lydia M. Floyd, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 589-9280 Facsimile: (216) 916-9220 E-mail: jbooker@pwcklegal.com lfloyd@pwcklegal.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com - and - Alan Rosca, Esq. ROSCALAW LLC 23250 Chagrin Blvd, Suite 100 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 570-0097 E-mail: arosca@roscalaw.com - and - Thomas S. Reavely, Esq. WHITFIELD & EDDY, P.L.C. 699 Walnut St., Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA 50309-4195 Telephone: (515) 288-6041 Facsimile: (515) 246-1474 E-mail: reavely@whitfieldlaw.com DAUPHINS LLC: Agrees to Certification of Class in Boothe Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit styled TARA BOOTHE and JUTTA MAYLAND on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DAUPHINS, LLC and ALOHA HOSPITALITY INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a DAUPHINS, and ROBERT BAUMHOWER, Case No. 1:19-cv-00408-JB-M (S.D. Ala.), filed with the Court their agreed to motion and stipulation regarding conditional certification and notice to the putative class members. The Parties agree to conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action Class of "ALL SERVERS WHO WORKED AT DAUPHIN'S RESTAURANT, LOCATED AT 107 ST. FRANCIS STREET, SUITE 3400, MOBILE, AL 36602 AT ANY TIME ON OR AFTER JULY 15, 2016 (the "Putative Class Members"). The Defendants will provide the names and last known addresses, personal e-mail addresses (if available), and dates of employment for the Putative Class Members no later than fourteen (14) days following the Court's granting of the Order for Conditional Certification. The Plaintiffs' counsel will have seven days from the date of receipt of the information from the Defendants to distribute the Notice and Consent form to the Putative Class Members. The Plaintiffs' counsel will send the Putative Class Members a Notice and Consent Form by regular First Class mail and e-mail. The Plaintiffs' counsel will also send a reminder Notice and Consent Form by regular First Class mail and e-mail 30 days after the initial mailing. The Putative Class Members will have 60 days from the initial mailing of the Notice and Consent Form to file the Consent Form with this Court to opt-in to the lawsuit (the "opt-in period"). The Plaintiffs' counsel must maintain the Putative Class members' contact information as confidential records and shall not share the information with any third-party. At the conclusion of the opt-in period, the Plaintiffs' counsel must destroy/delete all copies of the information pertaining to any Putative Class Member who did not timely file a Consent Form. The Parties agree that the Notice and Consent Form are timely, informative, and accurate. The Parties agree to use such forms as the exclusive means to inform the Putative Class Members of their right to opt into this lawsuit. Nothing in the Agreed Stipulation or in the Notice and/or Consent Form shall be interpreted as limiting, waiving, or modifying any of the Parties' claims and/or defenses. Despite the agreed nature of this Motion, the Defendants deny that they have violated the FLSA, that the Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members are "similarly situated" under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and that this case is appropriate for collective action treatment. Defendant specifically reserves its right to seek decertification of the conditionally certified class at a later time.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert C. Epperson, Esq. ROBERT EPPERSON LAW OFFICE P. O. Box 477 Foley, AL 36536-0477 Telephone: (251) 943-8870 E-mail: repperson@rcelaw.com - and - Sam J. Smith, Esq. Loren B. Donnell, Esq. FL Bar No. 0013429 BURR & SMITH, LLP 111 2nd Ave. N.E., Suite 1100 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (813) 253-2010 E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kelly D. Reese, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION P. O. Box 1287 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 432-1811 E-mail: KR@KullmanLaw.com DIAMOND SUPPLY: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Supply Company. The case is styled as Valentin Reid on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Diamond Supply Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07969 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Diamond Supply Co. is a California based skateboarding accessories and clothing line that was started in 1998 by skateboarder and designer Nick "Diamond" Tershay.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com DISCOUNT FILTERS: Livingstone Sues Over TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ AMY LIVINGSTONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. DISCOUNT FILTERS, LLC, d/b/a DISCOUNTFILTERS.COM, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62131-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Discount Filters in negligently or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. At no time did Plaintiff provide express written consent to receive these unsolicited text message advertisements from Discount Filters. Plaintiff is a former customer of Discount Filters. Plaintiff provided her telephone number to Discount Filters for the sole purpose of being contacted for issues regarding her order, and only for that limited purpose. Through the unsolicited SPAM text messages, Discount Filters contacted Plaintiff several times on Plaintiff's cellular telephone regarding an unsolicited service via an "automatic telephone dialing system". Plaintiff was damaged by Discount Filters' text messages, says the complaint. Plaintiff's domicile is in Broward County, Florida. Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Florida. Discount Filters hosts a website that specializes in selling filters of all sorts, including refrigerator filters, air filters, humidifier filters, water filters, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. Eggnatz Pascucci 7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230 Davie, FL33314 Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com MPascucci@justiceearned.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Facsimile: 954-524-2822 Email: seth@epllc.com DOMINION DENTAL: Henshaw et al Sue over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY HENSHAW, AMBER S. PARKER, and MATTHEW A. SLATE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DOMINION DENTAL SERVICES USA, INC., a Virginia corporation; DOMINION DENTAL SERVICES, INC., a Virginia corporation, DOMINION DENTAL USA, INC., a Virginia corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01063-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va., Aug. 14, 2019), asserts that the Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered significant injuries and damages as a result of a security breach that compromised the full names, addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, member ID numbers, group numbers, subscriber numbers, and other Private Identifiable Information of Plaintiffs and the Class Members. The Defendants are insurance company, offering dental and vision insurance. Thousands of individuals come to Dominion every day as an insurer for their dental and vision treatment, trusting Dominion with their sensitive medical and personal information. These individuals reasonably expect the highest level of protection for their private identifiable information, when giving highly sensitive information such as their Social Security numbers and medical information to Defendants. What these patients do not expect, and did not expect, during the period between August 25, 2010 and April 24, 2019, was that their personal and sensitive information would be harvested by unauthorized individuals. As a result of Defendants' wrongful actions and inactions, unauthorized individuals gained access to and harvested Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII. The Plaintiffs have been forced to take remedial steps to protect themselves from future loss. Indeed, all Class Members are currently at a very high risk of identity theft and/or credit fraud, and prophylactic measures, such as the purchase of credit monitoring, are reasonable and necessary to prevent and mitigate future loss. As a result of Defendants' wrongful actions and inactions, patient information was stolen. Many of Dominion's insureds have had their PII compromised, have had their privacy rights violated, have been exposed to the risk of fraud and identify theft, and have otherwise suffered damages. Further, despite the fact that the breach first occurred on August 25, 2010, and was discovered on April 24, 2019, Defendants did not inform their customers of the data breach until late June 2019. During that time -- almost nine years after the breach first occurred -- Defendants sent a letter to their customers informing them that "On April 24, 2019, through our investigation of an internal alert, with the assistance of a leading cyber security firm, we determined that an unauthorized party may have accessed some of our computer servers. The unauthorized access may have occurred as early as August 25, 2010, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the proposed class are: Jonathan E. Halperin, Esq. HALPERIN LAW CENTER, LLC 5225 Hickory Park Drive, Suite B Glen Allen, VA 23059 Telephone: (804) 527-0100 Facsimile: (804) 597-0209 E-mail: jonathan@hlc.law - and - Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Bobby Saadian, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Robert J. Dart, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12 th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com justin@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com DOOR XPRESS CORP: Rios Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- ENRIQUE M. RIOS and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. DOOR XPRESS CORP., a/k/a STORAGE XPRESS, and ANGEL A. NAVAS, individually Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23537-UU (S.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2019) is an action seeking to recover money damages for unpaid half-time overtime wages under the laws of the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff as a collective action to recover from Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of Plaintiff, and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after August 2016, without being compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff ENRIQUE M. RIOS was employed by Defendant as laborer/installer from approximately June 9, 2013, through August 18, 2018, or more than 5 years. STORAGE XPRESS is a company providing services to the warehousing and storage business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com DOORDASH INC: McGrath Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------ JACOB McGRATH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOORDASH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-05279-KAW (N.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2019) is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Portal-to-Portal Act seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay the federally-mandated minimum wage. DoorDash does not pay Plaintiff or its other Dashers an hourly wage or a salary; rather, Plaintiff receives the "delivery fee" that is paid by DoorDash's customers, as well as any gratuity that the customer pays to the Dasher, asserts the complaint. DoorDash, not Plaintiff or the other Dashers, determines the "delivery fee." While DoorDash classifies Plaintiff as an "independent contractor," Plaintiff is truly an "employee" pursuant to the FLSA's economic realities test, says the complaint. Plaintiff McGrath is a current employee of Defendant who works as a Dasher from approximately October 10, 2018 to the present. DoorDash, Inc. provides takeout food delivery via a phone application and website throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 Email: bdebes@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net - and - Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818) 839-6506 Facsimile: (818) 986-9698 Email: marbuckl@baronbudd.com EAGLE TEAM: Williams Seeks Proper Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------ Glendon Williams, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Eagle Team NYC CR LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08017 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 27, 2019) alleges that Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former employees who worked for the Defendant are: (i) entitled to unpaid wages from Defendant for working more than forty hours in a week and not being paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the regular rate for each and all such hours over forty in a week, and (ii) entitled to maximum liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Minimum Wage Act, New York Lab. Law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a construction laborer/carpenter for about six months ending on or about July 24, 2019. Plaintiff worked about 45-60 hours each week for Defendant, 5-7 days a week, says the complaint. Defendant was engaged in the building construction and renovation business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Phone: 718-740-1000 Fax: 718-740-2000 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com ELECTRICAL BUILDERS: Raykovitz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK RAYKOVITZ, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ELECTRICAL BUILDERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00137-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., Aug. 22, 2019) is a collective action seeking to recover unpaid overtime and other damages. Electrical Builders, Inc. has failed to pay Frank Raykovitz and other workers like him, overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Instead, they are paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. Raykovitz worked for EBI from approximately September 2018 until May 2019. EBI is a high power conductor service provider and has been involved with utility and substation projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy A. Lanier, Esq. Troy A. Lanier, PC 430 Ellis Street Augusta, GA 30901 Phone: 706-823-6800 Email: tlanier@tlanierlaw.com ELECTRONIC RECYCLERS: Removes Gilman Case to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ Electronic Recyclers International Inc. removes case captioned as AMY GILMAN, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, v. ELECTRONIC RECYCLERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19C0249, from the California Superior Court, County of Kings, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 14, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01112-DAD-EPG. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Electronic Recyclers offers electronic recycling services to its clients. The company's range of solutions include data destruction and shredding.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant are: Mark D. Kruthers, Esq. William H. Littlewood, Esq. G. Andrew Slater, Esq. DOWLING AARON INCORPORATED 8080 North Palm Avenue, Third Floor P.O. Box 28902 Fresno, CA 93729-8902 Telephone: (559) 432-4500 Facsimile: (559) 432-4590 E-mail: mkruthers@dowlingaaron.com wlittlewood@dowlingaaron.com aslater@dowlingaaron.com EMC INSURANCE: Iowa State Court Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- EMC Insurance Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court dismissed a lawsuit in state court in Iowa relating to the November 15, 2018 proposal by Employers Mutual to acquire all outstanding shares of stock in the Company not already owned by Employers Mutual, without prejudice. On March 22, 2019, a lawsuit was filed in state court in Iowa relating to the November 15, 2018 proposal by Employers Mutual to acquire all outstanding shares of stock in the Company not already owned by Employers Mutual. The lawsuit was filed as a purported class action, and names as defendants Employers Mutual and the five individual directors of the Company. The lawsuit alleges that the proposal is unfair to the Company's minority shareholders, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Employers Mutual and the Company and its directors deny all allegations of wrongdoing set forth in the lawsuit. On July 26, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the lawsuit. On July 31, 2019, the court granted that motion and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. EMC Insurance Group Inc., an insurance holding company, provides property and casualty insurance, and reinsurance products in the United States. It operates through two segments, Property and Casualty Insurance, and Reinsurance. The company was founded in 1974 and is based in Des Moines, Iowa. EMC Insurance Group Inc. is a subsidiary of Employers Mutual Casualty Company. EN ENGINEERING: Rossman Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ROSSMAN, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. EN ENGINEERING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05768 (N.D. Pa., Aug. 27, 2019) is a lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Defendant EN Engineering, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Massachusetts Wage & Hour Law. Rossman and the Putative Class Members regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But EN paid Rossman and the other employees like him the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. EN's straight time for overtime pay plan violates the overtime requirements of the FLSA, the IMWL, and the MWHL. Rossman brings this collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to him and other EN hourly workers like him, says the complaint. Plaintiff Rossman was employed by EN from approximately April 2018 until April 2019. EN ENGINEERING, LLC provides engineering, consulting, and automation services, to pipeline companies, utilities, and industrial customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Werman Salas P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com ENBRIDGE INC: Robertson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENBRIDGE (U.S.) INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01080-LPL (W.D. Pa., Aug. 27, 2019) is a lawsuit seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Enbridge (U.S.) Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, Robertson and the other workers like him regularly worked for Enbridge in excess of 40 hours each week. But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA and PMWA, Enbridge improperly classified Robertson and those similarly situated workers as exempt employees and paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation. This collective action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to these workers. Plaintiff Robertson worked for Enbridge from April 2018 until August 2018 as a welding inspector. Enbridge is an energy delivery company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Phone: (412) 766-1455 Fax: (412)766-0300 Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com FIFTH THIRD: Dismissal in Early Access Cash Advance Suit Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of contract claim in the consolidated class suit entitled, In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-00851), and remanded the matter for further proceedings. On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v. Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% Annual Percentage Rate (APR) that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances within 30 days. On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-00851). On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). On January 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the immediate appeal of the dismissal of their breach of contract claim. On March 28, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and stayed the TILA claim pending that appeal. On April 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal for the breach of contract claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiffs claim damages for the alleged breach of contract claim exceed $280 million. Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. FIS OPERATIONS: Jordan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ ANA JORDAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FIS OPERATIONS, LLC D/B/A FRONTIER INTEGRITY SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00202 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 23, 2019) is a collective action and lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to recover unpaid overtime wages from Defendant. During Plaintiff's employment with FIS, she regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week. FIS knew or reasonably should have known that Plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours per week. FIS did not pay Plaintiff overtime "at a rate not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which she was employed." Instead, FIS paid Plaintiff a flat sum for each day's work regardless of the number of hours she worked in a workweek. FIS knew or reasonably should have known that Plaintiff was not exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Jordan was employed by FIS as a project inspector/clerk from approximately May 2018 July 2019. FIS provides pipeline inspection and maintenance services to customers in the oil and gas industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bridget Davidson, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 FORD MOTOR: Van's Class Cert. Bid Denied; Hearing Set for Sept. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr., denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled CHRISTIE VAN, et al. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:14-cv-08708 (N.D. Ill.). The Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony, reports, and opinions of Dr. Louise Fitzgerald, and grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to bar the testimony and expert report of Dr. Liza Gold and Dr. Gregory Mitchell, PhD. The case is set for further status hearing on September 12, 2019, at 10:30 a.m. The Plaintiffs are women, who currently are employed or who were employed at one of the two Chicago-area Ford Motor Company facilities (the "Plants")--the Chicago Assembly Plant ("Assembly Plant") and the Chicago Stamping Plant ("Stamping Plant"). The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all present and former female employees, who worked at the Assembly Plant or the Stamping Plant between February 14, 2012 and present. The Plaintiffs have moved for class certification on their sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims. The Court opines that the subjective element of the Plaintiffs' hostile work environment claim does not present common issues appropriate for class-wide determination. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of satisfying the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Dow also opines that to date, the Plaintiffs have not made a showing that any two individuals--much less the class they seek to certify--experienced the same misconduct in the same way. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not at this juncture satisfied Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement.[CC] FUNKO INC: Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit in Washington Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County dismissed the consolidated action entitled, In re Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation. On November 16, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO), entitled Robert Lowinger v. Funko, Inc., et. al. In January and March 2018, five additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in Washington state court, four in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County and one in the Superior Court of Washington in and for Snohomish County. Two of the King County lawsuits, Surratt v. Funko, Inc. et. al. (filed on January 16, 2018) and Baskin v. Funko, Inc. et. al. (filed on January 30, 2018), were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The other two King County lawsuits, The Ronald and Maxine Linde Foundation v. Funko, Inc. et. al. (filed on January 18, 2018) and Lovewell v. Funko, Inc. et. al (filed on March 27, 2018), were filed against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental and certain other defendants. The Snohomish County lawsuit, Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et. al. (filed on March 13, 2018), was filed against the company, certain of the Company's officers and directors, and ACON. On May 8, 2018, the Berkelhammer action was voluntarily dismissed, and on May 15, 2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the same plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County. On April 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit Jacobs v. Funko, Inc. et. al was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain other defendants. On May 21, 2018, the Jacobs action was voluntarily dismissed, and on June 12, 2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the same plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County. On July 2, 2018, all of the above-referenced suits were ordered consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County. On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental, and certain other defendants. On October 1, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss that action. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on October 31, 2018, and the Company filed its reply to plaintiffs' opposition on November 30, 2018. Oral arguments on the motions to dismiss were held on May 3, 2019. On August 2, 2019, the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County dismissed the consolidated action, allowing Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. The Court found, inter alia, that "Funko's statements regarding its financial disclosures were not materially false or misleading" and that "plaintiffs have not shown that Funko's 'opinion statements' were false or that such statements were not simply corporate optimism or puffery." Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs, sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc. was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington. FUNKO INC: Kanugonda Class Action Underway ------------------------------------------ Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Kanugonda v. Funko, et al. On June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit Kanugonda v. Funko, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain other defendants. On January 4, 2019, a lead plaintiff was appointed in that case. On April 30, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the previously named defendants. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs, sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc. was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington. GENERAL MOTORS: Diesel Truck Owners Sue Over Defective Fuel Pump ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark D. Chapman, Leroy Gwinn Jr., William McDuffie, Gary Godwin and Robert Hoag, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Motors LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-12333, (E.D. Mich., August 6, 2019), seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further relief resulting from breach of contract, negligence, deceit by concealment and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and various state consumer protection acts. Plaintiffs are owners of diesel trucks manufactured by GMC. They claim that their vehicles contain the CP4 fuel pump that is not compatible with American diesel fuel. American diesel fuel allegedly contains less lubrication thus running the fuel pump nearly dry. Air pockets form inside the pump during operation, causing metal to rub against metal, generating metal shavings which are dispersed throughout the fuel injection system, contaminating and destroying the fuel system. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com GET TOGETHER: Lynn Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN LYNN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GET TOGETHER, INC. D/B/A IRL APP a Delaware corporation and SCOTT BANISTER Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-05276 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendants to stop Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited text messages to cellular telephones and otherwise engaging in prohibited telemarketing, and to obtain redress, including injunctive relief, for all persons injured by their conduct. In an attempt to promote the app, Defendants conducted (and continue to conduct) a wide-scale telemarketing campaign that features the sending of unsolicited text messages to consumers' cellular telephones, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. By sending the autodialed text messages at issue in this Complaint, Defendants caused Plaintiff and the members of the Classes actual harm and cognizable legal injury. This includes the aggravation, annoyance, and nuisance and invasions of privacy that result from the receipt of such calls, says the complaint. Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unsolicited text messaging activities to consumers and seeks an award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes under the TCPA together with costs. Plaintiff Steven Lynn is a natural person and resident of Texas. Get Together is a mobile application that encourages users to make plans, invite friends and socialize through their app.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Ratner, Esq. David Ratner Law Firm, LLP 33 Julianne Court Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Phone: (917) 900-2868 Facsimile: (925) 891-3818 Email: david@davidratnerlawfirm.com GLOBE LIFE: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Joh Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a second amended complaint has been filed in the case, Joh v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. C18-01863. On September 12, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed against American Income in California's Contra Costa County Superior Court (Joh v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. C18-01863). An amended complaint was filed on October 18, 2018. American Income removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:18-cv-06364-TSH). A second amended complaint was filed on May 20, 2019. The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income, are suing on behalf of all current and former trainees and sales agents who sold insurance for American Income in the State of California for the four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that such individuals are employees and asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and California Private Attorney General Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney fees on claims for failure to pay wages/commissions, failure to appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses, misclassification and unfair business practices. Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) , incorporated on November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance, annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The company is based in McKinney, Texas. GLOBE LIFE: Dismissed from Golz Class Action -------------------------------------------- Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been dismissed in the putative class action suit entitled, Golz v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et al. On October 18, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed against Torchmark Corporation and American Income in California's Los Angeles County Superior Court (Golz v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 18STCV01354). American Income removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:18-cv-09879 R (SSx)). An amended complaint was filed on February 5, 2019. On February 6, 2019, Torchmark Corporation was dismissed without prejudice and the case proceeded with respect to American Income. On April 2, 2019, the District Court granted American Income's motion to dismiss four of the five causes of action asserted. The amended complaint's remaining claim alleges that plaintiff, as an American Income insurance agent trainee in California, was an employee who should have been compensated accordingly. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals in California who trained to contract as American Income agents and who subsequently worked as contracted agents. The class period is alleged to begin four years prior to the complaint's filing. The complaint seeks restitution under the California Business and Professions Code for alleged unfair business practices such as failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to reimburse business expenses. Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) , incorporated on November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance, annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The company is based in McKinney, Texas. GLOBE LIFE: Putros Class Suit Against Unit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------- Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's subsidiary American Income Life Insurance Company, continues to defend against a putative class action suit entitled, Putros v. American Income Life Insurance Company. On January 16, 2019, putative class action litigation was filed against American Income in Orange County, California Superior Court (Putros v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. 30-2019-01044772-CU-OE-CXC). An amended complaint was filed on January 22, 2019. The plaintiff, a former insurance sales agent of American Income, is suing on behalf of all current and former sales agents who sold insurance for American Income in the State of California for the year prior to the filing of the complaint. The lawsuit alleges that putative class members are employees and asserts claims under the California Private Attorney General Act. The complaint seeks penalties for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses, and misclassification. Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) , incorporated on November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance, annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The company is based in McKinney, Texas. GLOBE LIFE: Unit Still Faces Hamilton Class Action in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's subsidiary American Income Life Insurance Company continues to face a putative class action suit entitled, Hamilton v. American Income Life Insurance Company. On December 14, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed against American Income in United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Hamilton v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-7535-KAW). An amended complaint was filed on January 23, 2019. The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income, are suing on behalf of all current and former sales agents who sold insurance for American Income in the State of California for the last four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The lawsuit alleges that putative class members are employees and asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and California Private Attorney General Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney fees on claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses, misclassification and unfair business practices. Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) , incorporated on November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance, annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The company is based in McKinney, Texas. GORDON REED: Alaniz Moves for Class Certification and Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled RAY ALANIZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GORDON REED & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 6:18-cv-01595-MJJ-CBW (W.D. La.), moves the Court for certification of collective action and request for notice to putative class members.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com - and - Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq. Adam R. Credeur, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN 417 W. University Avenue (70506) P.O. Box 4325 Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (337) 235-5294 Facsimile: (337) 235-1095 E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com adam@kwdejean.com GOVBERG LLC: Diaz Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Govberg, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Govberg, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07851 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 21, 2019). Govberg, LLC is an online retail consignment store featuring luxury clothing, jewelry, and watches.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal HARRIS & HARRIS: Bayeg Hits Biometrics Data Sharing --------------------------------------------------- Erica Flowers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 2019CH09123 (Ill. Cir., August 7, 2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics; and statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The complaint alleges that Harris improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data without informed consent. Harris & Harris is a debt collection agency located in Chicago, Illinois, where Plaintiff worked as an hourly employee. She was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES: Voyager Sues Over HDD Assembly Price-fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- VOYAGER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND ND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02357 (D. Minn., Aug. 27, 2019) is a class action against Defendants for damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection laws, and the laws of unjust enrichment under Section 16 of the Clayton to secure equitable and injunctive relief against Defendants for violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. This lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive ("HDD") suspension assemblies. HDD suspension assemblies are a component of hard disk drives, which use magnetism to store information electronically. HDDs containing HDD suspension assemblies are sold both as stand-alone devices and incorporated into a variety of ubiquitous electronics such as computers, gaming systems, printers, and copy machines. The Defendants manufactured and sold HDD suspension assemblies throughout and into the United States. As of 2016, Defendants TDK and NHK, along with their subsidiaries, were the leading manufacturers of HDD suspension assemblies, with a combined worldwide market share of approximately 90%. Starting in approximately May 2008 Defendants and their co-conspirators contracted, combined, or conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices of and allocate market shares for HDD suspension assemblies in the United States, asserts the complaint. United States and foreign governments have investigated potential price- fixing of HDD suspension assemblies; and in 2019, Defendant NHK admitted guilt. On July 29, 2019, the DOJ announced that Defendant NHK agreed to plead guilty and pay a $28.5 million fine for its role in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing prices of HDD suspension assemblies sold in the United States and elsewhere. The complaint alleges that the combination and conspiracy engaged in by the Defendants and their co-conspirators was in unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, and state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection laws, and the common law of unjust enrichment. As a direct and proximate result of the anticompetitive and unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the Classes paid more during the Class Period for HDD suspension assemblies than they otherwise would have paid in a competitive market and have thereby suffered antitrust injury to their business or property, says the complaint. Plaintiff Voyager Technology Solutions, LLC purchased at least one HDD suspension assembly indirectly from at least one Defendant, in Minnesota. Headway Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Milpitas, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq. MCSWEENEY LANGEVIN, LLC 2116 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404 Phone: (612) 746-4646 Facsimile: (612) 454-2678 Email: ram@westrikeback.com - and - Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. Kathryn R. Eisenstein, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Rd. Troy, MI 48083 Phone: (248) 457-9200 Email: gmantese@manteselaw.com keisenstein@manteselaw.com HOMEADVISOR INC: Newell Sues Over Automated Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- JOUREY NEWELL, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOMEADVISOR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02392 (D. Colo., Aug. 22, 2019) is an action seeking to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. Mr. Newell alleges that HomeAdvisor, Inc. made automated telemarketing calls to Mr. Newell and other putative class members without their prior express written consent. Mr. Newell and putative class members never consented to receive these calls. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, Mr. Newell brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of HomeAdvisor, says the complaint. Plaintiff Jourey Newell currently resides in Pennsylvania. HomeAdvisor, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 14023 Denver West Parkway, Suite 100, Golden, Colorado 80401.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian K. Murphy, Esq. Jonathan P. Misny, Esq. Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 Email: murphy@mmmb.com misny@mmmb.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. Paronich Law, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com IDEMIA IDENTITY: Rueda Wins Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Vince Chhabria granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of amended class & collective action settlement in the lawsuit entitled Connie Rueda, Jessica Cotton, and Shelia Spencer, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Idemia Identity & Security USA, LLC, MorphoTrust USA, LLC, and Does 1-50, Case No. 3:18-cv-03794-VC (N.D. Cal.). To comply with the Northern District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, Class Counsel will file their motion for fees and costs 14 days before the expiration of the 60-day period to opt out or serve objections to the Amended Stipulation of Class Action, Collective Action, and Representative Action Settlement and Release (the "Amended Settlement"), or before November 15, 2019, according to the Order. A final fairness hearing on whether the proposed Amended Settlement, attorneys' fees to Class Counsel, the Class Representatives' enhancement payments, and the cy pres recipient should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the members of the Settlement Class will be held on December 12, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. The Court approves, as to form and content, the notices of class and collective settlement attached to the Settlement Agreement. The Court approves the procedure for Class Members to participate in, opt out of, and object to the Settlement as set forth in the Notice. The Court appoints Rust Consulting as the Settlement Administrator. The Court directs the mailing of the Notice in accordance with the Implementation Schedule, which includes: -- Deadline for Defendants to provide Class data to Settlement Administrator is 14 days after Court enters this Order; -- Deadline for Settlement Administrator to calculate Net Pro Rata Distribution and deliver the same to Defendants' Counsel and Class Counsel is seven days after Defendants provide Class Data to Settlement Administrator; and -- Deadline for California Class Members to opt out or serve written objections to the Settlement is 60 days after Notices of Settlement are mailed by the Settlement Administrator.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan Schwartz, Esq. Rachel Terp, Esq. BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW 180 Broadway, Suite 1380 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 444-9300 Facsimile: (510) 444-9301 E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com rachel@bryanschwartzlaw.com ITALIANTOUCH USA: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Italiantouch USA, Inc. The case is styled as Valentin Reid on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Italiantouch USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07970 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Italiantouch creates and develops unique, custom-tailored e-commerce services and logistic hubs in the main worldwide luxury markets. Its mission is to offer customised end-to-end solutions to maximize online sales, creating and developing technological platforms with an excellent quality standard.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com JUUL LABS INC: Quercia Files Suit Over e-Cigarette Side-effects --------------------------------------------------------------- ANASTASIA QUERCIA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JUUL LABS INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05664 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 22, 2019) asserts that JUUL has fraudulently concealed material information about the addictive nature of its e-cigarettes, and this lawsuit seeks to redress the harm already sustained, and to prevent future harm, to others. Plaintiff is only 20 years old yet she is addicted to JUUL, an e-cigarette. She also suffers from mood swings, fits of rage, and pulmonary issues. The federal Food & Drug Administration (FDA) just announced it was studying the association between seizures and e-cigarettes. Health authorities consider youth e-cigarette use an epidemic. And now that Philip Morris, seller of Marlboro, the country's most popular cigarette especially among youth, partnered with JUUL, the country's lead e-cigarette seller, progress in nicotine cessation stands to erode. The Defendants use the very fraudulent and deceptive youth marketing business practices adjudged to violate federal racketeering laws, says the complaint. Plaintiff's claims arise out of JUUL's fraudulent concealment of material facts concerning the JUUL e-cigarette and representations about the JUUL e-cigarettes' nicotine content, its addictiveness, and it physiological effects. JUUL knew that JUUL e-cigarettes' were not safe for non-smokers, and posed a risk of aggravating nicotine addiction in those already addicted to cigarettes. JUUL was under a duty to disclose this material information based upon its exclusive knowledge of it, and its concealment of it; yet JUUL never disclosed the defect to Plaintiff or the public, says the complaint. Plaintiff resides in Cook County, Illinois, and is a citizen of the State of Illinois. JUUL manufactures, designs, sells, markets, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarettes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Cady, Esq. Ken Moll, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 22 W Washington Street, 15th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 462-1700 Fax: (312) 756-0045 Email: scady@molllawgroup.com kmoll@molllawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Phillips Sues Over Fraudulent Scheme ----------------------------------------------- Chasity Phillips, individually, and as guardian of her minor child, A.P., on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JUUL LABS, INC., and ALTRIA GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04172-MDH (W.D. Mo., Aug. 21, 2019) is a case involving a scheme in interstate commerce to mislead and defraud teens and others by inducing them to buy a new e-cigarette called JUUL. Defendants devised and deployed this fraudulent scheme to enter and dominate the e-cigarette market through deception and misdirection, notes the complaint. A.P. was a bright, social 16-year-old who began using JUUL around May of 2018. What started as something he did only in the evenings and on weekends quickly escalated, over just a few short months, into an addiction that A.P. thought about and partook in all day throughout each day. When she first became aware of A.P.'s JUUL use, Phillips attempted to get A.P. to stop cold-turkey. By this point, however, A.P. was so addicted to nicotine that he became extremely anxious and irritated when he did not have it. The Defendants did so through an enterprise of third parties they used to deceive people about the attributes and health benefits of "JUULing." This fraudulent scheme has caused injury to the property of millions of people who have purchased these JUUL products. Though not alone in pursuing development of electronic cigarettes, JUUL did so with a familiar strategy. Taking a page from big tobacco's playbook, which includes defendant Altria, JUUL, in concert with its advertising agencies, developed a product and marketing strategy that sought to portray its e-cigarette as trend-setting, stylish and used by the type of people teenagers look up to. In addition to advertisements eerily similar in scheme and content to those of traditional cigarette manufacturers, JUUL utilized social media extensively, knowing full well that teenagers are the primary users of social media. JUUL knew of the significant health risks posed by nicotine use, in particular vaping, and, with that knowledge, developed an e-cigarette that is more potent than any other. JUUL was also aware that nicotine has a more significant adverse impact on adolescents, including an increased risk of becoming addicted to nicotine. With that knowledge, JUUL developed a marketing strategy that targeted teenagers. This action seeks to hold JUUL, Altria and others who acted in concert and independently towards the same goal accountable for their tortious and illegal conduct resulting in serious harm to millions of individuals, says the complaint. Plaintiff Chasity Phillips is the parent and natural guardian of A.P. who is 17 years old. JUUL manufactures, designs, sells, markets, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarettes and related products, including through sales at physical retail locations across the United States and internet sales through websites maintained by JUUL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 701-1100 Fax: (816) 531-2372 Email: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com KOHLS DEPARTMENT: Third Circuit Appeal Initiated in Gordon Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Jennifer Gordon, Valerie Tantlinger and Jennifer Underwood filed an appeal from a Court ruling entered in their lawsuit titled Jennifer Gordon, et al. v. Kohls Department Stores Inc., et al., Case No. 2-15-cv-00730, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Named Plaintiff Jennifer Underwood sought to certify a class against the Defendants arguing that the companies were unjustly enriched at her and the class' expense. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants profited from a deficient credit-monitoring product called PrivacyGuard that was sold to her and members of the putative class. In particular, when the Plaintiff and putative class members did not complete the second step in registering for PrivacyGuard services, they did not receive the full range of promised credit-monitoring services. The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Gordon, et al. v. Kohls Department Stores Inc., et al., Case No. 19-2865, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JENNIFER GORDON, et al., are represented by: Angela Edwards, Esq. 72 Canterbury Circle East Longneadow, MA 01028 Telephone: (413) 525-3820 E-mail: angelaedwards@charter.net - and - Patrick Howard, Esq. Charles J. Kocher, Esq. Simon B. Paris, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC 1650 Market Street One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3895 E-mail: phoward@smbb.com ckocher@smbb.com sparis@smbb.com - and - Lee S. Shalov, Esq. MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 448-1100 E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com - and - Wade C. Wilkinson, Esq. FRAZER & FELDMAN LLP 1415 Kellum Place Garden City, NY 10016 Telephone: (516) 742-7777 Defendants-Appellees KOHLS DEPARTMENT STORES INC. and CAPITAL ONE NA are represented by: Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Esq. Daniel McKenna, Esq. Elanor A. Mulhern, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 864-8238 E-mail: bryce@ballardspahr.com mckennad@ballardspahr.com mulherne@ballardspahr.com - and - Joseph J. Schuster, Esq. GOLDMAN SACHS & CO 200 West Street New York, NY 10282 Telephone: (215) 864-8347 L'OREAL USA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Borchenko Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Nataliya Borchenko filed an appeal from a Court ruling in her lawsuit styled Nataliya Borchenko v. L' Oreal USA, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-01426-R-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff asked the Court to certify this class: * Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") California-Only Class: All California consumers who within the applicable statute of limitations period until the date notice is disseminated, purchased the Products. Additionally, Ms. Borchenko asked the Court to appoint her as Class representative and to appoint the law firm of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C. as Class Counsel. The appellate case is captioned as Nataliya Borchenko v. L' Oreal USA, Inc., Case No. 19-55970, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Nataliya Borchenko's opening brief is due on October 21, 2019; -- Appellee L' Oreal USA, Inc.'s answering brief is due on November 21, 2019; -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant NATALIYA BORCHENKO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: David N. Lake, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 788-5100 Facsimile: (818) 479-9990 E-mail: david@lakelawpc.com - and - Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6978 E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com psyverson@bffb.com - and - Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 E-mail: eryan@bffb.com Defendant-Appellee L' OREAL USA, INC., a Delaware corporation is represented by: Elizabeth Anne Dorsi, Esq. Thomas B. Mayhew, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 E-mail: edorsi@fbm.com tmayhew@fbm.com LANE BRYANT: Tatum-Rios Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ LYNETTE TATUM-RIOS, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LANE BRYANT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08014 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 27, 2019) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.lanebryant.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Tatum-Rios and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant denies full and equal access to its Website, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law against Defendant. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Lynette Tatum-Rios is a legally blind person. Defendant is a retailer of plus size clothing for women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: 212.392.4772 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Cert. Ruling in Mason Suit Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Mason et al. v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-04780 (E.D.N.Y., August 15, 2017), Judge Margo K. Brodie affirmed a May 2019 decision by the magistrate judge granting conditional class certification. "As indicated in the May 2019 Order, Defendant is directed to produce a list of the names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, work locations, and dates of employment for all potential collective action members during the relevant time period." Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that on or about August 15, 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all current and former store managers, store managers in training, installation sales managers and similarly situated current and former employees holding comparable positions but different titles (collectively, the "Putative Class Employees") alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by classifying the Putative Class Employees as exempt. The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work. The plaintiffs seek certification of the Putative Class Employees for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning three years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the disposition of this action for the Putative Class Employees nationwide in connection with FLSA and (ii) a class action covering the period beginning six years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the disposition of this action for members of the Putative Class Employees who currently are or were employed in New York in connection with NYLL. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other damages. In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting conditional certification for all store managers and store managers in training who worked within the federal statute of limitations period. In May 2019, the magistrate judge granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. The Company filed objections to the magistrate judge's class certification decision with the district judge. The Company disputes the Putative Class Employees' claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. On August 30, it filed a Second Amended Answer to Amended Complaint. On September 4, Mason filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and to authorize second issuance of judicial notice based on an incomplete collective list. Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and liquidity." Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. MDL 2551: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order for Ewen Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION, MDL No.2551, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has vacated the Panel's conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-6," which conditionally transferred EWEN v. NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-03656 from the Central District of California to the District of Minnesota for inclusion in MDL No. 2551. Defendant National Hockey League moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring the Ewen action to the District of Minnesota for inclusion in MDL No. 2551. The Ewen plaintiff supports the motion. After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Vance grants the motion. This MDL was created in August2014, and is significantly advanced. Common discovery proceeded in the transferee court for several years, and the court denied class certification last year. According to the parties, only six of the 139 total claims involved in the MDL remain. Of these, two were transferred to the MDL under Section 1407. The transferee judge has before her a motion for suggestion of Section 1407 remand of those transferred claims, as well as motions to dismiss or transfer the other four claims that were directly filed in the transferee district. The Ewen plaintiff is represented by members of the MDL No.2551 plaintiffs' executive committee and will have access to common discovery produced in the MDL. Given these circumstances, as well as the parties' uniform opposition to transfer, vacatur is warranted at this time. If the transferee judge denies the motion for a suggestion of remand and determines that the MDL instead should continue in the District of Minnesota, the parties should inform the Panel and the Panel will determine whether to transfer Ewen at that time. A full-text copy of the Court's August 9, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/q6tzUY MDL 2902: 14 Merck Sharp & Dohme Patent Lawsuits Moved to Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: SITAGLIPTIN PHOSPHATE ('708 & '921) PATENT LITIGATION, MDL No. 2902, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 14 lawsuits initiated by MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. as listed on Schedule A to the District of Delaware, and with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Richard G. Andrews for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff and patentholder Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this patent infringement litigation in the District of Delaware. This litigation consists of fourteen actions pending in two districts, as listed on Schedule A. Mylan Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, Mylan), which are defendants in the Northern District of West Virginia action, do not oppose the motion. Generic manufacturer defendants in thirteen District of Delaware actions take no position on centralization, but if it is ordered, suggest that the District of Delaware serve as the transferee district. Merck filed these actions after generic drug manufacturers submitted a total of 26 Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make and sell generic versions of sitagliptin phosphate drugs, which are popular diabetes medications known as dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors. Sitagliptin phosphate is the active ingredient of Merck's Januvia (sitagliptin phosphate), Janumet (metformin hydrochloride; sitagliptin phosphate), and Janumet XR (metformin hydrochloride; sitagliptin phosphate extended release tablets) drug products. The actions on the motion area series of Hatch-Waxman patent infringement lawsuits, in which Merck alleges that each of the defendants has infringed two U.S. Patents by filing an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market generic sitagliptin phosphate in the United States. On the basis of the papers filed and hearing held, Judge Vance finds that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of Delaware will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions involve substantially identical claims that defendants infringed the two Merck patents. Centralization is warranted to prevent inconsistent rulings (particularly with respect to claim construction and issues of patent validity) and overlapping pretrial obligations, to reduce costs, and to create efficiencies for the parties, courts, and witnesses. Although the cases in this litigation are pending in only two districts, the Panel has long acknowledged that "actions involving the validity of complex pharmaceutical patents and the entry of generic versions of the patent holder's drugs are particularly well-suited for transfer under Section 1407." Given the complexity of the allegations and regulatory framework governing Hatch-Waxman cases, as well as the need for swift progress in this litigation that involves the potential entry of generic diabetes drugs into the market, placing all actions before a single judge should foster the efficient resolution of all the actions. Judge Vance selects the District of Delaware as the appropriate transferee district for these actions. Thirteen of the fourteen actions are pending in this district. Judge Vance is confident that Judge Richard G. Andrews, who is well-versed in complex patent litigation, will steer this matter on a prudent course. A full-text copy of the Court's August 8, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/95dPzu MDL 2905: 12 Defective Airbag Suits Moved to Central California --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: ZF-TRW AIRBAG CONTROL UNITS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2905, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 12 actions to the Central District of California, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable John A. Kronstadt for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in an action in the Central District of California (Altier) and an action in the Eastern District of Michigan (Samouris) move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Central District of California, or, in the alternative, the Eastern District of Michigan. The litigation consists of twelve actions: five in the Central District of California, two in the Southern District of Florida, three in the Eastern District of Michigan and one each in the Eastern District of New York and the Western District of Washington. The Panel has been notified of five potentially-related actions, all in the Central District of California. Central District of California ------------------------------ * CROFT, ET AL. v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-04256; * HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,C.A. No. 8:19-00782; * ALTIER, ET AL. v. ZF-TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., ET AL.,C.A. No. 8:19-00846; * BELL, ET AL. v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ET AL., C.A. No. 8:19-00963; * BLISS, ET AL. v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ET AL., C.A. No. 8:19-00970 Southern District of Florida ------------------------------ * SANTOS, ET AL. v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-61174; * PAYNE, ET AL. v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-21681; Eastern District of Michigan ------------------------------ * SAMOURIS, ET AL. v. ZF-TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-11215; * RUBIO, ET AL. v. ZF-TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, CORP., ET AL.,C.A. No. 2:19-11295; * HEILMAN-RYAN, ET AL. v. ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., ET AL.,C.A. No. 4:19-11464; Eastern District of New York ------------------------------ * RADI, ET AL. v. FCA US LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-02769 Western District of Washington ------------------------------ * COPLEY, ET AL. v. ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., ET AL.,C.A. No. 2:19-00707 All responding plaintiffs support centralization, but disagree, to some extent, on an appropriate transferee district. Most plaintiffs support selection of the Central District of California, but plaintiffs in the two actions in the Southern District of Florida argue for the Southern District of Florida. Responding defendants' positions on centralization vary. ZF-TRW Defendants, which are2named in all actions, support centralization in the Eastern District of Michigan, as do Honda Defendants. Defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc., and Kia Motors America, Inc., also support3centralization, but in the Central District of California. Toyota Defendants, defendants Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., and FCA US LLC oppose centralization, but, in the alternative, argue for creation of separate, automaker-specific MDLs in either the Central District of California (Toyota and Mitsubishi's favored venue)or the Eastern District of Michigan (FCA's favored venue). Finally, defendant Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd., opposes centralization, and argues, in the alternative, for the Central District of California as transferee district. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, Judge Vance finds that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Central District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions share factual issues arising from allegations that airbag control units manufactured by the ZF-TRW defendants are defective, in that an electrical overstress condition can cause a malfunction of the ACU's application specific integrated circuit. Because of this alleged defect -- which may affect more than twelve million vehicles made by multiple automakers, including FCA, Honda, Hyundai/Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota -- there is a risk that the airbag could fail to deploy in an accident. Centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery and other pretrial proceedings, as well as the possibility of inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. In opposing centralization, the Toyota, Mitsubishi, FCA, and Hyundai Mobis defendants argue, inter alia, that (1) individual issues – such as those concerning the design of each automaker's vehicles and their susceptibility to an ACU failure and each automaker's relationship with ZF-TRW– predominate; (2) centralization would only create inefficiencies because of the need to safeguard each defendant's trade secrets and other confidential information; and(3)plaintiffs' legal claims vary from case to case. These arguments are not convincing. First, the existence of individual issues, which is relatively common place in products liability MDLs, does not negate the common ones, which appear to be sufficiently substantial and complex to warrant creation of an MDL. Second, because a number of these cases involve multiple automaker defendants, denying centralization would hardly alleviate any trade secret concerns. The transferee judge can utilize protective orders or other appropriate methods to address confidentiality issues and other defendant-specific matters. Third, "where common factual issues exist, the presence of different legal theories among the actions is not a bar to centralization." The Toyota, Mitsubishi, and FCA defendants' alternative suggestion that the Panel create separate, automaker-specific MDLs is impracticable. These actions all arise from the same National Highway Traffic Administration investigation into airbags manufactured by the ZF-TRW defendants. Given the significant overlap in the core factual issues, parties, and claims, creation of a single MDL will best effectuate Section 1407's purposes. The Judge selects the Central District of California as the transferee district. Several defendants, including American Honda Motor Co., Hyundai Motor America, Inc., and Kia Motors America, Inc. are headquartered in that district, and relevant documents and witnesses likely will be found there. In addition, five constituent actions are pending in the Central District of California, as are all five potential tag-along actions. Judge John A. Kronstadt, to whom the Panel assigns the litigation, is an experienced jurist, and already is presiding over nine of the ten Central District of California actions. The Panel is confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent course. A full-text copy of the Court's August 7, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/DqRYkt MDL 2905: Underwood v. Kia over Defective Airbag Moved to Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit against seven car manufacturers was transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Aug. 14, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-07097-JAK-FFM to the proceeding. The case is captioned as Robert A. Underwood on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Kia Motors America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America, FCA US LLC, Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., and ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. The Underwood case is being consolidated with MDL 2905 in re: ZF-TRW AIRBAG CONTROL UNITS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on August 7, 2019. These actions share common factual questions arising from allegations that airbag control units manufactured by the ZF-TRW defendants are defective, in that an electrical overstress condition can cause a malfunction of the ACU's application specific integrated circuit. Because of this alleged defect -- which may affect more than 12 million vehicles made bymultiple automakers, including FCA, Honda, Hyundai/Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota -- there is a risk that the airbag could fail to deploy in an accident. In its August 7, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Central District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery and other pretrial proceedings, as well as the possibility of inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubertmotions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt. The lead case is 2:19-ml-02905-JAK-FFM.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are: David Seabold Casey, Jr, Esq. David Sisco Casey, Esq. Jeremy Keith Robinson, Esq. Patricia Camille Guerra, Esq. Seth H Barron, Esq. Gayle M Blatt, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT AND PENFIELD LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 Facsimile: (619) 544-9232 E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com caseyd@cglaw.com jrobinson@cglaw.com camille@cglaw.com sbarron@cglaw.com gmb@cglaw.com MDL 2908: Court Deems as Moot Boeing's Bid to Transfer 66 Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: AIR CRASH NEAR EJERE, ETHIOPIA, ON MARCH 10, 2019, MDL No. 2908, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has deemed as moot The Boeing Company's motion seeking centralization in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois of 66 actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Panel also ordered that the Hearing Session Order is VACATED insofar as it relates to these actions. Before the Panel is a motion by defendant The Boeing Company, seeking centralization, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois of the actions on the attached schedule for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Panel has now been advised that the actions filed in the District of South Carolina have been voluntarily dismissed, thus depriving this litigation of its multidistrict character. In SOUTH CAROLINA District, Div. 2 ---------------------------------- 19-01443 - Thugge et al v. Boeing Company, The 19-01455 - Vdovic et al v. Boeing Company, The 19-01594 - Matsliah v. Boeing Company, The In ILLINOIS NORTHERN District, Div. 1 ------------------------------------- 19-02170 - In re: Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET 302 Crash 19-02281 - Stumo et al v. The Boeing Company et al 19-02322 - Hammamy et al v. Boeing 19-02348 - Hussein Abdi v. The Boeing Company 19-02531 - Karuri et al v. The Boeing Company 19-02597 - Kondaveeti v. The Boeing Company 19-02709 - Carrasco et al v. Boeing Co., The 19-02770 - Mungai v. Boeing Corporation, The et al 19-02839 - Vaidya v. Boeing Company, The et al 19-02840 - Vaidya v. The Boeing Company et al 19-02841 - Vaidya v. The Boeing Company et al 19-02842 - Njoroge v. The Boeing Company et al 19-02843 - Njoroge v. The Boeing Company et al 19-02844 - Njoroge v. The Boeing Company et al 19-02846 - Njoroge v. The Boeing Company et al 19-02847 - Vaidya v. The Boeing Company et al 19-02848 - Vaidya et al v. The Boeing Company et al 19-02849 - Vaidya et al v. The Boeing Company et al 19-02969 - Spini v. Boeing Co., The et al 19-02971 - Spini v. Boeing Co., The et al 19-03285 - K'Obien et al v. Boeing Company, The 19-03297 - Mairesse v. Boeing Company, The et al 19-03298 - Chimenti v. Boeing Co., The et al 19-03381 - Konarski v. The Boeing Company 19-03392 - Seex et al v. The Boeing Company 19-03506 - Dziurawiec-Duda v. The Boeing Company 19-03525 - Gitelson v. The Boeing Company 19-03540 - Connolly v. Boeing Co., The 19-03668 - Karanja v. The Boeing Company 19-03669 - Jesse v. The Boeing Company 19-03671 - Kimiti v. The Boeing Company 19-03677 - Chafi v. Boeing Co., The 19-03740 - ADESANMI v. The Boeing Company 19-03751 - Lacroix v. The Boeing Company et al 19-03819 - Egal v. Boeing Company, The 19-03820 - Gathumbi et al v. The Boeing Company 19-03822 - Hrnko v. The Boeing Company 19-03823 - Hrnko v. The Boeing Company 19-03824 - Hrnko v. The Boeing Company 19-03844 - Riffel et al v. The Boeing Company 19-03845 - Riffel v. Boeing Company, The 19-03846 - Moore et al v. The Boeing Company 19-03901 - Gebler-Reem v. The Boeing Company 19-03927 - Muturi v. Boeing Company, The et al 19-03965 - Yakob v. The Boeing Company 19-04004 - Mwashi et al v. Boeing Company, The 19-04009 - Cheruiyot v. The Boeing Company 19-04027 - French et al v. The Boeing Company 19-04074 - Conway v. The Boeing Company et al 19-04076 - Conway v. The Boeing Company et al 19-04106 - Akeyo et al v. The Boeing Company 19-04107 - Philipp v. The Boeing Co. et al 19-04137 - Westerlind v. Boeing Co., The et al 19-04140 - Toole v. Boeing Co., The et al 19-04162 - Abdalla v. Boeing Co., The et al 19-04219 - Adhikari et al v. Boeing Co., The et al 19-04242 - Wondmsigegn v. The Boeing Company et al 19-04282 - De Luis v. The Boeing Company 19-04284 - Gaititi et al v. The Boeing Company 19-04285 - Al-Mutairi v. The Boeing Company 19-04295 - Kalbfleisch v. The Boeing Company 19-04382 - Saafi et al v. Boeing Co., The et al 19-04422 - Fili v. The Boeing Co. et al A full-text copy of the Court's August 23, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/8b3BOs MERRILL LYNCH: Valelly Files Suit for Unjust Enrichment ------------------------------------------------------- SARAH VALELLY, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07998 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 27, 2019) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and a Class of similarly situated persons or entities, who are or were Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated brokerage customers beginning March 3, 2014, and who were defaulted by Merrill into a low interest Merrill Lynch Direct Deposit ("MLDD") "sweep account" (the "Brokerage Subclass"). The complaint alleges that Merrill's MLDD sweep accounts pay investors a paltry 0.05% to 0.14% annual percentage yield ("APY") notwithstanding the absence of adequate disclosure, contract formation, or customers' "prior written affirmative consent" to be placed into a sweep account, as is required by common law principles, and NYSE and SEC rules and regulations. Beginning in the late 1990s, brokerage firms like Merrill began "sweeping" customer's cash into bank accounts of affiliated entities that were lawfully able to use that cash to generate profits in their operations. The movement of that cash frequently came with only minimal disclosure to customers that their cash was being transferred to affiliated entities. Most times (at least with Merrill) the customer only earned a de minimus return on that cash, well below the amounts earned by the affiliated entities and paid to Merrill on the use of the cash. Plaintiff asserts claims (i) on behalf of the Brokerage Subclass under the doctrine of implied contract, unjust enrichment and quasi-contract, since there was no valid bilateral contract between the parties as to the payment of interest on sweep accounts and in the absence of a binding contract Subclass members are entitled to be paid a reasonable, market rate, (ii) on behalf of a "Retirement Class" for breach of a unilateral contract to pay interest at a "reasonable rate," and (iii) on behalf of a "Brokerage Subclass" and "BANA Subclass" for negligence and violation of customer suitability rules. Claims on behalf of each Subclass are also asserted under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, Mass. Gen. Law Chapter 93A, on behalf of a Massachusetts resident Subclass. Plaintiff seeks both monetary recovery and declaratory and injunctive relief, says the complaint. Plaintiff, Sarah Valelly resided in Boston, Massachusetts. Plaintiff currently resides in Charleston, South Carolina. Merrill Edge is an online brokerage service operated by Merrill beginning in 2010.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Adam J. Blander, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 MIDLAND CREDIT: Porricelli Sues Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- LISA PORRICELLI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, and ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., formerly MCM CAPITAL GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07992 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 27, 2019) is a class action for damages brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from engaging in any false, deceptive, or misleading practices in the collection of any debt. According to the complaint, Defendants--who are debt collectors--sent Plaintiff and the putative class members a collection letter bearing the ominous threat that it would be the "FINAL NOTICE" before the account would be transitioned to the "attorney review process." But Defendants continued to send multiple collection notices to Plaintiff and the putative class members after this purported "FINAL NOTICE". Thus, the Defendants' "FINAL NOTICE" collection letters contain language that is false, deceptive, and misleading, in violation of the FDCPA, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Lisa Porricelli is a consumer who resides in The Bronx, New York. Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM") is a nationwide debt collector with its principal place of business at 8875 Aero Drive, San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: BRIAN L. BROMBERG, ESQ. BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C. 26 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 248-7906 - and - CARY L. FLITTER, ESQ. ANDREW M. MILZ, ESQ. JODY LOPEZ-JACOBS, ESQ. FLITTER MILZ, PC 450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101 Narberth, PA 19072 Phone: (610) 822-0782 MIKE ROVNER: Williamson Seeks Unpaid Wages for Carpenters --------------------------------------------------------- TOLLICE WILLIAMSON, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MIKE ROVNER CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV353263 (Cal. Super., Aug. 14, 2019), seeks to redress Defendants' unlawful employment practices against Plaintiff, and similarly situated employees. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with rest periods or pay him premium wages in lieu thereof; failed to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; failed to pay overtime wages; failed to reimburse for necessary business expenses; failed to provide with accurate wage statements; and failed to timely pay all earned and unpaid wages after discharge in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff spent all of his working hours performing non-exempt work for Defendant. The Plaintiff was entitled to overtime premium pay for all overtime hours worked. The Defendants assign Plaintiff and other workers to certain job sites where remodeling or renovation is taking place. For the tenure of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff was assigned to work on the Cyprus Village Apartments in Santa Clara county. The Plaintiff was hired as a Carpenter on May 5, 2016. Despite the job title, Plaintiffs job duties encompassed carpentry, electrical work, cleaning the site after the day's work was over, and other general labor around the site. Plaintiff was laid off on November 16, 2018, the lawsuit says. Defendants are a construction company that redevelops residential and commercial properties in Santa Clara County and throughout California.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Robert W. Ottinger, Esq. Saima Ali, Esq. robert@ottingerlaw.com saima@ottingerlaw.com THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 535 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415-262-0096 Facsimile: 212-571-0505 - and - Anthony Label, Esq. Annie Wu, Esq. THE VEEN FIRM, P.C. Haight Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 673-4800 Facsimile: (415) 771-5845 E-mail: AL.Team@VeenFirm.com MISSISSIPPI: Hosemann Appeals Ruling in Hopkins Suit to 5th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Dennis Hopkins, et al. v. Delbert Hosemann, Case No. 3:18-CV-188, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The consolidated action (with ROY HARNESS, ET AL. v. DELBERT HOSEMANN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Case No. 3:17-CV-791-DPJ-FKB) to restore the voting rights of convicted felons is before the District Court on the Hopkins Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Hopkins Plaintiffs seek class certification to challenge two sections of the Mississippi Constitution -- sections 241 and 253. Under section 241, individuals who have been convicted of murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, or bigamy are ineligible to vote. And section 253 allows the legislature to restore an individual's suffrage by a two-thirds vote of both houses, of all members elected. The Plaintiffs say the lifetime voting ban violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment, which only permits states to temporarily "abridge" an individual's right to vote based on participation in a crime. They also contend that the mechanism to restore voting rights violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment. The appellate case is captioned as Dennis Hopkins, et al. v. Delbert Hosemann, Case No. 19-90024, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents Cross-Petitioners DENNIS HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Janet A. Gochman, Esq. SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, L.L.P. 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017-3954 Telephone: (212) 455-2815 E-mail: jgochman@stblaw.com - and - Jody E. Owens, II, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 111 E. Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8882 E-mail: jody.owens@splcenter.org Defendant-Petitioner Cross-Respondent SECRETARY OF STATE DELBERT HOSEMANN, in his official capacity, is represented by: Krissy C. Nobile, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205 Telephone: (601) 359-3824 E-mail: knobi@ago.state.ms.us NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Enriquez and Manna Suits Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- Nabriva Therapeutics plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the class action suits entitled, Larry Enriquez v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted Schroeder and Anthony Manna v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted Schroeder, have been consolidated. On May 8, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Larry Enriquez v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted Schroeder, No. 19-cv-04183. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019. The complaint generally alleges that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements and omitting to disclose material facts concerning the Company's submission of a New Drug Application (NDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing approval of CONTEPO for the treatment of cUTI in the United States and the likelihood of such approval. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On May 22, 2019, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Anthony Manna v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted Schroeder, No. 19-cv-04713. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased our securities between November 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019. The allegations made in the Manna complaint are similar to those made in the Enriquez complaint, and the Manna complaint seeks similar relief. On May 24, 2019, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the court. The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's selection of lead counsel on July 22, 2019. The Company denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Company is unable, however, to predict the outcome of this matter at this time. Nabriva Therapeutics said, "Moreover, any conclusion of this matter in a manner adverse to the Company and for which it incurs substantial costs or damages not covered by the Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and business. In addition, the litigation could adversely impact the Company's reputation and divert management's attention and resources from other priorities, including the execution of its business plan and strategies that are important to the Company's ability to grow its business, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business." Nabriva Therapeutics plc, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the research and development of anti-infective agents to treat infections in humans. The company was formerly known as Nabriva Therapeutics Forschungs GmbH and changed its name to Nabriva Therapeutics plc in 2007. Nabriva Therapeutics plc was incorporated in 2005 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. NAVIENT CORP: DeWitt Seeks to Certify 3 Classes and 3 Sub-Classes ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned GLYNIS DEWITT v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02509-CM-GEB (D. Kan.), seeks certification of these Classe: * "Misallocated Payments Class": All individuals who reside in the United States, who were subjected to the grossly negligent, improper, wrongful, unfair, or deceptive loan servicing or debt collection practices by Defendants, individually or collectively, including Defendants' failure to correctly apply or allocate borrower payments to the borrower's specified loan, and who suffered damages therefrom; * "Improper Verification Class": All individuals who reside in the United States, who were subjected to the improper, wrongful, unfair, or deceptive debt collection practices by Defendants, individually or collectively, including Defendants' failure to properly or sufficiently verify student loan debt properly disputed by individuals one or more times, and who suffered damages therefrom; and * "Loan-Rehabilitation Class": All individuals who reside in the United States, who were subjected to the improper, wrongful, unfair, or deceptive debt collection practices by Defendants, individually or collectively, who have been improperly and wrongly forced into a loan rehabilitation program, and who suffered damages therefrom. The Plaintiff also asks to certify these Kansas Sub-Classes: * "Misallocated Payments Class": All individuals who reside(d) in the Kansas, who were subjected to the grossly negligent, improper, wrongful, unfair, or deceptive loan servicing or debt collection practices by Defendants, individually or collectively, including Defendants' failure to correctly apply or allocate borrower payments to the borrower's specified loan, and who suffered damages therefrom; * "Improper Verification Kansas Sub-Class": All individuals who reside(d) in the Kansas, who were subjected to the improper, wrongful, unfair, or deceptive debt collection practices by Defendants, individually or collectively, including Defendants' failure to properly or sufficiently verify student loan debt properly disputed by individuals one or more times, and who suffered damages therefrom; and * "Loan-Rehabilitation Kansas Sub-Class": All individuals who reside(d) in the Kansas, who were subjected to the improper, wrongful, unfair, or deceptive debt collection practices by Defendants, individually or collectively, who have been improperly and wrongly forced into a loan rehabilitation program, and who suffered damages therefrom. Ms. DeWitt further asks the Court to appoint her as class representative for both the Classes and Kansas Subclasses, and to appoint her counsel as counsel to the Classes and Subclasses described in this Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary J. Willnauer, Esq. Blake H. Butner, Esq. MORROW WILLNAUER CHURCH, L.L.C. 8330 Ward Parkway, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64114 Telephone: (816) 382-1382 Facsimile: (816) 382-1383 E-mail: gwillnauer@mwcattorneys.com bbutner@mwcattorneys.com Defendants NAVIENT CORPORATION, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC., are represented by: Lisa M. Simonetti, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Telephone: (424) 204-7700 E-mail: simonettil@gtlaw.com - and - Justin M. Dean, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4520 Main Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 471-1303 E-mail: justin.dean@ogletree.com Defendant EOS CCA is represented by: Benjamin N. Hutnick, Esq. BERMAN & RABIN, P.A. 15280 Metcalf Overland Park, KS 66223 Telephone: (913) 649-1555 E-mail: bhutnick@bermanrabin.com NEW YORK: BOD Files 23 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's judgment entered on June 6, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII. The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.[BN] The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are: -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2587 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2243 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2246 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2248 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2256 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2257 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2258 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2259 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2261 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2262 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2264 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2265 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2267 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2269 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2270 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2271 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2272 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2273 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2274 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2277 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2280 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2281 -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2287 Plaintiff-Appellees Ana Maria Tejada, Colleen Andrea Leacock, Dionne Dopwell, Elizabeth Scott, Marie Bigord, Victor Acevedo, Margarita Rodriguez, Carolyn Booker, Ramiro Cantres, Maritza Carmen Fasack, Nat Osoria, Shelley Kiwana Heath, Alfreda Griffin-Johnson, Carmen Gonzalez, Agustin Mejia, Carmen Jerez, Alphonse Max Cineus, Gloria Ann Elrod, Barbara Gonzalez, David Theodore, Gina Simmons, Linda Haynes, Dulce Esperanza Jordan are represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School District of the City of New York is represented by: Zachary W. Carter, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-1000 E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class of Medicaid Recipients ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as SALVATORE GUADAGNA, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03397-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arthur D. Spatt entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of: "all Medicaid recipients who were enrolled in the GuildNet managed long-term care plans in Suffolk, Nassau, or Westchester County as of March 1, 2017 and who suffered reductions in care without prior notice and opportunity to be heard when they transferred to new managed long-term care plans as a result of GuildNet's closure in their counties of residence"; 2. appointing Salvatore Guadagna as class representative; 3. appointing New York Legal Assistance Group as class counsel; and 4. directing to meet and confer regarding whether class notice is appropriate and submit a joint letter in that regard no later than 14 days from the issuance of this order.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Benjamin Wait Taylor, Esq. Elizabeth A. Jois, Esq. Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq. Julia Grossman Russell, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 7 Hanover Square 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Attorneys for the Defendant are: OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 200 Old Country Road Suite 460 Mineola, NY 11501 NEW YORK: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Slade Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. NEW YORK ZIPLINE ADVERNTURES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07951 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services NY ZIPLINE provides to their non-disabled customers through http://www.Ziplinenewyork.com/ According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York, the lawsuit says. Ziplinenewyork.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other programs offered by NY ZIPLINE. Yet, Ziplinenewyork.com contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. Attorneys for the the Plaintiff and the Class are: 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 NEWMARK SOLUTIONS: Denied Construction Workers Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Edgar Del Aguila and Jonathan Centeno, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Newmark Solutions Corp. and Wilfredo Rodriguez Crus, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07372 (S.D. N.Y., August 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid non-overtime wages, and damages for failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and wage statements with each wage payment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws. Newmark is a full-service construction business owned and operated by Wilfredo Rodriguez Crus where Plaintiffs worked as construction workers at their construction sites pursuant to contracts with the New York City Department of Design and Construction as well as other non-public contracts. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Q. Davis, Esq. Rachel M. Haskell, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS 225 Broadway, Suite 1803 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (646) 430-7931, (646) 430-7930 Fax: (646) 349-2504 NHK GROUP: CMP Files Sues Over Hard Drive Assembly Price-fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- CMP Consulting Services, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NHK Spring Co. Ltd., NHK International Corporation , NAT Peripheral (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.,. NAT Peripheral (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., NHK Spring (Thailand) Co., Ltd., TDK Corporation, Magnecomp Precision Technology Public Co. Ltd., SAE Magnetics (H.K.) LTD, and Hutchinson Technology Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-12337, (E.D. Mich., August 7, 2019), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to the Sherman Act, federal antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection laws and the laws of unjust enrichment. This lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard disk drive ("HDD") suspension assemblies. Defendants are manufacturers of hard disk drive suspension assemblies. Suspension assemblies are a component of hard disk drives and are installed in a variety of electronic products. CMP Consulting Services claims to have purchased hard disk drive suspension assemblies indirectly from one or more defendants. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Darryl Bressack, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK BRESSACK 38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 Tel: dfink@finkbressack.com dbressack@finkbressack.com nfink@finkbressack.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Tel: (917) 438-9189 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bcohen@nussbaumpc.com - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. Kevin B. Love, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 357-9000 Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com klove@cridenlove.com NOBLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Dezzutti Seeks Overtime Wages for Laborers --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN DEZZUTTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NOBLE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALTY SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01026-MJH (W.D. Pa., Aug. 15, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Dezzutti worked for Noble as a Backyard Hand and Laborer. Dezzutti and the other workers like him regularly worked for Noble in excess of 40 hours each week. But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA and PMWA, Noble improperly classified Dezzutti and those similarly situated workers as independent contractors and paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation. Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412)766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com OSMOTICA PHARMA: Shumacher & Tello Suits Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------- Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the class action suits entitled Leo Shumacher, et al., v. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, et al. and Jeffrey Tello, et al., v. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., have been consolidated. On April 30, 2019, Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc was served with a complaint in an action entitled Leo Shumacher, et al., v. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County No. SOM-L-000540-19. On May 10, 2019, a Complaint entitled Jeffrey Tello, et al., v. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County No. SOM-L-000617-19 was filed in the same court as the Shumacher action. The complaints name Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, certain of its directors and officers and the underwriters of its initial public offering as defendants in putative class actions alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the disclosures contained in the registration statement and prospectus used for the Company's initial public offering of ordinary shares. On July 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint consolidating the two actions, reiterating the previously pled allegations and adding an additional individual defendant. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend against the action. Osmotica said, "However, this litigation matter is still in an early stage and there is no assurance that we will be successful in our defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action, which could adversely affect the Company's results of operations and financial condition. At this time there is no loss that is probable or reasonably estimatable." Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, an integrated biopharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes specialty products that target markets with underserved patient populations. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. P&Y OPERATIONS: Pedrera Seeks Unpaid Half-Time Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA PEDRERA and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. P & Y OPERATIONS INC. PBS OPERATIONS INC, PATRICIA BORGES, and ALEXEY SAN MARTIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23535-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2019) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid half-time overtime wages under the laws of the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff as a collective action to recover from Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of Plaintiff, and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after August 2016, without being compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff ANGELA PEDRERA was employed by Defendants as a cashier and general store employee, from approximately May 1, 2011, to August 06, 2019. Defendants P & Y OPERATIONS INC. and PBS OPERATIONS INC are retail businesses operating as Shell, Chevron, and Mobil gas stations and convenience stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com PASCHALL TRUCK: Certification of Class Sought in Carter Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled GALE CARTER and FORBES HAYES v. PASCHALL TRUCK LINES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00041-TBR-LLK (W.D. Ky.), move the Court to certify the matter as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Gale Carter and Forbes Hayes further ask that the Court facilitate notice to the putative opt-in plaintiffs.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Hwy N. Ste, 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com PERSONNEL STAFFING: Calderon Seeks OK of $279K Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned HILDA CALDERON, MICHELLE GONGORA and ERIC SMITH, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees v. PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC d/b/a MVP and MVP WORKFORCE, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-09626 (N.D. Ill.), move the Court for an order preliminarily approving the Parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement and an order approving certification of three classes and conditional certification of a collective action for settlement purposes, the form and manner of class notice, and scheduling a Fairness Hearing for final approval of settlement. The Overtime Class and Collective is defined as: Plaintiff Calderon and all other laborers employed by Defendants PSG and Workforce in Illinois between and including October 28, 2012 and the date of Preliminary Approval who were assigned to work more than a combined forty (40) hours in a single work week by both PSG and Workforce. The Defendants have agreed to fund a Total Settlement Amount of the Overtime Claims in the amount of $30,000. The Four-Hour-Pay-At-Visual-Pak Class and Collective is defined as: Plaintiff Gongora and all other laborers employed by Defendant PSG in Illinois and assigned to work at Visual Pak Company from November 23, 2012 to the date of Preliminary Approval who were not compensated for at least 4 hours on any day they were assigned to work at Visual Pak Company within that period. The Defendants have agreed to fund a Total Settlement Amount of the Four-Hour-Pay-At-Visual-Pak Claims in the amount of $225,000. The Workforce-Four-Hour-Pay Class and Collective is defined as: Plaintiffs Calderon and Smith and all other laborers employed by Defendant Workforce in Illinois and assigned to work at a client company of Workforce from November 23, 2012 to the date of Preliminary Approval. The Defendants have agreed to fund a Total Settlement Amount of the Workforce-Four-Hour-Pay Class in the amount of $24,000.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1224 Chicago, IL 60604 PIN UPS: Ortiz Hits Misclassification, Seeks Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- ELENA ORTIZ on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. PIN UPS OF DAYTONA BEACH, LLC, d/b/a PIN UPS OF DAYTONA BEACH, JOSEPH LOGUIDICE, TIMOTHY BLAKESLEE, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-01644-RBD-LRH (M.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2019) is an action brought as a Fair Labor Standard Act collective action on behalf of all persons who were or are employed by Defendants as exotic dancers at any time during the three years prior to the commencement of this action to present. The Defendants required and/or permitted Elena Ortiz and others similarly situated to work as exotic dancers at their adult entertainment club but refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage, the complaint asserts. In fact, Defendants refused to compensate them whatsoever for any hours worked. Plaintiffs' only compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons, and even those were partly confiscated by the club. Defendants took money from Plaintiffs in the form of "house fees" or "rent". Plaintiffs were also required to divide tips with Defendants' managers and employees who do not customarily receive tips. The Defendants misclassify dancers, including Plaintiffs, as independent contractors so that they do not have to compensate them at the federally mandated minimum wage rate, the complaint alleges. The Defendants' practice of failing to pay employees any wages violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision, and Defendants' practice of charging house fees and confiscating tips also violates the FLSA because for at least one workweek in the relevant statutory period, these practices caused Plaintiffs to be paid below the minimum wage, says the complaint. Named Plaintiff Elena Ortiz consistently worked at Pin Ups from January 2017 until March 2018. Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Florida, under the name of "Pin Ups".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cathleen Scott, Esq. SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Jupiter Gardens 250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A Jupiter, FL 33458 101 Northpoint Parkway West Palm Beach, FL 33407 Phone: (561) 653-0008 Facsimile: (561) 653-0020 Primary Email: CScott@scottwagnerlaw.com Secondary Email: mail@scottwagnerlaw.com Website: www.ScottWagnerLaw.com - and - Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com PSE&G: Faces Forrest Hill Suit in District of New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newark City. The case is captioned as FORREST HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. and GAYTHA KRAUSER On behalf of herself and all other persons who are similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PUBLIC SERVICES ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY; PHILLIP SCOTT, as the Director of the Department of Engineering of the City of Newark; and CHRISTOPHER WATSON, as the City Planning Officer of the City of Newark, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-16692-ES-MAH (D.N.J., Aug. 15, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Esther Salas. PSE&G is the largest utility in New Jersey, serving both business owners and homeowners since 1903.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: George R. Sommers, Esq. 51 Newark Street, Suite 309 Hoboken, NJ 07030 Telephone: (201) 656-6575 E-mail: grsgold@hotmail.com Attorneys for Public Services Electric & Gas Company are: Aaron I. Karp, Esq. PSEG SERVICES CORPORATION 80 Park Plaza Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 430-8970 E-mail: aaron.karp@pseg.com - and - Peter L. Agostini, Esq. William E. Frese, Esq. 80 Park Place, T5D P.O. Box 570 Newark, NJ 07101 Telephone: (973) 430-8200 Facsimile: (973) 645-1103 E-mail: peter.agostini@pseg.com Attorneys for Phillip Scott are: Gary S. Lipshutz, Esq. CITY OF NEWARK DEPARTMENT OF LAW 920 Broad Street, Room 316 City Hall Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 733-5945 Facsimile: (973) 733-5394 E-mail: lipshutzg@ci.newark.nj.us PTZ INSURANCE: Legg's Class Cert. Bid Stricken Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman has stricken without prejudice the motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled Christopher Legg, et al. v. PTZ Insurance Agency, LTD, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-10043 (N.D. Ill.). In light of the pending class action settlement, the Plaintiff's third amended class certification motion and sealed motion are stricken without prejudice, the Court rules.[CC] RAYTHEON COMPANY: Faulkner Files Suit Over United Tech Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Faulkner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Raytheon Company, Thomas A. Kennedy, Tracy A. Atkinson, Robert E. Beauchamp, Adriane M. Brown, Stephen J. Hadley, Letitia A. Long, George R. Oliver, Dinesh C. Paliwal, Ellen M. Pawlikowski, William R. Spivey, Marta R. Stewart, James A. Winnefeld, Jr. and Robert O. Work, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01477 (D. Del., August 7, 2019) seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed merger between Raytheon and United Technologies Corporation, rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under the proposed transaction, Each Raytheon stockholder will be entitled to receive 2.3348 shares of UTC common stock for each share of Raytheon common stock they own. The complaint alleges that the registration statement for the merger failed to include critical financial analysis performed by Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and RBC Capital Markets, LLC, including all line items used to calculate EBITDA, EBIT and unlevered free cash flow and net income that support the fairness opinions, in order to make a fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal needed by the shareholders to make an informed decision on the merger deal. Raytheon specializes in defense markets throughout the world specializing in integrated air and missile defense, electronic warfare, command, control, communications, computers, cyber, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW, LLC 1373 Broad St., Suite 203C Clifton, NJ 07013 Tel: (862) 227-3106 Fax: (973) 282-8603 Email: DZ@zemellawllc.com - and - George Pazuniak, Esq. PAZUNIAK LAW OFFICE, LLC 1201 Orange Street 7th Floor, Suite 7114 Wilmington, DE 19801-1186 Tel: (302) 478-4230 Email: gp@del-iplaw.com REAL VALUE PRODUCTS: Camp Drug Store Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled CAMP DRUG STORE, INC., an Illinois Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. REAL VALUE PRODUCTS, CORP d/b/a HOSPITAL PHARMACEUTICAL CONSULTING, Case No. 5:19-cv-01009-OLG (W.D. Tex.), seeks to certify this class: Each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone facsimile messages after August 20, 2015 offering the pharmaceutical products available through www.realvalueproducts.com or 1-855-681-7201. The Plaintiff asserts that it files this motion soon after the filing of its Class Action Complaint in order to avoid an attempt by Defendant Real Value Products, Corp. dba Hospital Pharmaceutical Consulting ("Defendant") to moot its individual claims in this class action. But, in this case, additional discovery is necessary for the Court to determine whether to certify the class the Plaintiff says it seeks to represent. As a result, the Plaintiff will seek leave to pursue class discovery as soon as practicable. Camp Drug Store contends that it files this motion as a precaution as the Rule 67 "pick-off" question has not been decided in the Fifth Circuit—such as the Supreme Court has ruled against attempts to moot a class action complaint under Rule 68 in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 671 (2015) (an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment does not moot a class action complaint). Camp Drug Store adds that it intends to file an amended motion for class certification at the earliest practicable time after the completion of discovery.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tod A. Lewis, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: Tod@classlawyers.com RELIANCE TRUST: Casey Files Motion to Compel Stout -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned JESSICA CASEY and JASON COLEMAN, on behalf of the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, v. RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-CV-00424-ALM is moved from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on Aug. 19, 2019, and assigned Case No. 4:19-mc-02439. On or about January 10, 2019, Plaintiffs Jessica Casey and Jason Coleman served a properly issued subpoena duces tecum upon valuation firm Stout Risius Ross, LLC ("Stout") through its counsel identified to accept service, Lars C. Golumbic, of the Groom Law Group. In response to two of Plaintiffs' 23 requests for documents, Stout responded that it has responsive electronic documents in native form that would be legible to Plaintiffs, but it refuses to produce them. Plaintiffs therefore move to compel production. Plaintiffs bring the underlying ERISA suit on behalf of the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan"), and they are the proposed representatives for a class of participants in the Plan, in a lawsuit against the Plan's trustee, Reliance Trust Company ("Reliance"). The Plan's sponsor, RVNB Holdings, Inc. ("RVNB"), is headquartered in Texas and does business as All My Sons Moving and Storage. The documents Stout is withholding are of crucial importance to the litigation. Stout conducted a valuation of RVNB on behalf of Reliance and the Plan, which Reliance relied upon to negotiate the $85,000,000 purchase price paid by the Plan for RVNB. Plaintiffs allege that the Plan overpaid for RVNB by millions of dollars due to Reliance's breaches of its ERISA duties. Key issues in the underlying litigation include whether Reliance caused the Plan to sleep purchase the RVNB shares for more than fair market value, the methodology used by Stout, whether Reliance properly reviewed and questioned Stout's work, and the accuracy and appropriateness of multiple factors in Stout's valuation, such as if the stock was adequately discounted for lack of control. However, Stout now refuses to produce proprietary models, which it used to render the valuation and its fairness and solvency opinions, in a legible native Excel format.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq. John S. Edwards, Jr., Esq. AJAMIE LLP Pennzoil Place - South Tower 711 Louisiana, Suite 2150 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 860-1600 Fax: (713) 860-1699 Email: tajamie@ajamie.com jedwards@ajamie.com - and - James L. Kauffman, Esq. Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 463-2101 Fax: (202) 463-2103 fax Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com ROBERT CLERGERIE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert Clergerie America, Inc. The case is styled as Valentin Reid on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Robert Clergerie America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07967 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Clergerie is an authentic French brand that creates handcrafted shoes for men and women with a daring, unconventional approach.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com RUSH AUTO RECYCLERS: Pizer Suit Removed to Arizona Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Brian Pizer, a married man, and Daniel Noble, a married man, as Individuals and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rush Auto Recyclers, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; Janet Rush, an individual; and Dan Rush, an individual, Defendants, Case No. CV2019-010953 was removed from the Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on Aug. 22, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-05019-DLR. The Plaintiffs assert this Class Action/Collective Action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amy J. Gittler, Esq. J. Alexander Dattilo, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 2111 E. Highland Ave., Suite B-250 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 714-7044 Facsimile (602) 714-7045 Email: Amy.Gitler@jacksonlewis.com Alexander.Dattilo@jacksonlewis.com SANTA BARBARA TRANS: Diaz Suit Moved to Calif. Central District ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Jose L Diaz, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Santa Barbara Transportation Corporation dba Student Transportation of America and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CIVDS1920120, was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Aug. 26, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-07394 to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act. Santa Barbara Transportation Corporation was founded in 1983. The Company's line of business includes operating school buses.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for Santa Barbara Transportation Corporation are: Kathleen J Choi, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC 400 South Hope Street Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: kathleen.choi@ogletreedeakins.com SBE ENT HOLDINGS: Heckman Moves to Certify Class of Customers ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JONATHAN HECKMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SBE ENT HOLDINGS, LLC, MORGANS HOTEL GROUP CO. LLC, MORGANS HOTEL GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC, 1100 WEST INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS, LLC, 1100 WEST INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-22258-JEM (S.D. Fla.), moves the Court to certify the action as a class action on behalf of these classes: a) All persons who, from June 6, 2014 through the conclusion of this case, (i) dined at either or any of the Pool Bar restaurant, In-Room dining or the Mondrian Caffe at the Mondrian South Beach Hotel; (ii) were presented with a menu that represented that an automatic gratuity or service charge in the amount of eighteen percent (18%) would be added to the check; (iii) the check instead contained an automatic gratuity or service charge in the amount of twenty percent (20%); and, (iv) the person paid the check in full; b) All persons who, from June 6, 2014 through the conclusion of this case, (i) ordered food or beverage from In-Room dining; (ii) were presented with a menu that represented that delivery charge of three dollars and fifty cents ($3.50) would be added to their order; (iii) the check instead added a delivery charge of four dollars ($4.00) to the order; and, (iv) the person paid the check in full; and c) All persons who, from June 6, 2014 through the conclusion of this case, (i) dined at either or any of the Pool Bar restaurant, In-Room dining or the Mondrian Caffe at the Mondrian South Beach Hotel; (ii) were presented with a menu that provided no notice, or inconspicuous notice, that an automatic gratuity or service charge would be added to their check; (iii) the check contained an automatic gratuity or service charge; and, (iv) the person paid the check in full. Mr. Heckman additionally moves the Court for an Order deeming him an adequate representative of the Classes and appointing David M. Marco, Esq., of SmithMarco, P.C., James A. Francis, Esq., John Soumilas, Esq., and David A. Searles, Esq., of Francis & Mailman, P.C. and Lewis J. Saul, Esq., of Lewis Saul & Associates, P.C. as Class Counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Marco, Esq. SMITHMARCO, P.C. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 546-6539 Facsimile: (888) 418-1277 E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. David A. Searles, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Lewis J. Saul, Esq. LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 29 Howard Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 376-8450 Facsimile: (212) 376-8447 E-mail: lsaul@lewissaul.com SHIPT, INC: Turner et al. Seek Minimum & OT Wages for Shoppers -------------------------------------------------------------- ZALEKA TURNER, and LAUREN KIKTAVI, in their capacities as Private Attorneys General Representatives, the Plaintiffs, vs. SHIPT, INC. d/b/a SHIPT, and TARGET CORPORATION d/b/a TARGET, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV28802 (Cal. Super., Aug. 15, 2019), alleges that Shipt has unlawfully failed to reimburse shoppers for all reasonably necessary expenditures incurred in the discharge of their duties, including but not limited to, the vehicle maintenance costs and reimbursement for mileage, in violation of California Labor Code; has failed to ensure that its shoppers receive the applicable state minimum wage for all hours worked; has failed to pay shoppers the appropriate overtime premium for all overtime hours worked beyond 40 per week or eight hours per day. Shipt shoppers shop for, pick up, and deliver groceries from Target or other local stores to Shipt customers at their homes or businesses. The case is brought on behalf of the state of California and other similarly situated aggrieved individuals who have worked as shoppers for Shipt, Inc. Shipt has misclassified its shoppers, including Plaintiffs Zaleka Turner and Lauren Kiktavi. Because of the shoppers' misclassification as independent contractors, Shipt has violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code. Shipt is a grocery and household essentials, same-day delivery service that providers shoppers and drivers who can be scheduled through a mobile phone application (an "app") or through Shipt's website. Target Corporation owns and operates Shipt and offers an integrated Target same-day delivery service through Shipt at 25 locations in California.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiffs are: Shannon Liss-Riordan, esq. Anne Kramer, esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617)994-5800 Facsimile: (617)994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com akramer@llrlaw.com SOKO GLAM: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soko Glam, Inc. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Soko Glam, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07990 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Soko Glam is an online marketplace that specializes in Korean beauty products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com STATE OF NEW YORK: Sughrim Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of New York et al. The case is styled as Brian Sughrim, David Feliciano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. State of New York, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Anthony J. Annucci Acting Commissioner (in his official capacity), John A. Shipley Director of Labor Relations (in his personal and official capacities), Na-Kia Walton Assistant Director of Labor Relations/ADA Coordinator (in her personal and official capacities), Leory Fields Superintendent of Fishkill Correctional Facility (in his personal and official capacities), Stephen Urbanski Deputy Superintendent for Security Services of Fishkill Correctional Facility (in his personal and official capacities), James Johnson Deputy Superintendent for Administrative Services of Fishkill Correctional Facility (in his personal and official capacities), Alan Washer Corrections Captain (in his personal and official capacities), Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07977 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019). The nature of suit Other Civil Rights. New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York City and towering Niagara Falls. NYC’s island of Manhattan is home to the Empire State Building, Times Square and Central Park.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Samuel Moskovitz Bernstein Clarke & Moskovitz PLLC 11 Park Place, Suite 914 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 321-0087 Fax: (917) 722-0930 Email: moskovitz@bcmlaw.com STELLA & DOT: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stella & Dot LLC. The case is styled as Valentin Reid on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stella & Dot LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07973 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stella & Dot LLC retails jewellery and handbags. The Company offers necklaces, bracelets, earrings, rings, and gift cards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com STOVER DIAGNOSTICS: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- AMBER JONES and VICTORIA LUGO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STOVER DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORIES, INC., STOVER MEDICAL LOGISTICS, INC., and STOVER MEDICAL PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00740 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 22, 2019) is an action for unpaid wages against Defendants on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide their mobile phlebotomists with schedules that dictate the number of patient visits, which patients to visit, and the distance to be driven each day. These schedules require mobile phlebotomists, including Plaintiffs, to perform several visits and to travel hundreds of miles each day. As mobile phlebotomists, Plaintiffs almost always worked in excess of eight hours each day--and typically at least 12 hours each day--and five days per week. As a result, Plaintiffs routinely worked over 40 hours in a week. Due to the long work hours, Plaintiffs could not seek out or take on additional jobs or see additional patients outside of those assigned by Defendants. Defendants violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA. Defendants did not record Plaintiffs time worked. However, Defendants were aware of the long hours Plaintiffs and other mobile phlebotomists worked each day because they scheduled Plaintiffs visits and because Plaintiffs invoiced their mileage. Thus, Defendants knew and/or acted with reckless disregard of the fact that their failure to pay Plaintiffs and other employees for their work violates the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as mobile phlebotomists. Defendants provide mobile phlebotomy services in 18 states.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: DAVID W. GARRISON, ESQ. JOSHUA A. FRANK, ESQ. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - EMILY ALCORN, ESQ. GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT, PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Phone: (615) 354-1144 Email: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com SWANSON HEALTH: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Swanson Health Products, Incorporated. The case is styled as Valentin Reid on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Swanson Health Products, Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07975 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Swanson Health Products, Incorporated provides natural health care products. It offers vitamins and supplements in the areas of amino acids,vitamins, calcium and bone health, blood pressure support, and healthy food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com TECHNIPFMC PLC: Continues to Defend Prause Class Suit in Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- TechnipFMC plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company remains a defendant in a shareholder class action suit entitled, Prause v. TechnipFMC, et al., No. 4:17-cv-02368. A purported shareholder class action filed in 2017 and amended in January 2018 and captioned Prause v. TechnipFMC, et al., No. 4:17-cv-02368 (S.D. Texas) is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and certain current and former officers and employees of the Company. The suit alleged violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's restatement of our first quarter 2017 financial results and a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting announced on July 24, 2017. On January 18, 2019, the District Court dismissed claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Securities Act"). A remaining claim for alleged violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act in connection with the reporting of certain financial results in the Company's Form S-4 Registration Statement filed in 2016 is pending and seeks unspecified damages. The Company is vigorously contesting the litigation and cannot predict its duration or outcome. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. TechnipFMC plc engages in the oil and gas projects, technologies, and systems and services businesses. It operates through three segments: Subsea, Onshore/Offshore, and Surface Technologies. The company was formerly known as Technip SA and changed its name to TechnipFMC plc in January 2017. TechnipFMC plc was founded in 1958 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. TEQUILLA CORPORATION: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- ESDRAS NEHEMIAS MARTINEZ RAMIREZ, an individual, GILBERTO DANIEL PEREZ GARCIA an individual, and TERESO DE JESUS PEREZ GARCIA, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. THE TEQUILLA CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation d/b/a BLUE AGAVE TEQUILA BAR & RESTAURANT, TEQUILA555 CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation d/b/a BLUE AGAVE TEQUILA BAR & RESTAURANT 2, and MARIO GONZALEZ, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05654 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 22, 2019) is a lawsuit arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance of the Municipal Code of Chicago, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees, overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, and for taking improper deductions from Plaintiffs' wages. The Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs, and other non-exempt cooks, dishwashers and kitchen staff employees, at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in individual workweeks, notes the complaint. In order to conceal their failure to pay overtime compensation, Defendants paid Plaintiffs, and other non-exempt cooks, dishwashers and kitchen staff employees, by check for only a portion of their hours, typically no more than 50 hours, and paid for the remainder of Plaintiffs' hours in cash. The Defendants knew or should have known that their illegal wage and hour practices violated the FLSA, the complaint asserts. Plaintiffs worked as cooks at Defendants' restaurant. The Tequilla Corporation is an Illinois corporation that operates the Blue Agave Tequila Bar & Restaurant located on North State Street in Chicago, Illinois and is engaged in selling and serving prepared food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages, to customers for consumption on and off its premises.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 322-1100 Fax: (312) 322-1106 Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Okla. Firefighters Suit Set for May 2021 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tivity Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the trial in the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System Suit, is set on May 18, 2021. On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 24, 2017 and November 3, 2017 ("Weiner Lawsuit"). The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting officer and interim chief financial officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and omissions related to the United Press Release. The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and established certain deadlines for the case. On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2019 and the Company's Motion to Reconsider on May 22, 2019. The case is currently set for trial on May 18, 2021. Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. TRINITY COURIERS: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, TATIANA MANCE, CHRISTOPHER LYMON, MARCUS JOHNSON, VERONICA RENDA, and individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRINITY COURIERS, INC., TRINITY COURIERS OF OHIO, INC., RUSH OF OHIO, INC., TRINITY COURIERS OF HOUSTON, INC., TRINITY COURIERS OF KANSAS, INC., TRINITY COURIERS OF ST. LOUIS, INC., TRINITY COURIERS OF SAN ANTONIO, INC., TRINITY COURIERS OF AUSTIN, INC., TRINITY COURIERS OF DFW, INC., TRINITY COURIERS OF MINNESOTA, INC., and TRINITY COURIERS OF DENVER, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00686-SJD (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 20, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiffs and the collective are entitled to be paid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Trinity Couriers supplies last-mile delivery services to Amazon.com, LLC and Amazon Logistics, Inc. (together, "Amazon") via its participation in Amazon's Delivery Service Provider ("DSP") program. Trinity Couriers employs Delivery Associates, such as the Plaintiffs and the proposed Collective and Classes, to deliver packages to Amazon's customers. Trinity Couriers, Inc. is a registered Texas corporation, and is headquartered in Garden Ridge, Texas. Trinity Couriers of Ohio, Inc. is a registered Ohio corporation and headquartered in Garden Ridge, Texas, with facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio. Rush of Ohio, Inc. is a registered Ohio corporation and is headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate office in Garden Ridge, Texas, with facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio. Trinity Couriers of Houston, Inc. is a registered Texas corporation and is headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate office in Garden Ridge, with facilities in Houston, Texas. Trinity Couriers of San Antonio, Inc. is a registered Texas corporation and is headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate office in Garden Ridge, with facilities in San Antonio, Texas. Trinity Couriers of Austin, Inc. is a registered Texas corporation and is headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate office in Garden Ridge, with facilities in Austin, Texas. Trinity Couriers of DFW, Inc. is a registered Texas corporation and is headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate office in Garden Ridge, with facilities in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas. Trinity Couriers of Kansas, Inc. is a registered Kansas corporation and is headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate office in Garden Ridge, with facilities in Shawnee, Kansas. Trinity Couriers of St. Louis, Inc. is a registered Missouri corporation and is headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate office in Garden Ridge, with facilities in St. Louis, Missouri. Trinity Couriers of Minnesota, Inc. is a registered Minnesota corporation and is headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate office in Garden Ridge, with facilities in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Trinity Couriers of Denver, Inc. is a registered Colorado corporation and is headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate office in Garden Ridge, with facilities in Denver, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Drew Legando, Esq. MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS & KLANG, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. Michaela Wallin, 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 kconnon@bm.net mwallin@bm.net - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 Facsimile: (215) 567-2310 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com TROPICAL FOODS: Cordova Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ GLORIA CORDOVA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TROPICAL FOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC., RONALD GARRY JR., and RANDY GARRY, the Defendants, Case No. 19-2595A (Mass. Super., Aug. 5, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages for hourly employees who have worked for Tropical Foods International, Inc. in its grocery store located in Roxbury, Massachusetts. More specifically, the suit seeks unpaid wages, minimum wages, and overtime pay owed to hourly employees pursuant to the Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Law. Ms. Cordova worked for Tropical Foods International, Inc. in its bakery department from October 2016 until May 2018. Tropical Foods International, Inc. was founded in 1966. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of canned foods and dry goods.[BN] Rachel Smit, Esq. Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 E-mail: rachel@fairworklaw.com hillary@fairworklaw.com TURKEY HILL: Kane Files Product Mislabeling Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Russell Kane, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Turkey Hill, L.P., Case No. 2:19-cv-04794-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019), alleges that the representations of the Defendant's vanilla ice cream products are misleading because they misrepresent the exclusive flavor source, the amount of vanilla, the percentage of vanilla compared to the overall flavor component. Turkey Hill, L.P. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells ice cream and novelties labeled as types of, or containing vanilla ice cream under the Turkey Hill brand ("Products"). The Products are available to consumers nationwide from third-party retailers, including brick and mortar and online stores, directly from the Defendant's Web site and from its convenience stores. The relevant product lines include (1) All Natural Ice Cream, (2) Premium Ice Cream, (3) Light Ice Cream, (4) No Sugar Added Ice Cream, (5) Ice Cream Sandwiches, (6) Sundae Cones and (7) Individual Selections.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Galvez SIJS Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LEOBARDO MORENO GALVEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, et al., Defendants, Case No. C19-0321RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The three named Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all individuals who have been issued predicate Special Immigrant Juvenile Status ("SIJS") orders by Washington state courts after turning 18 years old but prior to turning 21 years old and have submitted or will submit SIJS petitions to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") prior to turning 21 years old. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties, and having heard the arguments of the counsel in the context of the preliminary injunction motion, Judge Lasnik finds that the Plaintiffs and the class satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. He ordered that the action will be maintained as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and on behalf of the Class of all individuals who have been issued predicate Special Immigrant Juvenile Status ("SIJS") orders by Washington state courts after turning 18 years old but prior to turning 21 years old and have submitted or will submit SIJS petitions to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") prior to turning 21 years old. He appointed the Plaintiffs as the class representatives, and their counsel are appointed and designated as the counsel for the class and are authorized to act on behalf of the members of the classes. A full-text copy of the Court's July 17, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/5cWCKq from Leagle.com. Leobardo Moreno Galvez, on behalf of themselves as individuals and others similarly situated, Jose Luis Vicente Ramos, on behalf of themselves as individuals and others similarly situated & Angel de Jesus Munoz Olivera, on behalf of themselves as individuals and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron Korthuis -- aaron@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Leila Kang -- leila@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Matt Adams -- matt@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Meghan E. Casey -- meghan@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Olivia Fiona Gibbons -- olivia@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT & Tim Henry Warden-Hertz -- tim@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT. Lee Francis Cissna, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, Robert Cowan, Director, National Benefits Center, United States Department of Homeland Security & United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants, represented by Matt Waldrop, US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. State of Washington, Amicus, represented by Chalia I. Stallings-Ala'ilima, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Teamsters Local 456 Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Universal Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS), is still pending. In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the company (UHS) and certain UHS officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The case was originally filed as Heed v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:16-CV-09499-PSG-JC). The court subsequently appointed Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs. The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the style of the case has been changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS). In September, 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed an amended complaint. The amended class action complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws relating to disclosures made in public filings associated with alleged practices and operations at the company's behavioral health facilities. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for shareholders during the defined class period as a result of the decrease in share price following various public disclosures or reports. In December 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. We deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. Universal Health said, "At this time, we are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Universal Health Services, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and behavioral health care facilities. The company operates through Acute Care Hospital Services, Behavioral Health Care Services, and Other segments. Universal Health Services, Inc. founded in 1978 and is headquartered in King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania. VICTORIA'S SECRET: Lee Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned SHAUNTESE LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VICTORIA'S SECRET, a Delaware Corporation; VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC.; a Delaware Corporation; L BRANDS, INC., a Ohio Corporation, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01072480-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 23, 2019, and assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-01625. Plaintiff asserts claims under the California Labor Code for: (a) an alleged failure to pay wages, including overtime; (b) an alleged failure to provide meal periods; (c) an alleged failure to provide rest breaks; (d) an alleged failure to timely pay all wages at termination, i.e., for waiting time penalties; and (e) an alleged failure to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair competition, and seeks attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Phillip J. Eskenazi, Esq. Kirk A. Hornbeck, Esq. Jeff R. R. Nelson, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627 Phone: (213) 532-2000 Facsimile: (213) 532-2020 Email: peskenazi@HuntonAK.com khornbeck@HuntonAK.com jnelson@HuntonAK.com WESTWARD MANAGEMENT: Channon et al Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Harry Channon and Dawn Channon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Westward Management, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04869, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 15, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05522 to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of real property-related issues. The case is assigned to the Hon. Andrea R. Wood. Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Jeffrey Charles Blumenthal, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY C. BLUMENTHAL 2970 Maria Avenue, Suite 223 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (847) 498-3220 E-mail: jeffrey@jcblawyer.com - and - Elizabeth M. Al-Dajani, Esq. Michael David Richman, Esq. KERKONIAN DAJANI LLC 1555 Sherman Avenue, Suite 344 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 416-6180 E-mail: ealdajani@kerkoniandajani.com michael@jcblawyer.com - and - Terrie Sullivan, Esq. Jeffrey C. Blumenthal, Esq. JCB LAWYER 2970 Maria Avenue, Suite 223 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (847) 498-3220 E-mail: terrie@jcblawyer.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Brian James Riordan, Esq. Krista Marie Stoumbos, Esq. CLAUSEN MILLER P.C. 10 South La Salle Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 855-1010 E-mail: briordan@clausen.com KStoumbos@clausen.com WILCO LIFE: Anderson Suit Stayed Pending 11th Cir. Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VANESSA ANDERSON, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiff, v. WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. CV 119-008 (S.D. Ga.), Judge J. Randal Hall of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division, granted Wilco's unopposed motion to stay pending appeal. Anderson originally filed the putative class action in the Superior Court of Columbia County, Georgia. At issue are Wilco's "cost of insurance" charges on certain life insurance policies held by Georgia residents. On Jan. 11, 2019, Wilco removed the case to the Court alleging jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. Wilco invoked both ordinary diversity jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). After removal, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court contending Wilco could not prove the requisite amount in controversy for either jurisdictional basis. On June 20, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion and remanded the action back to the Superior Court of Columbia County, Georgia. The Court held that the Plaintiff and the class' request for reinstatement of their life insurance policies did not put the face value of those policies in the amount in controversy because it was too speculative to assume Wilco will be required to pay the face value on those policies. On July 1st, Wilco petitioned the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the Court's June 20th Remand Order. Now, Wilco moves the Court to stay the Remand Order pending the Eleventh Circuit's ruling on its appeal. Wilco's motion states the Plaintiff has no objection to granting a stay pending appeal. Judge Hall concludes that a stay of the June 20th Remand Order is warranted. First, Wilco has shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal because of the not insignificant caselaw, most notably Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Muniz, supporting its argument that the class' request for reinstatement of their policies puts the face value of those policies at issue. Next, the Plaintiff will not suffer substantial injury from the issuance of a stay. Finally, a stay serves the public interest because it will conserve finite judicial resources by preventing duplicative litigation. Based on the foregoing, the balance of factors weighs in favor of staying the Court's June 20th Remand Order until the Eleventh Circuit decides Wilco's appeal. Therefore, Judge Hall granted Wilco's motion to stay pending appea. The Court's June 20th Remand Order is stayed pending final resolution of Wilco's appeal in the Eleventh Circuit. A full-text copy of the Court's July 17, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/TCEtYP from Leagle.com. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: AERCO International Withdraws Appeal in Ciano Case ------------------------------------------------------------------- The First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York has ordered withdrawn the appeal in the case styled In Re: New York City Asbestos Litigation. Joseph Ciano and Diane Buss, as Co-Administrators for the Estate of Lena C. Ciano, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. American Biltrite Inc., Defendant-Appellant, AERCO International, Inc., et al., Defendants, Index No. 190129/16, (N.Y. App. Div. 1d.). The Court received a notice from counsel for defendant-appellant indicating its withdrawal of the appeal taken from the Sept. 6, 2018 Order of the New York County Supreme Court. A copy of the Order dated Aug. 20, 2019, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ns97am from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Withdraws Appeal in Isernia Case ------------------------------------------------------------------- The First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York has ordered withdrawn the appeal in the case styled In Re: New York City Asbestos Litigation. Frances Isernia, as Administratrix for the Estate of John M. Isernia, and Francis Isernia, Individually, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. American Biltrite Inc., Defendant-Appellant, A.O. Smith Water Products Co., et al., Defendants. Index No. 190071/16, (N.Y. App. Div. 1d.). The Court received a correspondence from counsel for defendant-appellant specifying its withdrawal of the appeal taken from the Oct. 16, 2018 Order of the New York County Supreme Court. A copy of the Order dated Aug. 20, 2019, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5m62us8 from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,400 Pending Claims at June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to defend approximately 1,400 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits at June 30, 2019, 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. The Company states, "ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a predecessor of Meritor, along with many other companies, has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. There were approximately 1,400 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many other companies, as defendants at June 30, 2019 and September 30, 2018. "A significant portion of the claims do not identify any Rockwell products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell products, and past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never identify any of Rockwell products. Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants. For those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/XLjJcI ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment Favoring ACL, et al. ------------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Maryellen Noreika adopted Magistrate Judge Fallon's Report and Recommendation and granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment in the case entitled In re Asbestos Litigation. Richard Wayne Rogers, Plaintiff, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al., Defendant, C.A. No. 17-1570 (MN)(SRF), (D. Del.). Plaintiff Richard Wayne Rogers filed objections to two of Judge Fallon's recommendations in the Report, particularly the recommended grants of summary judgment to Asbestos Corporation Limited and to Charles A. Wagner Company. Plaintiff filed this action against multiple defendants in the Superior Court of Delaware on Sept. 18, 2017. Plaintiff sued Defendants "for asbestos exposure while working at the Dupont Seaford Facility in the 1960s and 1970s," as well as other defendants for "exposure to asbestos while serving in the U.S. Navy from 1966 to 1970." The case was removed to this Court on Nov. 2, 2017 by defendant Foster Wheeler LLC. Thereafter, the case was referred to Judge Fallon. Rogers was deposed on April 2018, but did not produce any other fact or product identification witnesses for deposition. Mr. Rogers testified that while working in DuPont, he performed housekeeping duties where he swept the warehouse floor in the staple area. In addition, the Plaintiff relies on the testimony of Marguerite Warren and the 1972 memo to confirm the existence of other products. Warren's testimony confirms that other products, such as Kleensweep, were used as sweeping compounds at the plant. Similarly, the 1972 memo refers multiple products being used as sweeping compound. Although the memo refers to an "asbestos type" sweeping compound, it does not identify the supplier and does not suggest that Plaintiff used the "asbestos type" product. Thus, it would be speculative for the Court to conclude that the proffered evidence refers to the sweeping compound Plaintiff used. Given evidence that there were other compounds used as sweeping products at the DuPont Seaford plant, the Court found no evidence what product Rogers used or that the product Rogers used actually contained asbestos. The was no evidence that Plaintiff worked with or around sweeping compound distributed by Defendant Wagner that contained asbestos mined or supplied by ACL. The Court noted that Plaintiff could not identify the product he used as a sweeping compound at DuPont Seaford. He testified that he knew that the sweeping compound was stored in three or four galvanized containers located in his area of the plant, but did not recall any name or writing on the galvanized containers. Plaintiff also testified that he did not "have any reason to believe" that sweeping compound he used contained asbestos. Moreover, the color and consistency of the sweeping compound described by Plaintiff (pink or purple) did not match the color or consistency of the product sold to the DuPont Seaford plant by Defendants or the description of the product in the testimony of other employees at the plant. The Court further noted Plaintiff's testimony that the color of the sweeping compound did not change while he was working at DuPont, and that he has no reason to believe that the sweeping compound contained asbestos. Moreover, the Court said that even if Plaintiff had established that an asbestos containing product was supplied by ACL or Wagner to DuPont -- showing the presence of that product in Plaintiff's workplace -- is not sufficient to establish nexus and proximity. The Plaintiff has not disputed the Report's conclusion that there is "no meaningful intersection between the Plaintiff and the other DuPont employees who testified." Thus, the Court concludes Plaintiff's proffered evidence is not material to product nexus or would require impermissible speculation in order to conclude that Plaintiff was in close proximity to an asbestos containing product manufactured or distributed by Defendants. It does not raise a genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment is appropriate. A copy of the Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y24xhsvj from Leagle.com. Richard Wayne Rogers, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Barnes Lewis , Law Office of E.C. Lewis, P.C. & David Thomas Crumplar -- davy@jcdelaw.com -- Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. Richard Wayne Rogers, Cross Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Barnes Lewis , Law Office of E.C. Lewis, P.C. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $102.3MM Reserve at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. had total litigation reserve of US$102.3 million as of June 30, 2019, with regards to potential liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation, 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. Gardner Denver states, "The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the Company is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants. "Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and silica-related lawsuits (the "Products"). However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if any, were enclosed within the subject Products. "Although the Company has never mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand nor sold products that could result in a direct asbestos or silica exposure, many of the companies that did engage in such activities or produced such products are no longer in operation. This has led to law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name in lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related injury. "The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from the Products; the Company's experience that the vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the Products or for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility; various potential defenses available to the Company with respect to such matters; and the Company's prior disposition of comparable matters. However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future developments, including, without limitation, potential insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants, an adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability to collect from the Company's historical insurers or indemnitors, could cause a different outcome. While the outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that the amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. "Accrued liabilities" and "Other liabilities" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets include a total litigation reserve of US$102.3 million and US$105.8 million as of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively, with regards to potential liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation. Asbestos related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos claims liability and are recorded separately as services are incurred. In the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operation or liquidity. "The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits filed against the Company. The Company has also pursued litigation against certain insurers or indemnitors, where necessary. The Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$102.8 million and US$103.0 million as of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively, which was included in "Other assets" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. "The largest such recent action, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9, 2010, in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as case number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case"). In the lawsuit, the Company seeks, among other things, to require certain excess insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Company. "In October 2011, the Company reached a settlement with one of the insurer defendants, which had issued both primary and excess policies, for approximately the amount of such defendant's policies that were subject to the lawsuit. Since then, the case has been proceeding through the discovery and motions process with the remaining insurer defendants. "On January 29, 2016, the Company prevailed on the first phase of that discovery and motions process ("Phase I"). Specifically, the Court in the Adams County Case ruled that the Company has rights under all of the policies in the case, subject to their terms and conditions, even though the policies were sold to the Company's former owners rather than to the Company itself. "On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by several of the insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I ruling immediately rather than waiting until the end of the whole case as is normally required. The case is now proceeding through the discovery process regarding the remaining issues in dispute ("Phase II"). "A majority of the Company's expected future recoveries of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject of the Adams County Case. "The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently available information and assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. The actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the assumptions. There are a number of key variables and assumptions including the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the resolution or outcome of these claims, the average cost of resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available, allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom the Company has reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom the Company has not yet achieved settlements, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect the future liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal legislation. The Company makes the necessary adjustments for the asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries on an annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant assessment as of an interim date." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/bqfZAV ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion Paid $38MM to Honeywell in 2Q 2019 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Garrett Motion 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 it paid Honeywell International Inc. the Euro-equivalent of US$38 million in connection with the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement during the three months ended June 30, 2019. In the six months ended June 30, 2019, the Company paid the Euro-equivalent of US$76 million. As previously reported, Garrett Motion Inc. became an independent publicly-traded company on October 1, 2018 through a pro rata distribution by Honeywell International Inc. of 100% of the then-outstanding shares of Garrett to Honeywell's stockholders (the "Spin-Off"). The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury actions mainly related to its legacy Bendix friction materials ("Bendix") business. The Bendix business manufactured automotive brake linings that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. Certain operations that were part of the Bendix business were transferred to Garrett. "In connection with the Spin-Off, we entered into an Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement with Honeywell on September 12, 2018. As of the Spin-Off date of October 1, 2018, we are obligated to make payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to 90% of Honeywell's asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable, primarily related to the Bendix business in the United States, as well as certain environmental-related liability payments and accounts payable and non-United States asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable, in each case related to legacy elements of the Business, including the legal costs of defending and resolving such liabilities, less 90% of Honeywell's net insurance receipts and, as may be applicable, certain other recoveries associated with such liabilities. Pursuant to the terms of this Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement, we are responsible for paying to Honeywell such amounts, up to a cap of an amount equal to the Euro-to-U.S. dollar exchange rate determined by Honeywell as of a date within two business days prior to the date of the Distribution (1.16977 USD = 1 EUR) equivalent of US$175 million in respect of such liabilities arising in any given calendar year. The payments that we are required to make to Honeywell pursuant to the terms of this agreement will not be deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes. "The Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement provides that the agreement will terminate upon the earlier of (x) December 31, 2048 or (y) December 31st of the third consecutive year during which certain amounts owed to Honeywell during each such year were less than US$25 million as converted into Euros in accordance with the terms of the agreement. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2019, we paid Honeywell the Euro-equivalent of US$38 million and US$76 million, respectively, in connection with the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/YAUnNH ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Won't Face SEC Charges re Accounting --------------------------------------------------------------- Micah Maidenberg, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported that Honeywell International Inc. said securities regulators have decided not to pursue any actions related to an investigation into how it accounted for asbestos-related liabilities. According to the report, citing the company, the Securities and Exchange Commission told the Charlotte, N.C.-based conglomerate that it concluded a probe into those accounting practices and won’t recommend enforcement steps. A spokeswoman for the SEC declined to comment, the Journal said. The Journal related that last year, Honeywell revised its asbestos liabilities tied to Bendix, the vehicle-brakes business it sold several years ago, increasing them by $1.1 billion to $2.61 billion as of Dec. 31, 2017. The company said at the time that the SEC had opened an investigation into the matter and that it was cooperating with regulators, the report further related. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had $835.8MM Liability at June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- ITT Inc. had an undiscounted asbestos-related liability of US$835.8 million as of June 30, 2019, for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years, 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. The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps LLC, are joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims allege that certain of their products sold prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable. Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, a large majority of claims pending against the Company's subsidiaries have been placed on inactive dockets because the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a significant compensable loss. Our experience to date is that a substantial portion of resolved claims have been dismissed without payment by the Company's subsidiaries. "We record a liability for pending asbestos claims and asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. While it is probable that we will incur additional costs for future claims to be filed against the Company, a liability for potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable due to the variables and uncertainties inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and potential recoveries. As of June 30, 2019, we have recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of US$835.8 million, including expected legal fees, and an associated asset of US$354.6 million which represents estimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net asbestos exposure of US$481.2 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/rlPeKQ ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 24,000 Claims Pending at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Inc.'s subsidiaries had 24,000 pending asbestos-related claims at June 30, 2019, 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. The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that certain products sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable. As of June 30, 2019, there were approximately 24 thousand pending claims against ITT subsidiaries, including Goulds Pumps LLC, filed in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. "Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure. Our experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are dismissed without any payment from ITT subsidiaries. Management believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate significantly from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate. "Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently, the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state a specific claim amount. After filing a complaint, the plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including the number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs seek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many defendants. As a result of this and other factors, the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/rlPeKQ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Klopman-Baerselman Claims vs. Cost Less Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed Defendant Cost Less Auto Parts, Inc. from the case styled Eric Klopman-Baerselman, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, deceased, Plaintiff, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-05536-RJB, (W.D. Wash.). In the operative complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Rudie Klopman-Baerselman ("Decedent") was exposed to asbestos-containing products sold or supplied by Cost Less, causing Decedent injuries for which Cost Less is liable. Decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma on approximately July 11, 2017, and died on Nov. 25, 2017. The complaint provides that "Decedent was an employee of Royal Dutch Lloyd, Rotterdam Lloyd and worked as a merchant mariner assigned to several vessels. While performing his duties as a boiler oilman/stoker from approximately 1955 through 1959, Decedent was exposed to asbestos, asbestos-containing materials and products while aboard the vessels." The complaint continues, "Decedent performed all maintenance work on his vehicles specifically friction work, during the approximate years 1966 through 1997. Decedent was exposed to asbestos, asbestos materials and products while performing vehicle maintenance." On July 11, 2019, Cost Less filed for Summary Judgment, arguing that: (1) Plaintiff is unable to identify any evidence, admissible or otherwise, that the Decedent was exposed to any asbestos-containing products sold or supplied by Cost Less; (2) Plaintiff is unable to identify any evidence, admissible or otherwise, that the Decedent suffered a substantial exposure to asbestos associated with any asbestos-containing products sold or supplied by Cost Less; and (3) Plaintiff has failed to present evidence sufficient to establish genuine issues of material fact with respect to Plaintiff's claims of negligence, conspiracy, strict liability under Section 402A and 402B of the Restatements of Torts, and premises liability. The Court cannot determine that there is sufficient evidence for a jury to find that causation -- which is a necessary element of Plaintiff's claim -- has been established. Plaintiff has not offered admissible evidence establishing a reasonable connection between Decedent's injury and death to products manufactured, sold, or supplied by Cost Less; and Decedent's injury and death to Cost Less. Plaintiff has not offered evidence showing, even viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, that Cost Less or products that it sold or supplied caused Decedent's injuries and death. While Plaintiff has provided testimony from witnesses showing that Decedent shopped for automotive parts at Cost Less, however, none of the witnesses appear to have identified an asbestos-containing product that Decedent purchased from Cost Less. Plaintiff has also offered evidence of an ARI clutch found in Decedent's garage with a hand-written Cost Less sticker on it, as well as evidence that Cost Less sold ARI clutches, but Plaintiff has not shown from where the clutch was purchased, nor, crucially, that it contains asbestos. In addition, Plaintiff has provided evidence of asbestos-containing Fel-Pro gaskets found in Decedent's garage, but Plaintiff has not shown that they were purchased from Cost Less. Finally, Plaintiff has offered evidence that Cost Less sold EIS brakes -- a brand of brakes that Decedent may have used, but Plaintiff has not shown that the EIS brakes that Defendant may have used were purchased from Cost Less. Therefore, the Court granted Cost Less's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Washington product liability claim. A copy of the Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3e9wrgx from Leagle.com. Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, deceased & Muriel Klopman-Baerselman, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano , WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC & Brian Weinstein , WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC. Eric Klopman-Baerselman, as Personal Representative for the Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano , WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC, Benjamin H. Adams -- badams@dobllp.com -- DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice & Brian Weinstein , WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, individually, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig -- kcraig@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Mark B. Tuvim -- mtuvim@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Trevor J. Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP. Borg Warner Morse Tec, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard D. Ross -- rross@bbllaw.com -- BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM. CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Viacom, Inc. successor in interest CBS Corporation formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S. Marks -- mjohnson@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP, Erin P. Fraser -- efraser@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP & Malika Johnson -- mjohnson@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP. Crosby Valve Inc, a Massachusetts corporation & Viad Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Ronald C. Gardner -- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC. Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, sued as successor in interest Felt-Products Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Christine E. Dinsdale , SOHA & LANG PS, Frances Lopez -- flopez@hpylaw.com -- HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP, pro hac vice & Rachel A. Rubin , SOHA & LANG PS. Flowserve US Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Marc Marshall Carlton , LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, Randy J. Aliment -- Randy.Aliment@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds -- Rachel.Reynolds@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, a Delaware corporation & General Electric Company, a New York corporation, Defendants, represented by Christopher S. Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP & Erin P. Fraser -- efraser@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP. Genuine Parts Company, a Georgia corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeanne F. Loftis -- jeanne.loftis@bullivant.com -- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC & Megan Uhle -- megan.uhle@bullivant.com -- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC. Henry Company LLC, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Daira S. Waldenberg -- dwaldenberg@selmanlaw.com -- SELMAN BRIETMAN LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Kristine E. Kruger -- KKruger@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE & Mary Z. Gaston -- MGaston@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE. Ingersoll-Rand Company, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig -- kcraig@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Mark B. Tuvim -- mtuvim@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Peter W. Sheehan, Jr. -- peter.sheehan@nelsonmullins.com -- NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, pro hac vice & Trevor J. Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP. National Automotive Parts Association, a Georgia corporation, Defendant, represented by Megan Uhle -- megan.uhle@bullivant.com -- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC. O’Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc, an Ohio corporation, Defendant, represented by Stephen Garrett Leatham , HEURLIN POTTER JAHN, LEATHAM, HOLTMAN & STOKER PS. Parker-Hannifin Corporation, an Ohio corporation, Defendant, represented by Diane Catherine Babbitt -- dbabbitt@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD, Howard (Terry) I. Hall -- thall@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD, J. Scott Wood -- swood@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD & R. Dirk Bernhardt , FOLEY & MANSFIELD. Pneumo Abex, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Diane J. Kero -- dkero@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL. Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly -- mmattingly@rizzopc.com -- RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC & Kevin Clonts -- kclonts@rizzopc.com -- RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Jose Edward Gaitan , THE GAITAN GROUP, Virginia Leeper , THE GAITAN GROUP & John Earl Lenker , THE GAITAN GROUP PLLC. WW Henry Company LP, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary T. Tandberg -- gary.tandberg@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, pro hac vice, Jeff Bone -- jbone@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN, LLP, William Randolph Squires, III -- rsquires@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN, LLP, Kevin C. Baumgardner -- kbaumgardner@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN, LLP & Robert G. Engel -- robert.engel@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER. Toyota Motor Corporation, a Japanese corporation, Defendant, represented by John Earl Lenker , THE GAITAN GROUP PLLC & Virginia Leeper , THE GAITAN GROUP. DCO LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael Edward Ricketts -- mricketts@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Klopman-Baerselman to Amend Notice of Deposition ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case entitled Eric Klopman-Baerselman, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, deceased, Plaintiff, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-05536-RJB, (W.D. Wash.), Plaintiff served O'Reilly with a notice of deposition requiring O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC to designate a FRCP 30(b)(6) corporate representative, containing 52 topics of examination. O'Reilly filed a Motion for Protective Order, arguing that "the scope of plaintiff's notice of deposition is impossibly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of this case. The Court should issue a protective order, limiting the scope of the upcoming deposition as requested in this motion." Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington said that he will not issue a protective order at this time, but rather, he selected several topics that needs Plaintiff's amendment. He directed Plaintiff to amend and serve on O'Reilly the notice of deposition in conformity with these guidelines: (A) Topic 4: O'Reilly's corporate history and business, including the dates of inception; the asbestos containing products it manufactured, distributed, and sold; the brands of brakes, clutches, and gaskets it sold; the identity of its suppliers of brakes, clutches, and gaskets; the quantity of brakes, clutches, and gaskets it purchased and sold each year before 2003; the scope of its business; the locations of its business; the locations of production, distribution, and sale; yearly revenue from its business before 2003; O'Reilly's total revenue from the years when it was selling and distributing asbestos-containing brakes, clutches, and/or gaskets; and O'Reilly's business relationship with CSK Auto -- the Court noted that Topic 4 is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Portions of Topic 4 appear to relate to all of O'Reilly's business activity, regardless of its relationship, if any, to asbestos-containing products or a particular geographic region or certain store locations, which leaves O'Reilly, and the Court, to speculate. (B) Topic 7: The brands of brakes, clutches, and gaskets Schucks sold before 2003 -- the Court found that Topic 7 lacks reasonable particularity because it has no clear date range. Moreover, the Court observed that Schucks was apparently founded in 1917, which may raise concerns of relevancy and proportionality. (C) Topics 8, 12-22, and 24: Sales Activity Topics -- these topics are overbroad and lack reasonable particularity for having no date range or an unclear date range. (D) Topics 25-26: O'Reilly's knowledge and understanding of discovery and court orders -- these topics lack reasonable particularity and are overbroad, not proportional to the needs of the case, and not reasonably related to Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff argued these topics are necessary because "Plaintiff believes that O'Reilly has perpetrated a fraud on the court and on Plaintiff by repeatedly providing willfully false and misleading responses to written discovery that directly contradict its prior sworn testimony." However, the Court would only consider Plaintiff's allegation by a motion. The Court would not allow Plaintiff to subject O'Reilly to these overbroad topics. (E) Topic 28: O'Reilly's knowledge and understanding regarding its purchase of CSK Auto, including the amount of money it paid for CSK, all investigation and due diligence it performed before purchasing the company, and the location and substance of any documents it reviewed before purchasing CSK -- this topic is overbroad and lacks reasonable particularity, especially its vague reference to "all investigation and due diligence." Moreover, the breadth of this topic does not appear proportional to the needs of this case. (F) Topic 36-38: O'Reilly's corporate values and codes of conduct, including its positions, beliefs, and opinions regarding safety, public health, compliance with federal law, compliance with state law, providing clean and safe products, conducting business in an open and fair way, clarity and transparency in communication and disclosure, moral obligations to customers, conscientiousness, common sense, caring, doing what's right, warnings that clearly provide the necessary information to the user, and the principle of safe design -- this is overbroad and lacks reasonable particularity, for instance, it is substantially unclear what Plaintiff means by O'Reilly's "positions, beliefs, and opinions regarding... caring, doing what's right." (G) Topics 40 & 41: The locations where O'Reilly's & Schucks's businesses operated -- these topics lack particularity because they have no date range. Moreover, they are overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case. The topics have no geographical limitations related to Plaintiff's claims or to the stores in Camas and Vancouver. (H) Topic 49: O'Reilly's knowledge, contentions, and opinions regarding Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, his disease, his treatment, his life, his exposures to asbestos, his family, his wife, his children, his death, and this lawsuit -- this topic is overbroad and lacks reasonable particularity. For example, a question concerning O'Reilly's opinion on the life of Rudie Klopman-Baerselman is almost boundless. A copy of the Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4rxqpb8 from Leagle.com. Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, deceased & Muriel Klopman-Baerselman, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano , WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC & Brian Weinstein , WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC. Eric Klopman-Baerselman, as Personal Representative for the Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano , WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC, Benjamin H. Adams -- badams@dobllp.com -- DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice & Brian Weinstein , WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, individually, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig -- kcraig@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Mark B. Tuvim -- mtuvim@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Trevor J. Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP. Borg Warner Morse Tec, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard D. Ross -- rross@bbllaw.com -- BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM. CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Viacom, Inc. successor in interest CBS Corporation formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S. Marks -- mjohnson@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP, Erin P. Fraser -- efraser@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP & Malika Johnson -- mjohnson@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP. Cost Less Auto Parts, Inc., a Washington corporation, Defendant, represented by Howard (Terry) I. Hall -- thall@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD & Diane Catherine Babbitt -- dbabbitt@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD. Crosby Valve Inc, a Massachusetts corporation & Viad Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Ronald C. Gardner -- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC. Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, sued as successor in interest Felt-Products Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Christine E. Dinsdale , SOHA & LANG PS, Frances Lopez -- flopez@hpylaw.com -- HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP, pro hac vice & Rachel A. Rubin , SOHA & LANG PS. Flowserve US Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Marc Marshall Carlton , LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, Randy J. Aliment -- Randy.Aliment@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds -- Rachel.Reynolds@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, a Delaware corporation & General Electric Company, a New York corporation, Defendants, represented by Christopher S. Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP & Erin P. Fraser -- efraser@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP. Genuine Parts Company, a Georgia corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeanne F. Loftis -- jeanne.loftis@bullivant.com -- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC & Megan Uhle -- megan.uhle@bullivant.com -- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC. Henry Company LLC, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Daira S. Waldenberg -- dwaldenberg@selmanlaw.com -- SELMAN BRIETMAN LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Kristine E. Kruger -- KKruger@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE & Mary Z. Gaston -- MGaston@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE. Ingersoll-Rand Company, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig -- kcraig@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Mark B. Tuvim -- mtuvim@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Peter W. Sheehan, Jr. -- peter.sheehan@nelsonmullins.com -- NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, pro hac vice & Trevor J. Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP. National Automotive Parts Association, a Georgia corporation, Defendant, represented by Megan Uhle -- megan.uhle@bullivant.com -- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC. O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc, an Ohio corporation, Defendant, represented by Stephen Garrett Leatham , HEURLIN POTTER JAHN, LEATHAM, HOLTMAN & STOKER PS. Parker-Hannifin Corporation, an Ohio corporation, Defendant, represented by Diane Catherine Babbitt -- dbabbitt@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD, Howard (Terry) I. Hall -- thall@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD, J. Scott Wood -- swood@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD & R. Dirk Bernhardt , FOLEY & MANSFIELD. Pneumo Abex, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Diane J. Kero -- dkero@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL. Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly -- mmattingly@rizzopc.com -- RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC & Kevin Clonts -- kclonts@rizzopc.com -- RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Jose Edward Gaitan , THE GAITAN GROUP, Virginia Leeper , THE GAITAN GROUP & John Earl Lenker , THE GAITAN GROUP PLLC. WW Henry Company LP, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary T. Tandberg -- gary.tandberg@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, pro hac vice, Jeff Bone -- jbone@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN, LLP, William Randolph Squires, III -- rsquires@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN, LLP, Kevin C. Baumgardner -- kbaumgardner@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN, LLP & Robert G. Engel -- robert.engel@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER. Toyota Motor Corporation, a Japanese corporation, Defendant, represented by John Earl Lenker , THE GAITAN GROUP PLLC & Virginia Leeper , THE GAITAN GROUP. DCO LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael Edward Ricketts -- mricketts@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kodak Escapes Insurer's Claims ----------------------------------------------- Law360 reported that a New York bankruptcy judge found that Eastman Kodak Co.'s duty to indemnify Travelers Indemnity Co. for asbestos claims against a defunct subsidiary ended when Kodak emerged from bankruptcy in 2014, calling the insurer's arguments to the contrary "nonsense." Kodak asked the Bankruptcy Court to reopen its Chapter 11 case for the limited purpose of considering its request to enforce the Plan and Confirmation Order, including the discharge and injunction provisions. According to Kodak, asbestos litigation matters are currently pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Seventh Judicial District, Monroe County, for which at least Travelers has affirmatively asserted that the Reorganized Debtor is responsible for defending and indemnifying Travelers. According to Travelers, the issue is already moot because Travelers satisfied itself that Ridge, which is named in the lawsuits, is a predecessor of Kodak and that no claim currently is being asserted against Travelers by Ridge or anyone else in the Ridge lawsuits. Travelers have withdrawn its request for defense and indemnity from Kodak. Travelers further argued that the 1998 Agreement of Settlement and Release was not an executory contract, was not rejected in Kodak's bankruptcy case, and thus still remains in full force and effect. At a hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael Wiles rejected Traveler's arguments that he should hold off on ruling on Kodak's request for an injunction until more facts are available about the claims being made against the photo company's long-gone construction affiliate, saying Kodak's liability under a pre-Chapter 11 settlement could not have survived the end of the bankruptcy case. Judge Wiles ruled, "Travelers and Lumbermens are permanently enjoined and barred from asserting claims for indemnification and defense against the Reorganized Debtor based on the Settlement Agreements . . . This injunction and bar applies, without limitation, to any suit, proceeding, action, litigation or arbitration, brought in law or equity, brought in court or otherwise." A full-text copy of the Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5c6na85 from PacerMonitor.com at no charge. Eastman Kodak is represented by: Pauline K. Morgan, Esq. Sean T. Greecher, Esq. YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP 1270 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2210 New York, New York 10020 Telephone: (212) 332-8840 Facsimile: (212) 332-8855 Attorneys for The Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company: Evan Glassman, Esq. Filiberto Agusti, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 1330 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 429-3000 Facsimile: (202) 261-0658 Email: eglassman@steptoe.com fagusti@steptoe.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Still Faces 575 Lawsuits at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- MRC Global Inc. continues to defend itself against approximately 575 lawsuits involving approximately 1,151 claims as of June 30, 2019, 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. The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture, distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc. subsidiary purportedly distributed. "As of June 30, 2019, we are named a defendant in approximately 575 lawsuits involving approximately 1,151 claims. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/he5AK2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Louis Jurors Award Former Mechanic $8.4MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that a St. Louis jury awarded a former mechanic and his wife $8.433 million in an asbestos trial against Ford Motor Company. The jury reached a verdict in favor of plaintiffs Al and Pam Bennett on Aug. 22 in Judge Christopher McGaugh's courtroom. Jurors awarded Al Bennett $5,725,000 in actual damages and $2 million in punitive damages. They also awarded Pam Bennett $708,000 in actual damages, finding that she "did sustain damage as a direct result of injury to her husband." In an Aug. 30 order, the verdict was reduced by $1,497,500 for set-offs. As a result, Al Bennett was awarded $4,392,311.13 in actual damages and $2 million in punitive damages. Pam Bennett was awarded $543,188.87 in actual damages. The Bennetts were represented by Chris Layloff and Jason Steinmeyer of Gori Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville. Ford Motor Company was represented at trial by Sherry Ann Rozell, Brita Cantrell and Steve Ward of McAfee & Taft, according to the docket sheet. "Chris and I couldn't be more honored to represent Al and Pam," Steinmeyer stated in a press release following the verdict. "Although Al is currently suffering from pleural mesothelioma, we hope that this sizable verdict will help him and his family find some peace during this difficult time." Bennett was born and raised in St. Louis. He had been employed as a mechanic at Ford, Mercury and Lincoln automobile dealerships from the 1960s until the 1980s. According to his complaint, Bennett was allegedly exposed to asbestos fibers by working with brakes, gaskets, clutches and OEM replacement parts. Bennett later developed pleural mesothelioma in his right lung. Following retirement, Bennett moved to South County, where he currently resides and seeks treatment. According to a press release, Al Bennett was undergoing treatment and was unable to attend trial. Pam Bennett attended on his behalf. "Chris and Jason are always fighting tirelessly for their clients, and this case is no exception," founding partner Randy Gori stated. "I'm extremely proud of our team and their effort in obtaining justice for Mr. and Mrs. Bennett." "We're happy to achieve justice for our clients, especially wonderful people like Al and Pam," Layloff stated. "Hopefully this verdict serves as a lesson for companies large and small; when companies do wrong, they should expect to face justice." According to asbestos filing numbers reported by Washington-based consulting group KCIC, Gori Julian filed the most asbestos cases in the nation with 348 cases at mid-year. Compared to last year, the firm filed 306 cases at mid-year in 2018, representing a 13.7 percent increase. St. Louis City Circuit Court is ranked as the fourth largest asbestos docket in the nation, with Madison County remaining the largest asbestos docket in the country. In St. Louis, mid-year filings show an increase of 75 percent with 117 filed this year. There were 67 asbestos cases filed at mid-year in 2018. The Plaintiffs' counsel can be reached at: Christopher Layloff, Esq. Jason Steinmeyer, Esq. Gori Julian & Associates PC Edwardsville, IL Email: clayloff@gorijulianlaw.com jsteinmeyer@gorijulianlaw.com Defendant Ford Motor Company's counsel can be reached at: Sherry Ann Rozell, Esq. Brita Cantrell, Esq. Steve Ward, Esq. McAfee & Taft Williams Center Tower II Two W. Second Street, Suite 1100 Tulsa, OK 74103 Tel: (918) 587-0000 Fax: (918) 599-9317 Email: sherry.rozell@mcafeetaft.com brita.cantrell@mcafeetaft.com steve.ward@mcafeetaft.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Appeals New Burden in Calif. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that it is pursuing "all rights of appeal" regarding the February 2019 amended court verdict that increased the Company's responsibility in an asbestos liability case in California. The Company states, "In accordance with our policy of performing an annual actuarial evaluation in the third quarter of each year, and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be necessary, an actuarial study was performed as of August 31, 2018. The results of the August 31, 2018 study included an estimate of our undiscounted liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from US$37.1 million to US$56.9 million for the period through 2061. Based upon the results of the August 31, 2018 actuarial study, in September 2018 we increased our asbestos liability to US$37.1 million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of US$3.5 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations. "During 2018, we were involved in an asbestos liability case in California, in which a jury returned a verdict, in November 2018, in favor of the plaintiff for the gross amount of US$8.6 million in compensatory damages. Of this amount, we were held responsible for approximately US$7.4 million. In February 2019, the court amended the verdict on the judgment, thereby increasing our responsibility to approximately US$7.6 million. We are pursuing all rights of appeal. While the verdict is being appealed, interest will accrue at a rate of ten percent (10%) per annum. "As a result of the California asbestos liability case, in the fourth quarter of 2018, our actuarial firm revised the results of the August 31, 2018 study. The results of the revised actuarial study increased the low end of the estimated range of our undiscounted liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, from US$37.1 million to US$46.7 million, and increased the high end of the range from US$56.9 million to US$83.9 million for the period through 2061. Based upon the results of the revised actuarial study, in December 2018, and in accordance with our practice, we increased our asbestos liability to US$46.7 million, the low end of the range, and recorded an additional incremental pre-tax provision of US$10.1 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations. Future legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations, are estimated, according to the revised study, to range from US$45 million to US$83.1 million. "We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be necessary. Given the uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the future and other factors outside our control, we can give no assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will continue to monitor events and changes in circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities in determining whether to perform additional actuarial evaluations and whether additional provisions may be necessary. At the present time, however, we do not believe that any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial position." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/lXCvp9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,540 Fibro Cases at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 1,540 cases were outstanding at June 30, 2019, for which Standard Motor Products, Inc., may be responsible for any related liabilities in connection to its former brake business, 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. The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued operation in the accompanying statement of operations. When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on or after September 2001, and the amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages, and defense of such claims. "At June 30, 2019, approximately 1,540 cases were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through June 30, 2019, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately US$29.8 million. We do not have insurance coverage for the indemnity and defense costs associated with the claims we face." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/lXCvp9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 366 Pending Cases at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- TriMas Corporation has 366 pending asbestos-related personal injury cases as of June 30, 2019, 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. The Company states, "As of June 30, 2019, the Company was a party to 366 pending cases involving an aggregate of 4,806 claims primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of its subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical, refining and exploration industries. "In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used. "The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which product identification can be made may increase, and the Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things, claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought. "Of the 4,806 claims pending at June 30, 2019, 61 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At June 30, 2019, of the 61 claims that set forth specific amounts, there were no claims seeking specific amounts for punitive damages. "In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. "Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of which were filed over 25 years ago, have been approximately US$9.2 million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately 40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity insurance coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration of such expenses. The Company's primary insurance exhausted in November 2018, and the Company will be solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement, the duration of which would be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid. "Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other available information (including the availability of excess insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/CTdsnE ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weil Atty Closing Remarks in J&J Talc Trial Struck ------------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reported that a New Jersey judge struck the entire closing argument of a Johnson & Johnson attorney who told a jury that "lawsuit fiction" dominated claims by four mesothelioma victims, giving the Weil Gotshal partner a stern rebuke about her conduct. Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Anna C. Viscomi struck the closing argument of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP's Diane Sullivan, who repeatedly suggested during her summation that attorneys of the four plaintiffs "created" evidence to back their claims that they developed terminal cancer from using the company's talcum powder. Ms. Sullivan can be reached at: Diane P. Sullivan, Esq. Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP Tel: (609) 986-1120 Email: diane.sullivan@weil.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Had 800 PI Suits at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------- WestRock Company is still facing approximately 800 personal injury lawsuits related to asbestos matters as of June 30, 2019, 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. The Company states, "We have been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. To date, the costs resulting from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant. As of June 30, 2019, there were approximately 800 such lawsuits. We believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos claims. "We also have valid defenses to these asbestos-related personal injury claims and intend to continue to defend them vigorously. Should the volume of litigation grow substantially, it is possible that we could incur significant costs resolving these cases. We do not expect the resolution of pending asbestos litigation and proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. In any given period or periods, however, it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/IYpwdJ ********* 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 ***