/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191022.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, October 22, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 211 Headlines 138-SHARP REALTY: Faces Perez Suit Over Unpaid or Underpaid Wages 3M CO: Firefighters Aguon, Et Al. File Class Suit on PFAS Exposure ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Bragar Eagel Investigates Officers, Directors ADR RESTAURANT: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ALDI INC: Gensberg Sues Over Almondmilk's Misleading Labels ALLERGAN PLC: Kent Files Suit Over Sale to AbbVie Inc. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces Madlinger Suit in New Jersey ALLIED ACCOUNT SERVICES: Lopez Files Suit under FDCPA ALLYN LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BAMBI'S DOLL: Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers BARRIER COMPLIANCE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Perez Suit Says BAYER AG: Missouri Roundup Trial Postponed Until February 2020 BLUE & CREAM: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOCNYC INC: Calcano Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act BROWN UNIVERSITY: Settles DS Workers' Class Action for $620,000 BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: $900K in Lawyers Fees Awarded in Haas Suit CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Final Approval of Pearlman Suit Deal Appealed CAPITAL ONE: Tadler Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia CHARDAN HEALTHCARE: Rosenblatt Balks at BiomX Merger CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Removes Labor Case to S.D. Cal. CLEANER CITY: Workers Seek Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages COLUMBIA GAS: Hearing Set in Merrimack Valley Settlement Payout CONDE NAST: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COOK COUNTY, IL: Class in McFields Suit Denied Certification CORINDUS VASCULAR: Docs on Siemens Merger Misleading, Shea Says CRAFT BREW: Smith Seeks OT Wages for Restaurant Staff CROWN EQUIPMENT: Faces Brown et al Suit in California Super. Ct. DPS LAND: Raptis Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ELECTROCORE INC: Registration Statement Misleading, Turnofsky Says EPIC GAMES: Faces Class Action Over Fortnite Addiction EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Calif. Court Certifies Reyes FCRA Class Suit EXTRA BUTTER: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FAIRLIFE LLC: Ngai Sues over Maltreatment of Cows FIRST CONNECTICUT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Karp Securities Suit FOREST VIEW: Jovanovic Files Suit Over Illegal Use of Biometrics FRAMINGHAM AUTO MALL: Pena Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime FROEDTERT HEALTH: Fore Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages GLOBAL RADAR: Faces Job Suit Over Illegally Issued Consumer Report H&R BLOCK: Hid Free Tax-Filing Program, Swanson Alleges HANY PANKY: Jane Roe Calls Tip-Splitting Unlawful HARU INC: Tecuapacho Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay for Cooks IC SYSTEM: Roldan Alleges Violation under FDCPA JELLY BELLY: Hoffman Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads JOHNSON'S TREE: Johnson Seeks Proper Overtime Pay JUUL LABS: King County Files RICO Class Action in Washington KLLM TRANSPORT: Class in Swales FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified KROGER CO: Pope Sues over Mislabeling of Premium Honey Products LOCKHEED MARTIN: Machuca Files Labor Class Action in Cal. LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Patel Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California MDL 2642: Wietzema v. Janssen Transferred to District of Minnesota MDL 2738: 3 Suits v. Johnson & Johnson Moved to Dist. of New Jersey MDL 2741: 3 Roundup Suits Moved to Northern Dist. of California MDL 2768: Denninger Suit v. Anderson Moved to D. Mass. MDL 2797: Transfer Order on Karpowski v. Wells Fargo Vacated MDL 2800: Johnston Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia MDL 2804: 24 National Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio MDL 2906: Plaintiffs Withdraw Bid for Centralization of 7 Lawsuits MDL 2907: Court Denies Motion to Centralize 14 Data Security Suits MDL 2909: 4 Marketing/Sales Practices Suits Moved to N.D. Illinois MDL 2911: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 4 Water Pollution Suits MDL 2912: 13 Palbociclib Patent Suits Moved to Dist. of Delaware MDL 2913: 10 Product Liability Suits v Juul Labs Sent to N.D. Cal. MDL 2914: 5 '289 Patent Suits Moved to Southern District of Florida MDL 2915: 21 Data Security Breach Suits Moved to E.D. Virginia MDL 2916: Bid to Centralize 3 Skywest FLSA Suits Denied MDL 2917: Court Denies Bid for Centralization of 4 Air Crash Suits MDL 2918: 4 Antitrust Lawsuits Transferred to N.D. California MGM RESORTS: Settles Mandalay Bay Mass Shooting Class Action MID-CON HOSPITALITY: Trayes Sues over Collection of Biometrics MIDWEST HOSPITALITY: Turner Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: FPTPA Breaks Amateurism Rules NATIONAL GENERAL: Bragar Eagel Investigates Officers, Directors NEUROLOGY CENTER: Nurse Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages NOVO NORDISK: Insulin Drug Prices Inflated, Suit Claims P.S.J. INC: Lugo Seeks Pay for Hours Worked Over 40 PAREA GROUP: Class in Argudo FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified PENNSYLVANIA: New York AG Files Class Action Against PHEAA PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Will FDCPA Class Suit Dismissed PR DESIGN: Calcano Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act PRAIRIE OPPORTUNITY: Bonner Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages PRICESMART INC: Bragar Eagel Investigates Officers, Directors RADIUS GLOBAL: Bonilla Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York RADIUS GLOBAL: George Files FDCPA Suit in North Carolina REALTORS NAT'L ASSO: DOJ Probes Missouri Suit on Excessive Fees RUHNN HOLDING: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims SHIRE LLC: Mass. Court Certifies Class in Intuniv Antitrust Suit SKM RECYCLING: Settles Coolaroo Blaze Class Action for $1.2-Mil. SKYWEST INC: Transfer of Hirst & Tapp Cases to Calif. Court Denied SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Clark-Alonso Suit Moved to N.D. California SPARK SPORT: Suit Mulled Over Poor Rugby World Cup Streaming SPECIALTY RETAILERS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Slade Says SPRINT SAFETY: Lobo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA STRADA SERVICES: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT for Electricians SUBARU OF AMERICA: Settles Starlink Class Action for $6.2 Million SUNRIDGE NURSERIES: EEOC Sues over Unlawful Employment Practices SUSQUEHANNA VILLAGE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Knapp FLSA Suit TARTE, INC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Traynor Says TRANSUNION INTERACTIVE: Site not Accessible to Blind, Traylor Says UBER TECH: Shortchanges Drivers' Expense Reimbursements, Says Suit UNITED STATES: Patent Office Seeks Dismissal of SAWS Class Suit VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: 67 Names in Emissions Scandal to Stay Secret WAITR HOLDINGS: Docs on Going Public Deal Misleading, Welch Says WESCO AIRCRAFT: Monteverde & Associates Files Amended Complaint WILMINGTON TRUST: Henry Files ERISA Class Action in Delaware WORLD TRAVEL HOLDINGS: Betit Sues Over Illegal Email Ads XPRESSCAPITALGROUP.COM: Schlesigner Suit Moved to M.D. Florida ********* 138-SHARP REALTY: Faces Perez Suit Over Unpaid or Underpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE F. REYNOSO PEREZ, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. 138-SHARP REALTY LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-09149 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 2, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other employees alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Mr. Perez contends that the Defendant is liable to him and the class for unpaid or underpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and other relief available by law. 138-Sharp Realty LLC is a limited liability company with its office located in Kings County. The Defendant is a real estate management company doing business as 138-Sharp Realty LLC and located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Gurrieri, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com 3M CO: Firefighters Aguon, Et Al. File Class Suit on PFAS Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sabrina Salas Matanane, writing for Kuam News, reports that more than 20 firefighters, former and current, have joined together to file a class action complaint in the District Court of Guam involving their exposure to PFAS chemicals, also known as the "Forever Toxins." Raymond Aguon, Johnny Arceo, Benny Baza, William Castro, David Cepeda, Gregorio Cruz, Michael Cuasito, Francisco Duenas, Delfino Garcia, Steve Hagen, Alfred Ignacio, James Linnel, Mark Merfalen, Andrew Mesa, Van Murer, Rudy Paco, Vicente Perez, Michael Roberto, Randy Sablan, Lewis Santos, Ray Taitague, Edward Terlaje and Anthony Quinene are seeking medical monitoring and monetary damages resulting from the exposure to what's called aqueous film forming foams or "AFFF". The named Defendants are 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.); TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP; CHEMGUARD, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C. They are manufacturers who manufactured the aqueous film forming foams. The foam contains the toxic chemicals we've heard in the headlines recently PFAS or the forever toxins. Since the foam's creation its been sold to military and industrial facilities, airports, firefighting training facilities and fire departments in Guam and elsewhere. The foam containing the toxins are used by firefighters to battle fires involving fuels such as petroleum and other flammable liquids. Exposure can lead to significant adverse health effects such as kidney cancer, testicular cancer, high cholesterol, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis and pregnancy-induced hypertension. According to the class action complaint, the plaintiffs represent numerous firefighters who handled, trained and otherwise used the foam containing the forever toxins, at Andersen Air Force Base, Naval Base Guam and the Guam International airport. Representing the class is attorney Michael Berman, Esq. -- mjberman@pacificlawyers.law -- of Berman O'Connor & Mann. In September, the Attorney General's (AG) office and his legal team filed a separate lawsuit for the exposure and contamination the forever toxins caused on the island. [GN] ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Bragar Eagel Investigates Officers, Directors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. ( ACHC), American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. (: ARA), Camping World Holdings, Inc. (: CWH), and Cardinal Health, Inc. (: CAH) on behalf of long-term stockholders. More information about each potential case can be found at the link provided. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. ( ACHC) Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. following a class action complaint that was filed against Acadia Healthcare on October 1, 2018. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Acadia's business and operations, including by falsely stating that the quality of Acadia's U.K. operations gave it a competitive strength that would drive future growth and profitability, and by issuing false and misleading guidance regarding the company's actual and projected 2017 revenue, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) and earnings per share (EPS). As a result of defendants' false statements, Acadia stock traded at artificially inflated prices of more than $52 per share during the Class Period. While Acadia stock was trading at these artificially inflated prices, the company's CEO and President sold 706,000 shares of their Acadia stock for proceeds of more than $35 million. Then on October 24, 2017, Acadia announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2017. The company revealed a drastic shortfall in EBITDA for its U.K. operations, purportedly resulting from lower census and higher operating costs, and lowered its financial guidance for 2017, including lowering its EPS guidance as much as $0.24 per share. Following these revelations, the price of Acadia stock price fell 26%, from a close of $44.12 per share on October 24, 2017 to a close of $32.68 per share on October 25, 2017. For more information on the firm's investigation into Acadia Healthcare go to: https://bespc.com/achc American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. (: ARA) Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of American Renal Associates, Inc. following a class action complaint that was filed against American Renal Associates on March 28, 2019. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) issues with American Renal's accounting process for revenue recognition, collections, and related matters would give rise to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") investigation into the same, and increased regulatory scrutiny by the SEC; (2) American Renal's financial statements for fiscal years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 contained in its Annual Reports for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and its condensed consolidated financial statements in quarterly reports from 2016 through 2018 were false and could not be relied upon; (3) American Renal had material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. For more information on the firm's investigation into American Renal Associates go to: https://bespc.com/ara-2 Camping World Holdings, Inc. (: CWH) Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of Camping World Holdings, Inc. following a class action complaint that was filed against Camping World on October 19, 2018. The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Camping World's business, operations and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that the company's disclosure controls and controls over financial reporting suffered from a host of material weaknesses; that the company's historical financial results had been materially misstated; that the Gander stores had encountered integration setbacks, adversely impacting the company's earnings growth and profit margins; and that the company's core RV business was experiencing decelerating growth as the Company lagged industry trends and was losing market share to competitors. As a result of this information being withheld from the market, the price of Camping World Class A common stock was artificially inflated to a high of $47.19 per share during the Class Period. For more information on the firm's investigation in to Camping world go to: https://bespc.com/cwh Cardinal Health, Inc. (: CAH) Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of Cardinal Health, Inc. following a class action complaint that was filed against Cardinal Health on August 1, 2019. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants misled investors by stating that Cordis would benefit from Cardinal's advanced inventory management and supply chain information technology solutions. Defendants also falsely represented that the Company properly "reserve[d] for inventory obsolescence" and that "[i]nventories presented in the consolidated balance sheets [were] net of reserves for excess and obsolete inventory." As a result of these misrepresentations, Cardinal shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. For more information on the firm's investigation into Cardinal Health go to: https://bespc.com/cah Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] ADR RESTAURANT: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ADR Restaurant Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADR Restaurant Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09603 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 17, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. ADR RESTAURANT INC is a restaurant based in Kings County, New York, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zare Khorozian, Esq. Zare Khorozian Law, LLC 1047 Anderson Avenue Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Phone: (201) 957-7269 Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com ALDI INC: Gensberg Sues Over Almondmilk's Misleading Labels ----------------------------------------------------------- Steve Gensberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aldi Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05745 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 10, 2019) is a complaint seeking damages under that State's Consumer Protection Statutes from Defendant's misleading representations on their products' packaging. Aldi Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells almondmilk beverages purporting to be characterized by vanilla under the Simply Nature brand ("Products"). The Products' front labels and/or advertising makes direct representations with respect to their primary recognizable and characterizing flavor, by the word "VANILLA" and/or vignette and states "6g Soy Powered Protein" and "Non-GMO". The front labels represent the Products' characterizing flavor is vanilla and that they contain a characterizing food ingredient, vanilla flavoring or vanilla extract, that is sufficient to independently characterize the Products. The complaint asserts that the unqualified, prominent and conspicuous representations as "Vanilla" is false, deceptive and misleading because they contain flavors other than vanilla, as revealed by "Natural Flavors" on the ingredient list. If the "natural flavors" on the ingredient list only consisted of vanilla flavoring or vanilla extract, these higher value ingredients would be declared by their common or usual names instead of the opaque and ubiquitous "natural flavor." A non-misleading front label description could be "Natural Vanilla Flavored Almondmilk" or "Vanilla Flavored Almondmilk" provided the Product does not contain added vanillin from sources other than vanilla beans, it says. The proportion of the characterizing component, vanilla, has a material bearing on price or consumer acceptance of the Products because it is more expensive and desired by consumers. Had Plaintiff and Class members known the truth about the Products, they would not have bought the Products or would have paid less, says the complaint. Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal use, consumption or application based on the above representations, for no less than the price indicated.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com ALLERGAN PLC: Kent Files Suit Over Sale to AbbVie Inc. ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Kent, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan PLC, Brenton L. Saunders, Nesli Basgoz, Joseph H. Boccuzi, Christopher W. Bodine, Adriane M. Brown, Christopher J. Coughlin, Carol Anthony Davidson, Thomas C. Freyman, Michael E. Greenberg, Robert J. Hugin, Peter J. Mcdonnell, Abbvie, Inc. and Venice Subsidiary, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01790 (D. Del., September 24, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Allergan PLC by AbbVie, Inc. and Venice Subsidiary, LLC; rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger; plus 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 transaction, Allergan's stockholders will receive $120.30 in cash and 0.8660 of a newly issued share of AbbVie, Inc. common stock for each share of Allergan common stock they own. The complaint asserts that the Merger Agreement contains a "no solicitation" provision that prohibits soliciting alternative proposals and severely constrains their ability to communicate and negotiate with potential buyers who wish to submit or have submitted unsolicited alternative proposals. The registration statement for the merger also failed to include critical financial analysis performed by its financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC including all line items used to calculate consolidated EBITDAX, line items used to calculate unlevered free cash flow and a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics 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. Allergan is a global pharmaceutical company focused on developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical and regenerative medicinal products. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 Email: rm@maniskas.com ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces Madlinger Suit in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. The case is captioned as SCOTT MADLINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-18515-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., Sept. 29, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael A. Shipp. AllianceOne provides debt collection services and contact center solutions.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507-6300 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com ALLIED ACCOUNT SERVICES: Lopez Files Suit under FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Account Services Inc. The case is styled as Welquis R. Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allied Account Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01003 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 16, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Allied Account Services Inc. is a debt collection agency located in Bellmore, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com ALLYN LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allyn LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allyn LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09598 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 17, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Allyn International is a privately-held professional services firm established in 1992. It is a full-service public relations, advertising, public affairs, strategic research, grassroots communications and political media firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zare Khorozian, Esq. Zare Khorozian Law, LLC 1047 Anderson Avenue Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Phone: (201) 957-7269 Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com BAMBI'S DOLL: Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers --------------------------------------------------------- KYLAH SMITH, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAMBI'S DOLL HOUSE, LLC. d/b/a BAMBI'S DOLL HOUSE, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and RICHARD WHITSITT, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00357-RH-MJF (N.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2019), contends that the Defendants have a longstanding policy of misclassifying their employees as independent contractors. The Defendants required and/or permitted Plaintiff Kylah Smith to work as an exotic "entertainer" and/or dancer at their adult entertainment club in excess of 40 hours per week, but refused to compensate her at the applicable minimum wage and overtime rate. In fact, the Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff at all for the hours she worked. The Plaintiff's only compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons. Furthermore, Defendants' practice of failing to pay tipped employees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 203(m), violates the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage provision as does Defendants' practice of siphoning away those tips to distribute to non-tip eligible employees.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff & Class Members are: Warren D. Astbury, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (313) 251-1399 Facsimile: (313) 739-1976 E-mail: wastbury@forthepeople.com BARRIER COMPLIANCE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Perez Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JESUS PEREZ, Individually, and on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. BARRIER COMPLIANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02598 (D. Kan., Oct. 2, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by not recording employees' time for all work performed and for not compensating them with appropriate overtime pay for all work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Headquartered in Lenexa, Kansas, Barrier Compliance Services, LLC, is a Kansas Limited Liability Company, which performs inspections, assessments, construction and installation, design, assistance, and code compliance for healthcare facilities and other facilities across the country. The Defendant contracts with healthcare facilities, data centers, education centers, commercial facilities, industrial facilities, nuclear facilities, and government facilities, among others across the country to perform inspections, assessments, installation, design assistance, and code compliance for new construction and renovation projects. The Defendant employs technicians, repairmen, inspectors, surveyors, and installers of firestops, dampers, doors, and barriers, generally categorized as "field employees" like the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark V. Dugan, Esq. Heather J. Schlozman, Esq. DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC 8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite 307 Overland Park, KS 66212 Telephone: (913) 322-3528 E-mail: mark@duganschlozman.com heather@duganschlozman.com - and - Courtney L. Graham, Esq. Randall S. Strause, Esq. STRAUSE LAW GROUP, PLLC 804 Stone Creek Pkwy., Suite One Louisville, KY 40223 Telephone: (502) 426-1661 Facsimile: (502) 426-6772 E-mail: cgraham@strauselawgroup.com rstrause@strauselawgroup.com BAYER AG: Missouri Roundup Trial Postponed Until February 2020 -------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Baccardax, writing for TheStreet, reports that Bayer AG said a key trial linked to its Roundup weedkiller had been postponed until February of next year. The case against Monsanto, which Bayer purchased in a $63 billion takeover last year, was set to resume this month in St. Louis, Missouri and centers around an allegation by Walter Winston that the chemical maker's Roundup weedkiller, a herbicide that contains the active ingredient glyphosate, caused him to contract non-Hodgkin lymphoma. "With the change in the trial schedule and no trial dates set through the rest of the year, the appeals of the three completed trials will be a significant focus of the litigation in the months ahead," Bayer said in a statement reported by Reuters. Bayer shares were marked 2.7% higher in on the Deutsche Boerse in Frankfurt on Oct. 7, compared to a 0.1% decline for the DAX performance index benchmark, to change hands at EUR64.10 each. Earlier this spring, activist investor Elliot Advisors revealed a $1.1 billion stake in the chemicals group and supported plans to boost its legal team in the face of thousands of Roundup weedkiller lawsuits, with a focus on reaching a class-action settlement. Analysts have estimated Bayer's glyphosate-based products liability at anywhere between EUR4 billion and EUR15 billion, and the company has said some 18,400 lawsuits remain outstanding. Earlier this summer, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria upheld a March jury verdict that awarded Edwin Hardeman of Santa Rosa, California $5.27 million in compensatory damages after he claimed his long-term exposure to Roundup caused his cancer diagnosis in 2014. The San Francisco judge, however, cut the level of punitive damages to $20 million from $75 million, noting he award breached Federal laws on the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages. In early June, a jury in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, California which awarded Alva and Alberta Pilliod $2 billion in punitive damages and $55 million in compensatory relief after the pair said Roundup killer caused them to contract cancer. That verdict followed a 2018 decision from San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos, who ruled that said Bayer should pay $39 million in punitive damages and a further $49 billion in compensatory damages to Dewayne Johnson, a school district groundskeeper who argued that Roundup and Ranger Pro weedkillers, as well as its other glyphosate-based products, did not carry sufficient warnings for the risks of cancer that they carried. [GN] BLUE & CREAM: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue & Cream LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blue & Cream LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09614 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 17, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. BLUE & CREAM (B&C) is a Hamptons based multi-label Mens & Womens retail clothing store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zare Khorozian, Esq. Zare Khorozian Law, LLC 1047 Anderson Avenue Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Phone: (201) 957-7269 Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com BOCNYC INC: Calcano Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------ BOCNYC Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOCNYC Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09581 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019). BOCNYC is in the women's clothing stores business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zare Khorozian, Esq. Zare Khorozian Law, LLC 1047 Anderson Avenue Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Tel: (201) 957-7269 Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com BROWN UNIVERSITY: Settles DS Workers' Class Action for $620,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Allie Reed, writing for Brown Daily Herald, reports that Brown University plans to pay $620,000 distributed among more than 100 student Dining Services workers and their lawyers to settle a class action lawsuit over disputed pay. The preliminary approval of the settlement was filed Oct. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The student plaintiffs alleged that the University failed to appropriately compensate them for their work in violation of the Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Students first filed a complaint about unpaid work to Dining Services and Human Resources about one year ago. In its current form, the settlement distributes $450,000 to over 100 current and former student employees, including named plaintiffs Maxwell Kozlov '20 and Benjamin Bosis '19, while the remaining funds will be distributed to their lawyers, according to the preliminary agreement. Each eligible person's settlement amount "is based on the number of (their) scheduled on-call hours" worked during the almost three year period between Jan. 24, 2016, and Oct. 18, 2018, with a minimum settlement amount of $200. The highest settlement amount totals $24,512 for more than 4,400 total on-call hours worked. Students eligible for the funds must have worked as student Unit Managers, Assistant Unit Managers or Supervisors in the Cashiers, Carts or Blue Room units in the three year time period. These units included weekly "on-call" shifts, for which the plaintiffs alleged they were not properly compensated. The "on-call" shifts no longer exist in the same form. The settlement agreement may change as it awaits final approval. Potential plaintiffs have a 180-day opt-in period, which begins after they are notified of the proposed settlement. The parties must meet a number of other conditions, including a requirement that Kozlov "immediately and formally withdraw his complaint" at the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training. The University will also be "solely responsible for payment of any fees … imposed or assessed by the DLT." In a draft of a joint statement between the plaintiffs and the defendant, they state that they have "amicably resolved" the pending legal action. "Brown believes the legal actions have no merit, while the students maintain they were not appropriately compensated for the full extent of work performed, including on-call time," according to the statement. Neither party may communicate publicly about the settlement. The parties decided to settle to eliminate the emotional cost and financial expense of an ongoing lawsuit. The University "denies any wrongdoing or any violation of federal or state law as alleged in the Action and maintains that at all times it acted reasonably and in good faith," the statement read. "Student workers will remain an essential part of dining operations at Brown. For those students who seek campus employment, Brown remains committed to ensuring experiences that enable students to effectively balance their academic study and other activities with their employment," according to the statement. [GN] BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: $900K in Lawyers Fees Awarded in Haas Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TAMMY MARIE HAAS and CONRAD SZCZPANIAK, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. BURLINGTON COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 08-1102 (NLH/JS) (D. N.J.), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the Class Counsels' Motions for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. In the long-standing class action, the Plaintiffs allege that their constitutional rights were violated when they were strip searched at the Burlington County Jail in or around 2006 and 2008. After the Court granted class certification, the parties resolved the matter by way of settlement, which the Court approved on Jan. 31, 2019. In addition to the $1,475,000 settlement fund established as part of the global resolution, the Defendants agreed to pay $900,000 in attorneys' fees and an additional $25,000 in costs. Thereafter, pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Class Counsel applied to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. In rendering final approval of the settlement, the Court analyzed the Class Counsel's fee application and determined that an award of $925,000, inclusive of fees and costs, was reasonable under the circumstances. Thereafter, at the urging of the Court, the parties entered into negotiations about how they would share the fee award. Due to disagreements regarding allocation, Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider mediated with the parties in an effort to facilitate a resolution. Despite Magistrate Judge Schneider's efforts, the counsel could not reach an agreement. On May 3, 2019, Magistrate Judge Schneider issued a non-binding, comprehensive report recommending to the parties an allocation for the $925,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. After meticulously explaining the basis for his recommendation, Magistrate Judge Schneider recommended the Poplar Group receive 82.5% of the $900,000 fee ($742,500) plus $20,068 in costs, while the Novack Group receive 17.5% of the fee ($157,500) plus $4,931.20 in costs. With the benefit of Judge Schneider's written analysis, on May 15, 2019, the Court held a settlement conference in a further attempt to resolve the disputes plaguing the Class Counsel. While progress was made towards a resolution, no settlement was ever reached. After it was clear the parties were unable to mediate or otherwise resolve their disagreements, on Aug. 27, 2019, the Court ordered that the May 3, 2019 report be reissued as a report and recommendation consistent with the Federal and Local Civil Rules. The formal Report and Recommendation was filed by Judge Schneider on Sept. 3, 2019. On Sept. 17, 2019, Carl Poplar filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. No other objections have been lodged. After conducting a de novo review of the record, the applicable law, and the portions of the Report and Recommendation Mr. Poplar objects to, Judge Hillman reaches the same conclusions as Judge Schneider. Judge Hillman agrees with the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and adopts by reference the factual and legal findings contained in it. Likewise, in conducting his de novo review, Judge Hillman reaches the same decision regarding allocation as the Report and Recommendation. As to fees, the Judge will award $742,500 to the Poplar Group and $157,500 to the Novack Group. As to costs, the Judge will award $20,068.80 to the Poplar Group and $4,931.20 to the Novack Group. By way of separate motion, Mr. Poplar asks the Court to revoke Attorney's Lask's pro hac vice admission. Related to that application, Mr. Poplar argues in his objections to the Report and Recommendation that the Motion to Terminate Attorney's Lask's pro hac vice admission should be decided prior to issuance of the decision. Judge Hillman disagrees. He holds that it was Judge Schneider who granted Ms. Lask's pro hac vice application, and therefore, it should be Judge Schneider who adjudicates whether to revoke it. Moreover, Judge Hillman notes that Mr. Novak is the Novack Group lawyer appointed counsel for Plaintiff Haas, not Ms. Lask. He finds that the status of Ms. Lask's admission to practice before the Court has no direct effect on what portion of the negotiated fee the Novak Group is entitled to. The troubling findings of Judge Loretta A. Preska of the Southern District of New York regarding Ms. Lask and litigation ongoing in that district which form the primary basis for Mr. Poplar's application to vacate Ms. Lask's admission notwithstanding, the Court previously determined that Mr. Novak could seek such assistance in the matter as he felt was necessary to litigate the case appropriately. The Judge has no reason to question his judgment in that regard, especially in light of the benefits ultimately conferred on the class through the efforts of the Novak Group as a whole. As such, there is no need to resolve Mr. Poplar's Motion to Vacate before resolving his objections to the Report and Recommendation or the pending fee applications. Mr. Poplar's objections to the Report and Recommendation are rejected for the reasons stated above, and the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. As such, Judge Hillman will issue an order approving and adopting Judge Schneider's Report and Recommendation. In so doing, Judge Hillman granted in part and denied in part the Class Counsels' Motions for Attorneys' Fees. Judge Hillman granted the fee applications but apportioned the fee awarded to each group of the counsel in a manner consistent with the Report and Recommendation: $742,500 to the Poplar Group and $157,500 to the Novack Group. Costs are also apportioned consistent with the Report and Recommendation: $20,068.80 to the Poplar Group and $4,931.20 to the Novack Group. A full-text copy of Judge Hillman's Sept. 24, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/46KGQy from Leagle.com. TAMMY MARIE HAAS, Individually and on behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiff, represented by CARL D. POPLAR -- cpoplar@poplarlaw.com -- DAVID J. NOVACK -- dnovack@budd-larner.com -- MARIN GOODMAN, JAMIE BETH GOLDMAN, ROBERT BRUCE WOODRUFF, SCHILLER & PITTENGER, P.C., SETH RICHARD LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP, WILLIAM A. RIBACK, WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC, SONYA M. LONGO, BUDD LARNER, PC & TERENCE W. CAMP, BUDD, LARNER, P.C. CONRAD SZCZPANIAK, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by CARL D. POPLAR, FRAN L. RUDICH -- frudich@klafterolsen.com -- KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, SETH RICHARD LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP & WILLIAM A. RIBACK, WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC. BURLINGTON COUNTY, Defendant, represented by BETSY G. RAMOS, CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, EVAN H.C. CROOK, MALAMUT AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, MICHELLE L. COREA -- mcorea@capehart.com -- CAPEHART AND SCATCHARD, P.A. & LAURA DANKS -- ldanks@capehart.com -- CAPEHART & SCATCHARD PA. BURLINGTON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY & RONALD COX, both in his individual and Representive capacity as Warden of the Burlington County Jail, Defendant Consolidated, represented by MICHELLE L. COREA, CAPEHART AND SCATCHARD, P.A. & LAURA DANKS, CAPEHART & SCATCHARD PA. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Final Approval of Pearlman Suit Deal Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Objectors Arnold H. Belgraier, Christine Bezer and Simon Bezer filed an appeal from the District Court's Aug. 21, 2019 Final Approval Order and Judgment issued in the lawsuit titled Pearlman, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-4992, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The appellate case is captioned as Pearlman, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-3059, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson entered Final Approval Order and Judgment approving the parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement dated June 27, 2018, as reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 3, 2019. The Magistrate Judge held that final certification of the Settlement Class (including its Sub-Classes) is appropriate and that the Settlement Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs adequately represented the Settlement Class (including its Sub-Classes) for the purpose of entering into and implementing the settlement. The Magistrate Judge approved the payment of attorneys' fees to the Settlement Class Counsel in the amount of $4.75 million, plus an award of $264,479.64 in costs and expenses, for a total Attorneys' Fee Award of $5,014,479.64. The Attorneys' Fee Award will be paid to Ralph M. Stone of Stone Bonner & Rocco, LLP as designee of the Settlement Class Counsel in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.[BN] Objectors-Appellants Arnold H. Belgraier, Simon Bezer and Christine Bezer are represented by: Donovan Bezer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DONOVAN BEZER 30 Park Avenue Lyndhurst, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 677-8693 Facsimile: (201) 706-7644 Defendant-Appellee Cablevision Systems Corporation is represented by: Jonathan F. Putnam, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 E-mail: jonathan.putnam@kirkland.com CAPITAL ONE: Tadler Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia ----------------------------------------------------- The class action styled as Penelope Tadler individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, National Association, Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04782 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Oct. 17, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02931-AJT-JFA. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Phillip Murray, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 682-5340 Fax: (212) 884-0988 Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Paul C. Whalen, Esq. Law Office of Paul C. Whalen, P.C. 768 Plandome Road Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 426-6870 Fax: (212) 658-9685 Email: pcwhalen@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Peter Joseph Isajiw, Esq. Robert Warren Gray , Jr., Esq. King & Spalding LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: 556-2235 Fax: (212) 556-2222 Email: pisajiw@kslaw.com bgray@kslaw.com CHARDAN HEALTHCARE: Rosenblatt Balks at BiomX Merger ---------------------------------------------------- JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHARDAN HEALTHCARE ACQUISITION CORP., GBOLA AMUSA, JONAS GROSSMAN, GEORGE KAUFMAN, MICHAEL RICE, RICHARD GIROUX, MATTHEW ROSSEN, and ERIC KUSSELUK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01801-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 25, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a proxy statement related to its merger deal. On July 16, 2019, Chardan Healthcare Acquisition Corp.'s Board of Directors caused Chardan to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with BiomX Ltd., Shareholder Representative Services LLC, and CHAC Merger Sub Ltd. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, BiomX's securityholders will receive an aggregate of 16,625,000 Chardan shares. As a result of the Proposed Transaction, Chardan's public stockholders will only own approximately 20% of Chardan's stock. On September 13, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that Chardan's stockholders vote to approve the Proposed Transaction at a special meeting of stockholders scheduled for October 23, 2019. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose: -- the terms of the nondisclosure agreement executed by Chardan and Candidate Four. -- the terms of the nondisclosure agreement executed by Chardan and BiomX. -- the reasons that, "as discussions with BiomX advanced, the frequency of interaction with Candidate Four decreased and no further interaction regarding the proposal took place."; and -- whether Candidate Eight responded to the "initial presentation containing an overview of SPACs and background on CHAC [that] was sent to Candidate Eight. CHAC is a special purpose acquisition company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, acquisition, or similar business combination. CHAC raised $70.0 million in December 2018 for the purpose of combining with a public or privately-held operating business. CHAC was founded and sponsored by affiliates of Chardan Capital Markets LLC. CHAC is Chardan's fifth publicly traded acquisition vehicle.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. 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: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Removes Labor Case to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS et al removed the case captioned as JUSTIN M. SONICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, CHARTER COMMUNICATION, INC., dba CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (CCI), INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 37-2019-00044218-CU-OE-CTL (Filed Aug. 21, 2019), from San Diego Superior Court to the US District Court for the Southern District of California on Sept. 25, 2019. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01842-BEN-LL to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay wages including overtime; failed to provide meal periods; failed to provide rest periods; failed to pay timely wages; and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to the California Labor Code. Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass media company.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendants are Max Fischer, Esq. Aimee Mackay, Esq. Megan McDonough, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: 213 612 2500 Facsimile: 213 612 2501 E-mail: max.fischer@morganlewis.com aimee.mackay@morganlewis.com megan.mcdonough@morganlewis.com CLEANER CITY: Workers Seek Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Young Sang Kim, Jin Hee Kim, In Jun Bang and Ok Hwan Bang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A Cleaner City Livingston LLC, A Cleaner City Millburn LLC, A Cleaner City Springfield LLC, A Cleaner City West Caldwell LLC, A Cleaner City Westwood LLC, Young Sun Lee (a/k/a Tom Lee) and Estelle Lee, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-18299, (D. N.J., September 24, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New Jersey Wage Payment Law, New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Regulations, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants offer dry cleaning services. In Jun Bang and Ok Hwan Bang were hired by Defendants as dry cleaner workers. They claim to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW 163-10 Northern Blvd. Suite 205 Flushing, NY 11358 Tel: (847) 905-6262 Email: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com COLUMBIA GAS: Hearing Set in Merrimack Valley Settlement Payout --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Loncich, writing for WCVB5, reports that the first hearing regarding the payout of a class action lawsuit representing 175,000 Merrimack Valley residents and business owners was set to begin on Oct. 7. The proposed settlement of $143 million from Columbia Gas covers victims in Lawrence, Andover and North Andover who were affected by the 2018 gas line disaster. The lawsuit calls for six categories of payouts, ranging from $50 to $15,000. The highest payout of $28 million is set aside for attorney fees. Lawrence Mayor Dan Rivera and two local lawmakers oppose the details of the settlement, including the amount paid to attorneys -- which experts say could affect the case. "I think the court is going to hear it and whether the court says to itself, 'You know, look, I have concerns about the initial onset, whether this is a fair and reasonable disposition, and I'm not even going to let it go to the community,'" said NewsCenter 5 legal analyst Vince DeMore of West Hill Associates. "I'm not so sure that will be the result. I think it will go to the community, but among the members of the community are Mayor Rivera and members of the delegation." Rivera and other are asking that $20 million of the settlement be set aside to improve public safety infrastructure in the three Merrimack Valley communities affected by the explosions. Just in late September 2019, a second gas leak in Lawrence forced residents to evacuate their homes. The hearing was set for 2 p.m. on Oct. 7 in Salem. [GN] CONDE NAST: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conde Nast Entertainment LLC. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Conde Nast Entertainment LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09621 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 17, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Conde Nast is a global media company that produces some of the world's leading print, digital, video and social brands. These include Vogue, GQ, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Wired and Architectural Digest (AD), Conde Nast Traveler and La Cucina Italiana, among others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com COOK COUNTY, IL: Class in McFields Suit Denied Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, COURTNEY McFIELDS et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Defendant, Case No. 17 C 7424 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John Robert Blakey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs McFields, Pierre Brunt, Anthony Dixon, and Walter Williams, detainees at the Cook County Jail ("CCJ") filed the putative class action challenging the way in which CCJ handles health service requests from detainees complaining of dental pain. The Plaintiffs claim that CCJ's policy fails to provide detainees complaining of dental pain with a face-to-face assessment by a registered nurse or higher-level practitioner. As a result, they claim, CCJ's policy violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it is unreasonable and reflects a deliberate indifference to pain. The Plaintiffs' complaint names as the Defendants the Sheriff of Cook County and Cook County. The Sheriff operates CCJ and is charged, together with Cook County, with providing medical care, including dental care, to CCJ detainees. In their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs state that they planned to assert the claim on behalf of all persons confined at the Cook County Jail from Oct. 31, 2013 to the date of entry of judgment in the case who, having submitted a written complaint of dental pain, were not examined by a registered nurse or higher level practitioner within 48 hours of submission of the written complaint. Subsequently, they moved to certify a slightly different class: All persons who, while detained at the Cook County Jail between Nov. 1, 2013 and April 30, 2018, submitted a written Health Service Request Form complaining of dental pain and did not receive a face-to-face assessment by a registered nurse or higher-level practitioner after submitting the request. The Plaintiffs, who seek only damages, seek to certify the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Defendants oppose class certification. To prevail on their motion, the Plaintiffs initially must demonstrate numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, as well as predominance and superiority. The Defendants do not dispute numerosity or adequacy of representation. Judge Blakey finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate commonality and typicality; rather, resolution of the Plaintiffs' claim requires a highly individualized, fact intensive inquiry. Nor have they demonstrated that common questions predominate over questions affecting only individual members. Accordingly, the Court opines that class certification is not appropriate and, accordingly, denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/ajVLhA from Leagle.com. Courtney McFields, individually and for a class, Pierre Brunt, individually and for a class & Anthony Dixon, individually and for a class, Plaintiffs, represented by Joel A. Flaxman , Kenneth N. Flaxman P.C. & Kenneth N. Flaxman -- knf@kenlaw.com -- Kenneth N. Flaxman, P.C. Walter Williams, individually and for a class, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth N. Flaxman, Kenneth N. Flaxman, P.C. Sheriff of Cook County, Defendant, represented by Elaine Cindy Davenport -- EDavenport@SanchezDH.com -- Sanchez Daniels & Hoffman LLP, Gerald Michael Dombrowski -- GDombrowski@SanchezDH.com -- Sanchez & Daniels, Meghan Domenica White -- MWhite@SanchezDH.com -- Sanchez Daniels & Hoffman & Yifan Xu Sanchez -- YSanchez@SanchezDH.com -- Sanchez Daniels & Hoffman. Cook County, Illinois, Defendant, represented by Ahmed A. Kosoko , Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Andrea Lynn Huff , Sears Holdings Management Corporation, Anthony E. Zecchin , Hale Law LLC, Brian Patrick Gainer -- gainerb@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Jack E. Bentley, Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Lisa Marie Mcelroy, Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Michael Richard Sherer, Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Monica Burkoth -- gutowskim@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell, Ltd. & Zachary Adam Pestine, JOHNSON & BELL. CORINDUS VASCULAR: Docs on Siemens Merger Misleading, Shea Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEC SHEA, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CORINDUS VASCULAR ROBOTICS, INC., MARK J. TOLAND, JEFFREY C. LIGHTCAP, JEFFREY G. GOLD, CAMPBELL D. ROGERS, JAMES R. TOBIN, LOUIS A. CANNON, NATHAN R. HARRINGTON, and DOUGLAS L. BRAUNSTEIN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08918 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and seeks to enjoin a vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Corindus will be acquired by Siemens Healthineers AG through its primary U.S. operating subsidiary Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. and Siemens' wholly owned subsidiary Corpus Merger, Inc. The case is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of Corindus Vascular Robotics, Inc. against Corindus and the members of Corindus' Board of Directors. On August 8, 2019, Corindus issued a press release announcing that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated August 7, 2019 to sell Corindus to Healthineers. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Corindus stockholder will receive $4.28 in cash for each share of Corindus common stock they own. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $1.1 billion. On August 30, 2019, Corindus filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Corindus stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning: -- Corindus' financial projections, relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., in its financial analyses; -- the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by Citi; and -- Company insiders' and Citi's potential conflicts of interest. Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the complaint, unless remedied, Corindus' public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction. Corindus Vascular was founded in 2002 by Rafael Beyar, an interventional cardiologist, and Tal Wenderow. Its goal is to use remote control and robotics to move coronary guidewires and balloon/stent catheters. Corindus, Inc. is based in Waltham, Massachusetts.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com - and - Alexandra B. Raymond BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 860-9158 Facsimile: (212) 214-0506 E-mail: raymond@bespc.com CRAFT BREW: Smith Seeks OT Wages for Restaurant Staff ----------------------------------------------------- ANDREW SMITH, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, THE Plaintiff, v. CRAFT BREW COMPANY, INC. and PATRICK POTOPSKY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02239-BYP (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 26, 2019), challenges policies and practices of Defendants that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants have employed at least one hundred hourly workers during the relevant period. The Plaintiff Smith was employed by Defendants from about July 2019 to the present as a cook at the Strongsville, Ohio Brew Garden location. The Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective and Ohio Class frequently worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek. However, instead of compensating, the Defendants them paid straight time hourly rates for all hours worked, the lawsuit says. The Defendants are owners and operators of two Brew Garden restaurant locations operating at 16555 South Park Center, Strongsville, Ohio 44136, and 18590 Bagley Road, Middleburg Heights, Ohio 44130.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 CROWN EQUIPMENT: Faces Brown et al Suit in California Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crown Equipment Corporation. The case is captioned as Joshua Brown, Martin Castaneda, Bryan Krenk, and Michael Layman, On behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, the Plaintiffs, vs. Crown Equipment Corporation and Does 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00265878-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sept. 27, 2019). The suit alleges employment-related issues. Crown Equipment is a privately held, family-owned U.S. company. It is the fifth largest manufacturer of powered industrial forklift trucks in the world. Crown had $3.48 billion in worldwide sales revenue for fiscal year 2018.[BN] DPS LAND: Raptis Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- PETER RAPTIS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DPS LAND SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01262-JFC (W.D. Pa., Oct. 2, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. DPS describes itself as a "full-service land company that is dedicated to the Appalachian Basin." DPS operates throughout the United States, including Pennsylvania and Ohio. DPS describes its work as "a diverse range of assignments including obtaining ROW [Right of Way] for a gathering system in a complex urban environment and managing multifaceted, large scale title and land projects."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - 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 ELECTROCORE INC: Registration Statement Misleading, Turnofsky Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALLYN TURNOFSKY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ELECTROCORE, INC., FRANCIS R. AMATO, GLENN S. VRANIAK, BRIAN POSNER, CARRIE S. COX, MICHAEL G. ATIEH, JOSEPH P. ERRICO, NICHOLAS COLUCCI, THOMAS J. ERRICO, TREVOR J. MOODY, MICHAEL W. ROSS, DAVID M. RUBIN, JAMES L.L.TULLIS, EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., CANTOR FITZGERALD & CO., JMP SECURITIES LLC, and BTIG, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-18400 (D.N.J., Sept. 26, 2019), is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired electroCore common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (Registration Statement) issued in connection with the Company's June 2018 initial public offering purchased or otherwise acquired ElectroCore securities between June 22, 2018 and September 25, 2019, inclusive. On June 25, 2018, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 5,980,000 shares of common stock at a price of $15.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of $79.5 million from the Offering, net of underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used to commercialize of gammaCore products, expand its clinical program into additional indications in headache and rheumatology, build its specialty distribution channel for the anticipated launch of gammaCore Sapphire, and working capital and other corporate purposes. On May 14, 2019, the Company announced first quarter 2019 financial results that fell short of investors' expectations, reporting $410,000 net sales and operating loss of $14.2 million. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.58, nearly 30%, to close at $3.75 per share on May 15, on unusually heavy trading volume. On September 25, 2019, the Company revealed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requested more information and analysis of clinical data for electroCore's 510(k) submission, which seeks an expanded indication for the use of gammaCore. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.79, over 23%, to close at $2.57 per share that same day on unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of this action, electroCore stock was trading as low as $1.25 per share, a nearly 92% decline from the $15 per share IPO price. The Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's lead product, gammaCore, did not enjoy any advantages over other acute treatments for migraines and episodic cluster headaches; (2) as a result, doctors and patients were unlikely to adopt gammaCore over existing treatments; (3) the Company's voucher program was not effective to increase adoption of gammaCore; (4) the Company lacked sufficient resources to successfully commercialize gammaCore; (5) the Company's business plan and strategy was not sustainable because electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be profitable; (6) the Company's product registry and efforts were ineffective to initiate reimbursement policies by commercial payors for gammaCore; (7) the lack of reimbursement would materially impact adoption and sales of gammaCore; (8) the Company lacked sufficient clinical data demonstrating that gammaCore was effective and safe for migraine prevention; (9) as a result, the Company's 510(k) submission for the use of gammaCore for migraine prevention was unlikely to be approved by the FDA; and (10) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says. ElectroCore is a bioelectronic medicine company with a non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation therapy. Its lead product gammaCore is used for the acute treatment of pain associated with migraine and episodic cluster headache in adults.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 EPIC GAMES: Faces Class Action Over Fortnite Addiction ------------------------------------------------------ George Geddes, writing for Dot Esports, reports that Epic Games' Fortnite is under fire after a Montreal law firm has requested authorization to launch a class-action lawsuit against the developer with claims it did not warn its users about the possibility of addiction, according to a report from CBC. The filing follows the basis of the 2015 Quebec Superior Court ruling, which stated that tobacco companies failed to warn their customers about the harmful effects of smoking. Similarly, Epic Games is accused of failing to disclose the possibility of addiction. The case is being taken on behalf of two parents, both of whom have children that have played Fortnite extensively. The parents claim the game shares similarities to cocaine, saying that Fortnite releases dopamine into the minds of children. The UK's National Health Service found that "Gaming Addiction" can be treated on its current plan after it was declared as a medical disorder by the World Health Organization earlier in the year. This addiction was classified as a disorder after a 15-year old boy was hospitalized for eight weeks after playing video-games extensively, eventually losing confidence to go outside, according to The Telegraph. The law firm has also claimed that Fortnite can be classed as addictive. Epic Games hired psychologists to make it as addictive as possible, according to Alessandra Esposito Chartrand, an attorney with Calex Légal. This case suggests that Epic hasn't disclosed the effects of the video game in the terms and conditions. It's the company's responsibility to inform its customers of these dangers, according to Chartrand. Epic told Dot Esports that it doesn't comment on ongoing litigation and the parental controls are outlined on its website. [GN] EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Calif. Court Certifies Reyes FCRA Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Hawk, Esq. -- john.hawk@wbd-us.com -- of Womble Bond Dickinson, in an article for the law firm's FCRAland, reports that in a case originally filed in March 2016, and following the successful appeal of a grant of summary judgment in favor of Experian Information Solutions, Inc. ("Experian"), Judge Andrew Guilford of the United Stated District Court for the Central District of California certified a class of consumers whose reporting by Experian was allegedly "misleading" after a loan servicer went out of business. Delbert Services Corporation ("Delbert") was a servicer for internet loans issued by Western Sky Financial, LLC. In January 2015, Delbert went out of business and told Experian that it wanted to "discontinue use of any and all services provided by Experian." Experian responded that it had deleted all Delbert loans from its database. In reality, however, Experian continued to report the loans until April 2016. In the Complaint, plaintiff Demeta Reyes alleged a single claim for relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq. Specifically, she asserted that Experian willfully failed to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information" contained in her credit report. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b), 1681n(a). Experian filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was entitled to summary judgment because (1) its "reporting of [Plaintiff's] loan was at all times indisputably accurate."; and (2) even assuming a prima facie case of inaccuracy, there was no evidence of a "willful" violation. Judge Guilford agreed, finding that Experian's reporting of plaintiff's loan was "neither patently inaccurate nor unduly misleading." He granted summary judgment on October 13, 2017. The Ninth Circuit, however, reversed Judge Guilford. In an unreported opinion, it found that plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Experian's continued reporting of plaintiff's loan was "misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions." It found that when Experian was reporting an account from the defunct Delbert, it was reporting an account that was no longer verifiable and that plaintiff could not make current since Delbert was no longer in business. Also, Experian continued to report plaintiff's past-due history, but had deleted her positive payment history. The Ninth Circuit found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Experian's continued reporting of plaintiff's account, "either on its own, or coupled with the deletion of portions of [plaintiff]'s positive payment history on the same loan, was materially misleading." On remand, plaintiff requested certification of the following class, "All persons whose Experian consumer report contained an account from Delbert Services Corp. reflecting delinquency on a loan originated by Western Sky Financial, LLC after January 21, 2015 . . . ." Judge Guilford certified the class on October 3, 2019. The case is Demeta Reyes v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., case number 8:16-cv-00563, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] EXTRA BUTTER: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Extra Butter LLC et al. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Extra Butter LLC, Extra Butter NYC, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09606 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 17, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Extra Butter LLC is minimalist boutique featuring on-trend men's & women's streetwear, sneakers & accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zare Khorozian, Esq. Zare Khorozian Law, LLC 1047 Anderson Avenue Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Phone: (201) 957-7269 Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com FAIRLIFE LLC: Ngai Sues over Maltreatment of Cows ------------------------------------------------- KEVIN NGAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FAIRLIFE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-08148-AB-SK (C.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated Cal. Bus & Prof. Code as a result of intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and false or misleading advertising in connection with the Fairlife Milk Products. The packaging of Fairlife Milk Products feature various representations that lead reasonable consumers to believe that the cows from which Fairlife Milk Products are sourced are treated in a humane and ethical way. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Defendants' representations of humane treatment were false because their employees subjected their cows to deplorable conditions and physical abuse Defendants made the representations recklessly and without regard for their truth because they did not have sufficient policies or practices in place, including but not limited to effective monitoring or supervising of their animal-facing employees, to ensure that their representations of humane treatment of their cows were true. Fairlife, LLC is the manufacturer, advertiser, and seller of Fairlife brand "ultrafiltered" milk products. Fairlife, stylized as fa!rlife, is distributed in Canada and the United States by The Coca-Cola Company.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff are: Graham B. LippSmith, Esq. Celene Chan Andrews, Esq. KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP 360 East 2nd Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: 213-254-4800 Facsimile: 213-254-4801 E-mail: glippsmith@klwtlaw.com candrews@klwtlaw.com FIRST CONNECTICUT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Karp Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SELWYN KARP, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. FIRST CONNECTICUT BANCORP, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. RDB-18-2496 (D. Md.), Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Lead Plaintiff Karp brings the purported class action on behalf of himself and other former public shareholders of First Connecticut against First Connecticut and the former members of the Company's board of directors: John J. Patrick, Jr.; Robald A. Bucchi; John A. Green; James T. Healey Jr.; Patience P. McDowell; Kevin S. Ray; and Michael A. Ziebka, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The Plaintiffs bring the federal class action for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78n(a), and 78t(a) respectively, and United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9, in connection with the acquisition of First Connecticut by People's United Financial, Inc. On June 18, 2018, First Connecticut and People's United entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which First Connecticut shareholders would receive 1,725 shares of People's United common stock for each share of First Connecticut common stock they owned, leaving People's United as the surviving corporation. Although First Connecticut reported good 2017 financial results and a strong first quarter of 2018, the Board determined to sell the company and responded eagerly to People's United's initial outreach in April 2018. The sales process was finalized in only two months. The Plaintiffs allege that the Board rushed the sale and accepted consideration for the merger that undervalued First Connecticut shareholders' shares. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants negligently allowed a Proxy to be disseminated to the Company's shareholders that omitted material information -- Cash Flow Projections -- that would have alerted the shareholders to the fact that the consideration being offered for the merger was inadequate. According to them, the missing free cash flow projections were the single most important financial metric for valuing a company and its stock in connection with a merger and are generally a staple in proxy statements related to corporate mergers. The lack of these cash flow projections thus resulted in the Proxy containing a materially incomplete and misleading picture of First Connecticut's valuation and financial prospects. The Proxy, which was filed with the SEC, recommended that the shareholders vote in favor of the merger, but because it lacked material information about the intrinsic value of the Company, the shareholders were unable to make an informed decision. The Defendants initially authorized the filing of the Proxy on July 25, 2018. Karp filed his Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Aug. 14, 2018, initially seeking to enjoin the merger. The allegedly misleading Proxy was filed with the SEC on Aug. 22, 2018. On Sept. 25, 2018, a special meeting of First Connecticut's shareholders was held to vote on the merger. The meeting having taken place, the parties entered into a Stipulation on Sept. 27, 2018, under which Karp agreed to withdraw the Injunction Motion as moot, file an Amended Complaint, and the parties set a briefing schedule for the Defendants' intended motion to dismiss. The merger was consummated on Ocy. 1, 2018. Karp filed a Consolidation Motion, under which he would be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff, which the Court granted on Nov. 7, 2018, consolidating the two cases. The Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on Dec. 17, 2018 alleging two causes of action: Count I, Against all the Defendants for Violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 Promulgated Thereunder; and Count II, Against the Individual Defendants for Violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The pending Motion to Dismiss was filed on Jan. 29, 2019. First, Judge Bennett finds that the Plaintiffs have provided detailed allegations explaining why the omissions made other statements misleading. The materiality standard contemplates a showing of a substantial likelihood that, under all the circumstances, the omitted fact would have assumed actual significance in the deliberations of the reasonable shareholder. The Plaintiffs have alleged a plausible claim that the missing cash flow information was important to a reasonable shareholder when deciding how to vote on the merger, the summary information provided was inadequate and misleading, and the reasons why were articulated sufficiently to survive this dismissal motion. The Judge will not engage the Court in a fact-intensive test at the pleadings stage. Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged the requisite elements of a Section 14(a) claim. The Plaintiffs alleged that the materially incomplete and misleading Proxy was an essential link in the consummation of the Merger, as the Merger could not have been consummated without shareholder approval, which in turn could not have been obtained without the misleading Proxy. The Pro xy contained a material omission causing it to be misleading, so the causal relation between violation and injury is sufficiently established since the Proxy was an essential link in the accomplishment of the transaction. Finally, the Judge holds that the Section 20(a) claim related to the Section 14(a) violation also survives the dismissal motion. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege a claim under Section 14(a), and therefore, the control person claims must be dismissed. As he described, however, the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a Section 14(a) claim against the Defendants. Further, the Plaintiffs have alleged that the Individual Defendants held positions of authority as First Connecticut directors and had the ability to control the issuance and contents of the Proxy that was disseminated to shareholders. As discussed, the Plaintiffs have also adequately alleged negligence on the part of each Individual Defendant. For the reasons stated, Judge Bennett denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk of the Court transmit copies of the Memorandum Order to the counsel for both parties. A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Memorandum Order is available at https://is.gd/hVqJXB from Leagle.com. Selwyn Karp, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Joseph Minton -- tminton@charmcitylegal.com -- Goldman and Minton PC & Juan E. Monteverde -- jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde and Associates PC, pro hac vice. Constance Lagace, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Enright -- denright@zlk.com -- Levi and Korsinsky LLP. First Connecticut Bancorp, Inc., John J. Patrick, Jr., Ronald A. Bucchi, John A. Green, James T. Healey, Jr., Patience P. McDowell, Kevin S. Ray & Michael A. Ziebka, Defendants, represented by Elizabeth Gingold Clark -- elizabeth.clark@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Emily Seymour Costin -- emily.costin@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP & Robert R. Long -- robert.long@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP, pro hac vice. FOREST VIEW: Jovanovic Files Suit Over Illegal Use of Biometrics ---------------------------------------------------------------- SABINA JOVANOVIC and DARWIN THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FOREST VIEW REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, LLC, Case No. 2019L001106 (Ill. Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., Oct. 2, 2019), alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiffs want to put a stop to the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of their and other former or current employees' sensitive biometric data. The Plaintiffs contend that Forest View never informed them of the specific limited purposes or length of time for which it collected, stored, or used handprints. They argue that they never signed a written release allowing Forest View to collect or store their handprints. Forest View is an Illinois limited liability company headquartered in Itasca, Illinois. The Company operates in the rehabilitation and nursing center industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Fish, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com FRAMINGHAM AUTO MALL: Pena Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- Carlos Pena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Framingham Auto Mall, Inc., Soulhborough Auto Mall, LLC and Marcio Vasconcelos, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-18299, (D. N.J., September 24, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for hours rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week under Massachusetts general wage laws. Defendants operate a car dealership located in Framingham, Massachusetts where Pena worked as a salesperson in 2012. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua W. Gardner, Esq. GARDNER & ROSENBERG, P.C. One State Street, Fourth Floor Boston, MA 02109 Tel: (617) 390−7570 Fax: (617) 972−7983 Email: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com FROEDTERT HEALTH: Fore Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Tony Fore, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Froedtert Health Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01488-NJ (E.D. Wis., Oct. 10, 2019) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and an individual and class action under Wisconsin law by Plaintiffs, current and former employees of Defendant to seek redress for Froedtert's failure to pay to them straight time and overtime pay required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin law. Plaintiff regularly worked for more than 40 hours per week. Because Plaintiff was ordinarily paid for at least 40 hours per week, counting her time spent turning on her computer would increase her work time to beyond 40 hours per week, thus entitling her to additional overtime pay that she did not receive, says the complaint. Plaintiff is an adult resident of the State of Wisconsin who worked for Froedtert as a Patient Access Service Representative at the Sargeant Health Center. Defendant Froedtert is a Wisconsin corporation operating numerous hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare related facilities and business in Southeastern Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. Joe Sexauer, Esq. The Previant Law Firm S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Phone: 414-271-4500 Fax: 414-271-6308 Email: vh@previant.com jms@previant.com GLOBAL RADAR: Faces Job Suit Over Illegally Issued Consumer Report ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN JOB, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL RADAR ACQUISITION, LLC, d.b.a. GLOBAL HR RESEARCH, a foreign limited liability company, f.k.a. RADAR POST CLOSING HOLDING COMPANY, INC. f.k.a., GLOBAL HR RESEARCH, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-06525 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2019) is a class action asserting violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act for furnishing consumer reports without receiving required certifications. Herman Integration Services, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability, was one of the many customers that procured pre-employment background checks regarding their job applicants from Global HR Research. On December 22, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an application for employment with Herman for work as a "systems integrator." Herman communicated to Plaintiff that he would be hired subject to completion of a successful background check. Herman "procured" (ordered) a background check regarding Plaintiff from Global HR Research. Global HR Research furnished an investigative consumer report regarding Plaintiff to Herman. After receiving the report from Global HR Research, Herman withdrew the job offer and did not hire Plaintiff. According to the complaint, it is illegal for an investigative consumer reporting agency such as Global HR Research to furnish an investigative consumer report for employment purposes without first receiving assurances ("certifications") that the employer has complied with certain requirements. In violation of the FCRA, Global transmitted the report to Herman without receiving a certification that Herman complied with the FCRA. Accordingly, the transmission of the report to Herman was illegal. Global HR Research violated Plaintiff's right to privacy by compiling his personal, private, and sensitive information into a consumer report, and transmitting the report to Plaintiff's prospective employer illegally, in violation of the requirements imposed by the FCRA, says the complaint. Plaintiff is an individual, who resided in San Francisco, California. Global HR Research is a consumer reporting agency that provides human resources support for hundreds of businesses nationwide and in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Isam C. Khoury, Esq. Michael D. Singer, Esq. Jeff Geraci, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 595-3001 Fax: (619) 595-3000 Email: ikhoury@ckslaw.com msinger@ckslaw.com jgeraci@ckslaw.com - and - Ian Pancer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF IAN PANCER 105 West F St. 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 955-6644 Facsimile: (619) 374-7410 Email: ian@sandiegolegal.net H&R BLOCK: Hid Free Tax-Filing Program, Swanson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- AARICKA SWANSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. H&R BLOCK, INC., HRB TAX GROUP, INC., HRB DIGITAL, LLC, and FREE FILE, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00788-GAF (W.D. Mo., Sept. 26, 2019), alleges that H&R Block is engaged in a campaign that intentionally divert and deceive lower-income taxpayers who are eligible to receive free tax preparation and filing services under the United States Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) Free File program to their paid tax-filing products. According to the complaint, pursuant to a contract agreement between Defendant Free File, Inc. (formerly known as Free File Alliance, LLC) and the IRS, H&R Block and other tax preparation providers are required to cumulatively offer 70% of U.S. taxpayers based on Adjusted Gross Income (currently anyone with an AGI of $66,000 or less) the option to file their taxes for free. H&R Block and a consortium of other online tax-preparation providers formed the entity Free File, Inc., which purports to be a nonprofit coalition of industry-leading tax software companies partnered with the IRS to provide free electronic tax services. The Alliance operates "Free File" -- a service dedicated to helping 70% of American taxpayers prepare and e-file their federal tax returns. As such, each member of Free File, including H&R Block, agreed to offer free online tax-filing services to lower income taxpayers. The agreement was specifically designed so that the IRS would not need to create its own free online filing system. According to the government, the goal of the Free File Program was to implement the IRS's public policy of "extending the benefits of online federal tax preparation and electronic filing to economically disadvantaged and underserved populations at no cost to either the individual user or to the public treasury."[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Eric D. Barton, Esq. Sarah A. Ruane, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com sruane@wcllp.com - and - Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Andrew Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: ykopel@bursor.com HANY PANKY: Jane Roe Calls Tip-Splitting Unlawful ------------------------------------------------- JANE ROE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JOSE TORRES L.D. LATIN CLUB BAR, INC.; HANY PANKY CLUB; and DOES 1-200, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06088 (Cal. Super., Sept. 25, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiff and class members the minimum wages and other benefits to which they were entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the California Labor Code. The Defendants also have engaged in unlawful tip-splitting by requiring the Plaintiff and class members, who receive gratuities from costumers, to tip and/or split and share gratuities with Defendants and/or its workers. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as an exotic dancer. She seeks to represent classes of individuals who have worked as exotic dancers for the Defendants.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Steven G. Tidrick, Esq. Joel B. Young, Esq. THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM LLP 1300 Clay Street, Suit 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 788 5100 Facsimile: (510) 291 3226 E-mail: sgt@tidricklaw.com jby@tidricklaw.com HARU INC: Tecuapacho Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay for Cooks -------------------------------------------------------- JUAN TECUAPACHO and ALFREDO TEXIS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HARU INC. d/b/a TAKAHACHI, NATSU INC. d/b/a TAKAHACI, and HIROYUKI TAKAHACHI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08947 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff to work as a cook from in or about June 2014 until on or about August 31, 2019. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees a "spread of hours" premium for each day that their work shift exceeded 10 hours in a single day, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Peter II. Cooper, Esq. Justin Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central 155 East 44 111 Street - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com IC SYSTEM: Roldan Alleges Violation under FDCPA ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IC System, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Roldan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IC System, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05857 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. IC System, Inc. is a debt collection agency in Vadnais Heights, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com - and - Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com JELLY BELLY: Hoffman Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads ------------------------------------------------------- Howard Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jelly Belly Candy Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-at-00923 (E.D. Cal., September 24, 2019), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Jelly Belly Candy Company manufactures Jelly Belly jellybeans and other candy. To promote its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer. Hoffman did not give express consent to receive such texts, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Andrea Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L St. NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com - and - Annick Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com JOHNSON'S TREE: Johnson Seeks Proper Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------- TYKWAN JOHNSON f/k/a TYKWAN WRIGHT; and TAVARIS MCCARTER, for themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON'S TREE SERVICE AND STUMP GRINDING, INC. a Florida Profit Corporation; DAVID JOHNSON, Individually; and DAYNA JOHNSON, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00741 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 10, 2019) is a Complaint against Defendants to recover overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours within a workweek. Despite working numerous overtime hours for Defendants, Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime premium for their overtime hours. The Defendants used two separate payroll companies to avoid compensating Plaintiffs for their overtime hours worked. The Defendants failed and/or refused to properly compensate Plaintiffs, and other drivers and/ operators, at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiffs were hired by Defendants as non-exempt foreman and a truck driver/operator for Defendants' business. JOHNSON'S TREE SERVICE is a tree and stump removal service company, which operates in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. Morgan & Morgan, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 327-5369 Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com JUUL LABS: King County Files RICO Class Action in Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juul Labs, Inc. The case is styled as King County, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated counties, Plaintiff v. Juul Labs, Inc. f/k/a PAX Labs, Inc., PAX Labs, Inc., Altria Group, Inc., Altria Client Services, Altria Group Distribution Company, Nu Mark LLC and Nu Mark Innovations, Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01664 (W.D. Wash., Oct. 16, 2019). The docket of the case states that the lawsuit was filed pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Act. Pax Labs is an American electronic vaporizer company founded in 2007 that markets the Pax vaporizers. The company developed the Juul e-cigarette; Juul Labs was spun out as a separate company in 2017.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek W Loeser, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP (WA) 1201 3RD AVE, STE 3200 SEATTLE, WA 98101-3052 Tel: (206) 623-1900 Email: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com KLLM TRANSPORT: Class in Swales FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HARRY SWALES, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. KLLM TRANSPORT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, MARCUS BRENT JOWERS, Plaintiff, v. KLLM TRANSPORT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-490-DPJ-FKB, Consolidated With Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-517-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss.), Judge Daniel P. Jordan III of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Conditional Certification. Defendant KLLM is a motor carrier that is authorized by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to provide transportation of property for hire to the public. Plaintiffs Corey Lilly, Kyle Shettles, John McGee, and Marcus Brent Jowers all worked as truck drivers for KLLM under Independent Contractor Agreements ("ICAs") between October 2015 and January 2017. The Plaintiffs say KLLM misclassified them and similarly situated truck drivers as independent contractors when, under Mississippi law and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), they were employees entitled to payment of the federal minimum wage. Plaintiffs Lilly, Shettles, and McGee filed the lead case against KLLM on June 21, 2017; Jowers filed the member case on June 28, 2017. The Plaintiffs seek relief for themselves and on behalf of similarly situated KLLM drivers under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The cases were consolidated for purposes of discovery on March 29, 2018, and the parties engaged in discovery limited to the issue of Section 216(b) certification. Now that the initial phase of discovery is closed, the Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a class of all individual persons and/or entities who entered into ICAs and Tractor Lease/Purchase Agreements with KLLM. In sum, Judge Jordan finds that the Plaintiffs have provided evidence that they are similarly situated to other drivers in terms of their relationship to the Defendant, the skill required to perform their positions, the extent of their investments and the Defendant's investments, and the degree to which their opportunity for profit and loss is determined by the alleged employer. The Plaintiffs have established a basis for conditional certification under Section 216(b). That does not, however, mean the conditional class should be as broad as the Plaintiffs want. Judge Jordan finds that KLLM correctly points out that the Plaintiffs' request for conditional certification contains no temporal limitations. Courts within the Fifth Circuit have repeatedly recognized that based on the statute of limitations, class certification is appropriately limited to workers employed by the defendant up to three years before notice is approved by the court. The Plaintiffs offer no response to the argument, and Judge Jordan agrees with KLLM that the class should be limited to those employed within three years of the date the Order is entered. KLLM also asserts that any class should exclude drivers who first signed an ICA on Sept. 25, 2017, because, as of that date, KLLM's master ICA was revised to include a waiver of the driver's right to file, bring, join, consent to, or participate in any lawsuit or arbitration purporting to form, or seeking to form, a class, class action, collective action or mass action. Again, the Plaintiffs did not respond to the argument, and the Judge agrees that the class should be so limited. Finally, the parties disagree as to how much information about potential opt-ins KLLM should be required to provide the Plaintiffs, with KLLM objecting to having to provide phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or social security numbers. The Plaintiffs respond that they are willing to address the issue by meeting and conferring after conditional certification is granted. In the event KLLM declines to petition for interlocutory appeal or the Fifth Circuit denies its petition, the parties should meet and confer about the procedure for notice and contact the chambers of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball to set a status conference to discuss the timing and logistics of notice and further discovery and to enter new case-management deadlines as appropriate. Judge Jordan certifies the decision for interlocutory appeal. To begin, the Order involves controlling questions of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion. As noted, there are open questions regarding the applicable standards, especially when some discovery has occurred. And assuming the Court should have applied the ultimate standard for certification, that too is unclear. Also, an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. KLLM presented thoughtful arguments for denying certification under a more exacting standard. If it is correct, the Court need not participate in the notice process, allow an opt-in period, oversee discovery as to possibly thousands of drivers' claims, and then face the certification issue again at the decertification stage. Finally, applying a different test for conditional certification -- or for the ultimate decision whether to certify -- could materially impact the trial of this matter; the case will either be a collective action or involve individual claims. The case is therefore certified for interlocutory appeal and stayed until the appeal is concluded or the parties indicate that no appeal will be filed and request a status conference to plan the logistics of issuing notice. Judge Jordan has considered all arguments. Those not addressed would not have changed the outcome. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Jordan granted the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Conditional Certification. The following class is conditionally approved: Those individual persons and/or entities who entered into Independent Contractor Agreements and Tractor Lease/Purchase Agreements with KLLM Transport Services, LLC, at any time on or after Sept. 24, 2016, but excluding any individual persons and/or entities who first executed Independent Contractor Agreements or Tractor Lease/Purchase Agreements with KLLM Transport Services, LLC, on or after Sept. 25, 2017. A full-text copy of Judge Jordan's Sept. 24, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/grCnZu from Leagle.com. Corey Lilly, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Kyle Shettles, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Danielle L. Perry -- dperry@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP, pro hac vice, Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP, pro hac vice, John Dudley Butler, BUTLER FARM AND RANCH LAW GROUP, PLLC & Michael Aschenbrener -- contact@kamberlaw.com -- KAMBER LAW, LLC, pro hac vice. John McGee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle L. Perry, WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP, pro hac vice. Marcus Brent Jowers, and Others Similarly Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Graham G. Lambert -- gl@haffnerlawyers.com -- HAFFNER LAW, PC, pro hac vice, J. Brad Pigott -- bpigott@pjlawyers.com -- PIGOTT & JOHNSON, P.A. & Joshua H. Haffner -- jhh@haffnerlawyers.com -- HAFFNER LAW, PC, pro hac vice. KLLM Transport Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Clark Monroe, II -- gcmonroe@dunbarmonroe.com -- DUNBARMONROE, PLLC & Christopher G. Dunnells -- cdunnells@dunbarmonroe.com -- DUNBARMONROE, PLLC. Charles Hallmark, James Johnson, Colton Miller & Donald Tillman, Interested Partys, represented by Danielle L. Perry, WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP, pro hac vice. KROGER CO: Pope Sues over Mislabeling of Premium Honey Products --------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN POPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE KROGER CO., a domestic corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-817 (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 25, 2019), alleges that Kroger's labeling of its premium honey products -- "Private Selection Raw and Unfiltered Wildflower Honey" and "Simple Truth Organic Raw and Unfiltered Honey" -- is inaccurate, incorrect, deceptive, and misleading because the honey sold under these labels is not actually raw. Kroger describes its premium honey products as "Raw and Unfiltered". According to the complaint, the Raw Honey Products are not, in fact, raw because Kroger heats the so-called Raw Honey Products to a temperature greater than 105 degrees Fahrenheit when it bottles them to make it easier to bottle and package the honey. When raw honey is heated to more than 105 degrees Fahrenheit, the enzymes in the honey that are prized by consumers become denatured. That is to say, the enzymes begin to break down and are lost, the lawsuit says. Kroger is a large, publicly traded, national grocery store chain with more than 3,000 locations and more than 440,000 employees. Kroger operates stores under the Kroger name and also under the Mariano's name which Kroger acquired in 2015. Kroger sells food products produced by other suppliers and, in addition, sells at least two propriety lines of goods under its own labels: Private Selection and Simple Truth.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Richard S. Wayne, Esq. William K. Flynn, Esq. Stephen E. Schilling, Esq STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA 150 E. Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018 Telephone: (513) 621-2120 Facsimile: (513) 629-9426 E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com wkflynn@strausstroy.com seschilling@st5rausstroy.com - and - Kent A. Heitzinger, Esq. KENT A. HEITZINGER & ASSOCIATES 1056 Gage St., No. 200 Winnetka, IL 60093 Telephone: (847) 446-2430 E-mail: heitzinger.law@gmail.com - and - Terrence Buehler, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER 1 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3140 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 371-4385 E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com LOCKHEED MARTIN: Machuca Files Labor Class Action in Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- EDWIN MACHUCA, in a Representative capacity only, on behalf of all aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN GLOBAL, INC., a Florida Corporation; LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00053881-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Oct. 10, 2019) is an action in a representative capacity on behalf of all current and former nonexempt employees of Defendants. According to the complaint, throughout the term of his employment, Plaintiff was denied the benefits and protections of the Labor Code due to Defendants' institutionalized pay practices, standard as to all of Defendants California-based, nonexempt employees. Specifically, Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees were denied the protections and benefits of the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order(s) due to Defendants' standard practices. Throughout their employment, Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees were and are denied full and accurate compensation, including overtime compensation; meal and rest periods and meal and rest period payments, in violation of IWC Wage Order 5 and Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code section 226; and reimbursements for necessary business expenditures, says the complaint. Plaintiff MACHUCA was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from December 2010 through September of 2019. LOCKHEED MARTIN GLOBAL, INC. is a Florida Corporation doing business in (among others) the County of San Diego.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Sullivan, Esq. Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq. Andrea J. Torres Figueroa, Esq. SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 702-6760 Fax: (619) 702-6761 Email: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com atorres@sullivanlawgroupapc.com LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Patel Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Meher Patel, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation; RIDE PLUS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation, doing business as Provado Mobile Health; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV 62205, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Tuolumne, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Oct. 17, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00749. The nature of suit is stated as a Labor class action.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael S. Kun, Esq. Adriana Galindo, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506 Phone: 310.556.8861 Facsimile: 310.553.2165 Email: mkun@ebglaw.com agalindo@ebglaw.com - and - Kevin R. Vozzo, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 250 Park Avenue New York, NY 10177 Phone: 212.351.4500 Facsimile: 212.878.8600 Email: kvozzo@ebglaw.com MDL 2642: Wietzema v. Janssen Transferred to District of Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: FLUOROQUINOLONE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2642, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, WIETZEMA v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-00067, from the District of North Dakota to the District of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable John R. Tunheim for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff in the Wietzema action, proceeding pro se, moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring his action to MDL No. 2642. Defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., opposes the motion to vacate and supports transfer. After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Vance finds that this action shares questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2642, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Like many of the centralized actions, Wietzema involves factual questions arising from allegations that fluoroquinolone antibiotics (here, Levaquin) cause or substantially contribute to the development of irreversible peripheral neuropathy and that the warnings provided by defendant concerning that risk were inadequate. In opposition to transfer, plaintiff argues that he would like the venue to stay in North Dakota where he resides. He asserts that he has had previous dealings with a law firm involved in class action litigation against defendant, the firm engaged in misrepresentations, and he has decided to represent himself in his individual action in North Dakota. But plaintiff's personal preference to keep his action in the district where he resides does not justify denial of transfer. The Panel looked to "the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses, not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation." The overall convenience will be served by transfer of Wietzema, given the factual issues the case shares with other MDL cases, the Panel held. Moreover, the Panel noted that "since Section 1407 transfer is for pretrial proceedings only, there is usually no need for the parties and witnesses to travel to the transferee district for depositions or otherwise." Plaintiff objects to transfer on the ground that his action is "unique." But he fails to identify any case-specific issues in his action that would weigh against transfer, the Panel said. In any event, "the presence of additional facts or differing legal theories" does not prevent the transfer of an action that shares significant factual issues with those in the MDL. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/cEej9x MDL 2738: 3 Suits v. Johnson & Johnson Moved to Dist. of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2738, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring three actions to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. * Northern District of California -- SAMBI v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-03715 * Southern District of California -- WAINSCOTT v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-01160 * Northern District of Illinois -- PALMER, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-03731 Plaintiffs in the three actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders that conditionally transferred these actions to the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2738. Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., oppose the motions. In support of their motions to vacate, plaintiffs in all three actions argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction over their respective actions is lacking, and that plaintiffs' pending or anticipated motions for remand to state court should be decided before transfer. The Panel has held that such jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to transfer. Plaintiffs can present their remand arguments to the transferee judge. In addition, plaintiffs in the Northern District of Illinois Palmer action argue that transfer is not appropriate because they assert claims against a unique defendant -- Walgreen Company. Plaintiffs' arguments are not persuasive. Transfer under Section 1407 does not require a complete identity of factual issues or parties when the actions arise from a common factual core. Plaintiffs' claims, like those of plaintiffs in the MDL, arise from a common factual core -- that plaintiffs' decedents allegedly developed ovarian cancer following perineal application of Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products. Moreover, the Panel has transferred numerous actions involving claims against retailers and other defendants to the MDL, including several actions involving claims against Walgreen Company. Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance held that the three actions involve common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2738, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the Judge held that the District of New Jersey was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising from allegations that plaintiffs or their decedents developed ovarian cancer following perineal application of Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products (namely, Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower body powder). Plaintiffs' actions here share multiple questions of fact with the actions already in the MDL. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/yEJg88 MDL 2741: 3 Roundup Suits Moved to Northern Dist. of California --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2741, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring three actions to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Vince Chhabria for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. District of Hawaii * OKAMOTO, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:19-00330 * MAYER, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:19-00331 Eastern District of Louisiana * TROSCLAIR v. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-10689 Plaintiffs in the three actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders that conditionally transferred these actions to the Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 2741. Defendant Monsanto Company opposes the motions. In support of his motion, plaintiff in the Eastern District of Louisiana Trosclair action argues that federal subject matter jurisdiction over Trosclair is lacking, and that his motion for remand to state court should be decided prior to transfer. The Panel has held that such jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to transfer. Plaintiff can present his remand arguments to the transferee judge. In addition, plaintiff argues that transfer of Trosclair is not appropriate because he alleges unique facts regarding how he obtained undiluted concentrated Roundup from a Monsanto plant and asserts claims against unique defendants involved in that transaction. This argument is not persuasive. Transfer under Section 1407 does not require a complete identity of factual issues or parties when the actions arise from a common factual core. Plaintiff's claims, like those of plaintiffs in the MDL, arise from a common factual core—that plaintiff allegedly developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma following exposure to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. That plaintiff's claims entail additional factual questions does not weigh against transfer. Plaintiffs in all three actions argue that transfer is not appropriate because the MDL has reached an advanced stage. This characterization is inaccurate. While much of the general discovery of Monsanto has been completed, the transferee court is now organizing the actions for completion of case-specific discovery and disposition of case-specific dispositive and Daubert motions on a state-by-state basis before remanding those actions to their transferor courts. The transferee court has yet to rule on any such motions and has not suggested remand of any action to its transferor court. Further, while the transferee court has conducted one bellwether trial, it has scheduled a second trial to begin in February 2020. Actions originating from both the District of Hawaii and the Eastern District of Louisiana are pending in the MDL. Thus, significant efficiency and convenience benefits remain to be achieved through the continued transfer of tag-along actions to MDL No. 2741. Finally, plaintiffs in the two Hawaii actions argue that transfer will be inconvenient for them, as they and their fact witnesses reside in Hawaii. While it might inconvenience some parties, transfer of a particular action often is necessary to further the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole. Here, the benefits of coordinating these two actions with others in the MDL, particularly other actions filed in the District of Hawaii, outweigh any potential inconvenience to plaintiffs. Therefore, after considering the parties' arguments, Judge Vance finds that the three actions involve common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2741, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the Judge held that the Northern District of California was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. All of the three actions share multiple factual issues with the cases already in the MDL. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/rwvkno MDL 2768: Denninger Suit v. Anderson Moved to D. Mass. ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: STRYKER LFIT V40 FEMORAL HEAD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2768, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the case styled, DENNINGER, ET AL. v. ANDERSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-665,from the Southern District of Illinois to the District of Massachusetts and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Indira Talwani for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in the Lakeland Regional action move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring the action to MDL No. 2768. Defendant Howmedica Ostenonics Corp. opposes the motion. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance held that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2768, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Transfer is warranted for reasons set out in the Panel's order centralizing this litigation. In that order, the Panel held that the District of Massachusetts was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising from alleged defects in Stryker-branded LFIT Anatomic CoCR V40 femoral heads, a prosthetic hip replacement device. This action involves injuries arising from the implantation of a Stryker LFIT V40 femoral head and clearly falls within the MDL's ambit. In opposing transfer, plaintiffs argue that federal jurisdiction is lacking over their action and that their case is unique because it involves claims against a treating physician and a metal-on-polyurethane hip implant. These arguments do not persuade the Panel that transfer is inappropriate. Arguments concerning the propriety of federal jurisdiction are insufficient to warrant vacatur. Many medical device product liability actions include claims against treating surgeons and physicians. Where, as here, "common factual issues exist,... the presence of different legal theories among the subject actions is not a bar to centralization." Moreover, plaintiffs' attempt to distinguish their case as involving a metal-on-polyurethane device (i.e., a metal femoral head that articulates within a polyurethane acetabular cup) misses the mark, as the MDL allegations involving the Stryker LFIT V40 femoral head focus on corrosion at the taper junction when paired with femoral stems that are made from different alloys. Indeed, as defendants note (and plaintiffs do not rebut), many MDL actions involve the LFIT V40 head paired with the same type of Accolade femoral stem that plaintiff received. Should the need arise, the transferee judge can accommodate any unique discovery needs that this case presents or remand any claims that, in her judgment, deserve separate treatment. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/7eOA9l MDL 2797: Transfer Order on Karpowski v. Wells Fargo Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: WELLS FARGO AUTO INSURANCE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2797, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation vacated the Panel's conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-3" as it relates to the action styled, KARPOWSKI v. WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, C.A. No. 1:19-00363 (W.D. Mich.). Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1, plaintiff in the Karpowski action, proceeding pro se, moves to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring this action to the Central District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 2797. Defendant agrees to the relief sought, and withdrew its notice of a potential tag-along action. After considering the arguments of counsel, the Court granted this unopposed motion to vacate, explaining that the actions originally centralized in this MDL involve factual questions arising out of allegations that Wells Fargo and National General Insurance Company engaged in a nationwide scheme to place unwanted and unnecessary insurance on automobiles, and that defendants caused plaintiffs and putative class members harm by charging them for this unneeded insurance and, in some cases, reporting them to credit agencies and repossessing their vehicles. Plaintiff has opted out of the proposed settlement in MDL No. 2797, and no party disputes that exclusion of this particular action from centralized proceedings would lead to its more efficient resolution. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/VIaTF0 MDL 2800: Johnston Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: EQUIFAX, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, MDL No. 2800, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, JOHNSTON v. EQUIFAX, C.A. No. 2:19-00485, from the District of New Mexico to the Northern District of Georgia and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Thomas W. Thrash for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff in the Johnston action, proceeding pro se, moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring his action to MDL No. 2800. Defendant Equifax opposes the motion to vacate. After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Vance held that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2800, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions in MDL No. 2800 arise from a 2017 cybersecurity incident involving Equifax in which the personally identifiable information of more than 145 million consumers allegedly was compromised. Johnston involves allegations, similar to those in the MDL No. 2800 actions, that Equifax failed to adequately safeguard plaintiff's personally identifiable information, which was compromised during the Equifax data breach. Plaintiff does not dispute that his action arises out of the 2017 Equifax data breach or that it shares questions of fact and law with the MDL No. 2800 actions. Instead, he argues that he was harmed in New Mexico and that federal question jurisdiction is lacking. Neither argument persuades us to exclude this action from MDL No. 2800. The Panel has held that jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to transfer. Plaintiff can present his remand arguments to the transferee judge. The Panel also has held that, while it might inconvenience some parties, transfer of a particular action often is necessary to further the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/LKUMxo MDL 2804: 24 National Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL No. 2804, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 24 actions to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Dan A. Polster for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in 24 actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the orders conditionally transferring their respective actions to MDL No. 2804. Various defendants oppose the motions. After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Vance held that these actions 7involve common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set forth in the Panel's order directing centralization. In that order, the Panel held that the Northern District of Ohio was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and distribution of various prescription opiate medications into states, cities, and towns across the country. Despite some variances among the actions before the Panel, they share a factual core with the MDL actions: the manufacturer and distributor defendants' alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding the diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the manufacturers' allegedly improper marketing of the drugs. The parties opposing transfer in 24 actions argue principally that federal jurisdiction is lacking over their cases. But opposition to transfer based on a jurisdictional challenge is insufficient to warrant vacating conditional transfer orders covering otherwise factually related cases. Several parties also argue that including their actions in this large MDL will cause them inconvenience and delay the progress of their actions. Given the undisputed factual overlap with the MDL proceedings, transfer is justified in order to facilitate the efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole. Additionally, plaintiff in the District of New Jersey County of Burlington action argues that the recent bankruptcy of the Purdue defendants prevents transfer, but the Panel has long rejected that argument. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/ezL1yF MDL 2906: Plaintiffs Withdraw Bid for Centralization of 7 Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: BIG PICTURE LOANS, LLC, LITIGATION, MDL No. 2906, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has ordered that the motion by plaintiffs Lula Williams, et al., for transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 of seven lawsuits is deemed withdrawn. The Panel further ordered that the Hearing Session Order and the cases listed in Schedule A filed on August 15, 2019, are vacated insofar as they relate to this matter. In their motion, plaintiffs seek centralization of the actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The only responding parties supporting centralization were the Northern District of California plaintiffs, but they have since dismissed their action. Thus, no remaining responding party supports centralization. Two other actions on the motion, pending in the Northern District of Georgia and the Central District of California, also were dismissed. Movants now seek to withdraw their Section 1407 motion. Movants state that all plaintiffs in the remaining actions support the withdrawal. A full-text copy of the Court's September 20, 2019 Order, including a list of the lawsuits, is available at https://is.gd/LhooTY MDL 2907: Court Denies Motion to Centralize 14 Data Security Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, MDL No. 2907, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Plaintiffs' motion to centralize pretrial proceedings of 14 actions pending in the Central District of California and the Eastern District of Michigan to the Southern Division of the Central District of California. The parties also have notified the Panel of seven potential tag-along actions, which were filed in the Central District of California (six actions) and the Western District of Washington (one action). Plaintiffs in the Central District of California Barajas action move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Southern Division of the Central District of California. Plaintiffs in seven actions and two potential tag-along actions support the motion. Plaintiff in Central District of California Sindaghatta action does not oppose the motion. Responding plaintiffs in the Central District of California McPherson potential tag-along action support centralization in the Central District of California but do not specify a preferred division. Plaintiff in the Central District of California Resendiz action opposes centralization in favor of Section 1404 transfer but, if centralization occurs, suggests the Southern Division of the Central District of California. The First American defendants oppose centralization and suggest, if transfer is ordered, centralization in the Western Division of the Central District of California is appropriate. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, Judge Vance concluded that centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions arising from an alleged data breach of First American, which was announced on May 24, 2019 and resulted in the exposure of approximately 885 million records related to mortgage deals dating back 16 years. Many of the exposed files are records of wire transactions with bank account numbers and other personally identifiable information from property buyers and sellers. Plaintiffs allege that the First American defendants failed to protect the confidential information of millions of consumers nationwide -- including their names, bank account numbers, bank account statements, mortgage records, tax records, Social Security numbers, wire transaction receipts, drivers' license images, and other personal financial information. There are a relatively small number of actions in this controversy, and most are pending in a single district. The Panel has held that "centralization under Section 1407 should be the last solution after considered review of all other options." Here, there is a reasonable prospect that defendants' pending motion to transfer the Eastern District of Michigan action to the Central District of California could eliminate the multidistrict character of this litigation. Indeed, while this motion was pending, two courts presiding over an action and a potential tag-along granted similar motions to transfer under the first-to-file rule. The Judge thinks transferring these cases for all purposes, as opposed to the limited pretrial transfer under Section 1407, is preferable to centralization in these circumstances. Even if the pending transfer motion does not eliminate the multidistrict character of this litigation, voluntary cooperation and coordination among the small number of involved courts appears eminently feasible. The Judge encourages the parties to employ the various alternatives to transfer that exist to minimize any potential for duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings in this litigation. Additionally, the parties' primary dispute was which division of the Central District of California should be selected to preside over these cases. Plaintiffs contend that the Panel should select a judge who sits in the Southern Division (Santa Ana), where First American's headquarters are located. The first-filed action was assigned to a judge who sits in the Western Division (Los Angeles) under the Central District of California's internal operating procedures. Later cases were related to the initial case in the Western Division. Given the Panel's decision to deny transfer in light of viable alternatives to centralization, these arguments are moot. Regardless, the Judge does not view the resolution of a disagreement about an intra-district case assignment as a proper use of Section 1407. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/pTa6nR MDL 2909: 4 Marketing/Sales Practices Suits Moved to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: FAIRLIFE MILK PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2909, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring four actions to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Northern District of Georgia * SALZHAUER v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-02709 Northern District of Illinois * MICHAEL v. FAIRLIFE, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-03924 * SCHWARTZ, ET AL. v. FAIRLIFE, LLC, C.A. No. 1:19-03929 Northern District of Indiana * SABEEHULLAH, ET AL. v. FAIRLIFE LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-00222 This litigation consists of four putative class actions, two of which are pending in the Northern District of Illinois and one each in the Northern District of Georgia and the Northern District of Indiana. Additionally, the parties have notified the Panel of four potentially related actions pending in the Central District of California, the Southern District of Indiana, and the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiff in the Northern District of Georgia Salzhauer action moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in the actions in the Northern District of Georgia or, alternatively, the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs in the Indiana action support centralization, but in the Northern District of Indiana. Defendants fairlife, LLC, Mike McCloskey, and Sue McCloskey support centralization in either the Northern District of Illinois or the Northern District of Georgia, while Defendant Coca-Cola Company supports centralization only in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs in the two Illinois actions initially opposed centralization but at oral argument expressed support for centralization in the Northern District of Illinois. On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, Judge Vance held that the four actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions arising from allegations of animal cruelty at a farm in northern Indiana that provides milk used in fairlife's milk products. Plaintiffs in each action allege that they purchased fairlife milk products based on defendants' marketing and labeling, which emphasized fairlife's humane treatment of its dairy cows. Plaintiffs in each action assert similar claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, and violation of state consumer protection laws, and plaintiffs seek to represent overlapping national and state classes of purchasers of fairlife milk products. Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation, the MDL court said, as the district has a strong connection to these cases. Defendant fairlife is headquartered in Chicago, and its marketing decisions for the subject milk products likely were conceived and executed there. Moreover, Chicago is less than one hundred miles from Fair Oaks, Indiana, where the farm at which the alleged animal abuse occurred is located. Two of the four actions on this motion are pending in the Northern District of Illinois, which is supported by a majority of the parties as either their primary or secondary choice for transferee district. The Northern District of Illinois thus presents a convenient and accessible forum for this litigation. Both of the actions in this district are assigned to the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., a jurist with significant multidistrict litigation experience. Judge Vance is confident that Judge Dow will steer this litigation on an efficient and prudent course. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/XJpGg9 MDL 2911: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 4 Water Pollution Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA, WATER CONTAMINATION LITIGATION (NO. II), MDL No. 2911, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Defendant's motion for centralization of six actions in the Northern District of Georgia. Northern District of Georgia * CARTER, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, C.A. No. 1:19-02787 District of New Hampshire * PHILLIPS v. US GOVERNMENT, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-00128 Eastern District of North Carolina * COUNCIL v. U.S. NAVY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:19-00097 * BUNTING v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, ET AL., C.A. No. 7:19-00067 * WASHINGTON v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, C.A. No. 7:19-00112 * HURDLE v. CAMP LEJEUNE, USMC, ET AL., C.A. No. 7:19-00115 The United States, as defendant, moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern District of Georgia. This litigation consists of six actions pending in three districts. The Panel also has been notified of five potentially-related actions filed in three districts. Plaintiff in the Eastern District of North Carolina Washington action opposes centralization or, alternatively, suggests centralization in the Eastern District of North Carolina or exclusion of his action from centralized proceedings. Of the three pro se plaintiffs who responded to the motion, two appear to oppose centralization, although the position of one is not entirely clear. The third supports centralization in the Northern District of Georgia or the Eastern District of North Carolina but states she is "in favor of what is best for all parties involved be it centralization or decentralizing." Like the actions centralized in MDL No. 2218 – In re Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Water Contamination Litigation, these actions share factual questions arising out of alleged deaths or injuries due to contaminated drinking water on the Marine Corps Base at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. That litigation was closed in December 2016 following the grant of defendant's motion to dismiss. Opponents of centralization variously argue that centralization would cause them inconvenience. Additionally, the Washington plaintiff argues that defendant seeks centralization in the Northern District of Georgia so that Eleventh Circuit rulings made as to MDL No. 2218 and favorable to defendant will be applied to these newly-filed cases. Fourth Circuit law, he argues, is more favorable to plaintiffs' claims. He also argues that his action is unique from the remaining actions on the motion. After considering all arguments, Judge Vance concludes that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The Panel is presented with just eleven cases at this time. More than half of these cases already are pending in the same district, and most are brought by pro se plaintiffs. The Judge is not persuaded that the potential benefits of centralization outweigh the inconvenience transfer would pose to these individuals or the judicial burden of managing centralized litigation involving numerous unrepresented parties. The Judge considers voluntary coordination among the parties and the involved courts of these relatively few actions to be a preferable alternative to centralization. Defendant represents that approximately 900 Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claimants have requested that the United States Navy reconsider the denial of their claims, and that some of these claimants may file cases in federal courts. Additional related cases, therefore, may materialize. But the possible universe of claims soon will be limited by the FTCA's statute of limitations, and it is not certain that these claimants will file suit if reconsideration is denied. The Panel has held that the mere possibility of additional actions does not justify centralization. Further weighing against centralization, counsel for the Washington plaintiff represented at oral argument that plaintiffs in the Northern District of Georgia and District of New Hampshire cases have agreed they will move to transfer their actions to the Eastern District of North Carolina under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). If these motions are successful, just one action would remain outside the state of North Carolina. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/gb7myd MDL 2912: 13 Palbociclib Patent Suits Moved to Dist. of Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: PALBOCICLIB PATENT LITIGATION, MDL No. 2912, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 13 actions of Pfizer, Inc., et al. to the District of Delaware and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Colm F. Connolly for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Pfizer plaintiffs move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the District of Delaware. The litigation consists of 12 lawsuits in the District of Delaware and one in the Northern District of West Virginia. Only Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., which is the sole defendant in the West Virginia action, responded to the motion. Mylan supports centralization in the District of Delaware. The Pfizer plaintiffs filed these actions after the various generic drug manufacturer defendants submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) seeking approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make and sell generic versions of IBRANCE (Palbociclib) capsules, 75 mg, 100 mg, and 125 mg. All the actions are Hatch-Waxman patent infringement lawsuits in which the Pfizer plaintiffs allege that each defendant has infringed one or more of three U.S. Patents by filing ANDAs seeking FDA approval to market generic IBRANCE in the United5States. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, Judge Vance said 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. These actions involve substantially similar claims that defendants infringed one or more of the IBRANCE patents. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery and other pretrial proceedings, avoid the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings (particularly with respect to claim construction and issues of patent validity), and conserve judicial and party resources. The Panel recently has centralized similar litigations, citing "the complexity of the allegations and regulatory framework governing Hatch-Waxman cases, as well as the need for swift progress in litigation involving the potential entry of generic drugs into the market." The Panel is persuaded that centralization of these cases similarly will lead to their efficient resolution. Judge Vance selected the District of Delaware as the transferee district for these actions. All but one of the thirteen related actions are pending in the District of Delaware. Judge Colm F. Connolly, to whom Judge Vance assigned this litigation, already is presiding over those 12 actions. Judge Vance expressed confidence that he will steer this litigation on a prudent course. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/Iigymt MDL 2913: 10 Product Liability Suits v Juul Labs Sent to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2913, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring ten actions to the Northern District of California, and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable William H. Orrick III for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Common defendant Juul Labs, Inc. (JLI) moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of California or the District of New Jersey. The litigation consists of five lawsuits in the Northern District of California, two in the Middle District of Alabama, and one each in the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, and the Southern District of New York. The Panel has been notified of more than 40 potentially-related actions. The actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction. The actions include both putative class actions and individual personal injury cases. In the briefing to the Panel, a number of responding plaintiffs argued that the Panel should create two MDLs -- one for the putative class actions in the Northern District of California, and a second for the individual actions in the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs who first advocated that position stated at oral argument that they now support centralization of all actions in a single MDL. None of the other plaintiffs who filed briefs in favor of a two-MDL approach presented oral argument. All other responding parties support centralization of all related actions in one MDL, but they disagree on an appropriate transferee district. Suggested districts include the Northern District of California, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of Maryland, and the District of New Jersey. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, Judge Vance held that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization -- of all actions -- in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share multiple factual issues concerning the development, manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The proposal to create two MDLs is not well-taken. Given the substantial overlap in the core factual issues, parties, and claims, a single MDL will best achieve Section 1407's purposes. The Panel frequently centralizes dockets comprising both class actions and individual cases. As with those dockets, the transferee judge can use separate tracks or other appropriate pretrial techniques to accommodate any differences among the actions. The Judge selects the Northern District of California as the transferee district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there. Five constituent actions, including the first-filed case, are pending in the Northern District of California, as are several tag-alongs. Judge William H. Orrick III, to whom the Panel assigns the litigation, is an experienced transferee judge. He has been presiding over most of the California actions since they were filed and already has ruled on two motions to dismiss. Judge Vance is confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent course. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/1hyZNL MDL 2914: 5 '289 Patent Suits Moved to Southern District of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: ERMI LLC ('289) PATENT LITIGATION, MDL No. 2914, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring five actions to the Southern District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Roy K. Altman for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Patentholder ERMI LLC moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in the actions in the Southern District of Florida. This litigation consists of four patent infringement actions and one declaratory judgment action, each pending in a different district. OneDirect Health Network, Inc., the plaintiff in the declaratory judgment action and a defendant in one of the infringement actions, opposes the motion. OneDirect states that the other defendants in the infringement actions join its opposition (all are represented by the same counsel). Alternatively, should the Panel centralize this litigation, OneDirect suggests the Northern District of Georgia as the transferee district. On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, Judge Vance found that the actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Southern District of Florida will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share essentially identical factual questions arising from allegations that a shoulder rehabilitation device manufactured by OneDirect infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,547,289 (the '289 Patent), which is entitled "Shoulder Extension Control Device." Defendants in the patent infringement actions allegedly are distributors of the OneDirect product. Most of these defendants have moved to dismiss, or alternatively to stay, the infringement actions until OneDirect's declaratory judgment action is resolved. Centralization, the Court said, will create significant judicial efficiencies by allowing a single judge to preside over all pretrial proceedings, including the pending requests to stay the infringement actions against the alleged distributors and claim construction hearings (if necessary). OneDirect argues that the Panel should allow the transferor courts to dismiss or stay the infringement actions pending resolution of OneDirect's declaratory judgment action, pursuant to the customer suit exception to the first-to-file rule. As Panel previously have acknowledged, there may be circumstances where dismissals or stays under the customer suit exception offer an appropriate alternative to centralization. In this instance, though, the Panel is not persuaded that centralization should be denied. No court has granted (or denied) a stay under the customer suit exception, and the Panel express no opinion on the appropriateness of such stays here. Further, it is unclear that, even if all the pending customer suit exception motions were granted, the multidistrict character of this litigation would be eliminated. The action pending in the Southern District of Florida includes claims against the original inventor and manufacturer of the accused device. Those defendants seek dismissal on different grounds, and the Panel declines to speculate as to the outcome of those motions. But it is clear that numerous motions will have to be decided in OneDirect's and defendants' favor before the multidistrict character of this litigation can be eliminated. Centralization, on the other hand, will deliver concrete benefits to the parties and the courts. It will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to the pending customer suit exception motions and claim construction; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The Southern District of Florida is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. The inventor and original distributor of the accused product is located in this district. The Southern District of Florida is a convenient and accessible district, particularly for ERMI and OneDirect -- the two main adversaries in this litigation -- which are located in an adjacent state (Georgia). The action pending in the Southern District of Florida is assigned to the Honorable Roy K. Altman. Centralization in the Southern District of Florida therefore allows the Panel to assign this litigation to a jurist who has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an MDL. Judge Vance is confident that Judge Altman will steer this litigation on an efficient and prudent course. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/33c8hY MDL 2915: 21 Data Security Breach Suits Moved to E.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: CAPITAL ONE CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, MDL No. 2915, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 21 actions pending in 12 districts to the Eastern District of Virginia, and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Anthony J. Trenga for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Judge Vance further ordered that, consistent with Panel docket naming conventions, MDL No. 2915 is renamed, In re Capital One Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. Plaintiffs in two actions move separately under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation. Movant in one action seeks centralization in the Western District of Washington or, alternatively, the District of District of Columbia. Movants in five actions seek centralization in the District of District of Columbia. Plaintiffs' motions include 21 actions pending in 12 districts. The Panel also has been notified of 40 potentially related actions filed in 13 districts. The responding parties generally support centralization, though plaintiffs in one potential tag-along action oppose inclusion of their action in centralized proceedings. The remaining responding plaintiffs variously support centralization in the Western District of Washington, the District of District of Columbia, the Eastern District of Virginia, and/or the Northern District of California. Defendant GitHub, Inc. (GitHub) does not oppose centralization and does not have a preference as to transferee district. The Capital One defendants and the AWS defendants support centralization in the Eastern District of Virginia. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Judge Vance held that centralization under Section 1407 of all actions in the Eastern District of Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual issues concerning a recently-announced incident in which an individual gained unauthorized access to the personal information, maintained on cloud-based systems, of more than 100 million Capital One credit card customers and individuals who applied for Capital One credit card products. All actions arise from the same data security breach, and they all allege that Capital One failed to put into place reasonable data protections. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The Judge selects the Eastern District of Virginia as the transferee district for this litigation. Common defendant Capital One is headquartered within this district in McLean, Virginia, and represents that relevant documents and witnesses will be found there. Moreover, the AWS defendants maintain that relevant witnesses and evidence are located in an AWS facility located in Northern Virginia. Judge Anthony J. Trenga is an able jurist with MDL experience, and Judge Vance is confident he will steer these proceedings on a prudent course. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/MkeNRk MDL 2916: Bid to Centralize 3 Skywest FLSA Suits Denied ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., FLIGHT ATTENDANT FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION, MDL No. 2916, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Defendant SkyWest Airlines, Inc.'s motion for centralization of three actions: Northern District of California ------------------------------- * WILSON, ET AL. v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-01491 Northern District of Illinois ----------------------------- * HIRST, ET AL. v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-02036 * TAPP, ET AL., v. SKYWEST INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-11117 Defendant SkyWest Airlines, Inc., moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. The litigation consists of three actions pending in two districts. Plaintiffs in the Hirst and Tapp actions support centralization, but only in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the Wilson action oppose centralization and, alternatively, propose the Northern District of California as the transferee district. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, Judge Vance concluded that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions undoubtedly share factual questions arising out of allegations that defendant SkyWest's compensation system for flight attendants results in a failure to pay flight attendants for all hours worked in violation of state and local labor laws. But where only a few actions are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate. Moving defendant has failed to do so in these circumstances. The three actions before the Panel are not complex, and there are few involved counsel. Plaintiffs are represented by two groups of counsel. And the sole defendants, SkyWest Airlines, Inc., and its parent company SkyWest, Inc., are represented by the same counsel in all actions. Moreover, plaintiffs' counsel represent that they are willing to informally coordinate any overlapping discovery and other pretrial proceedings. In these circumstances, informal coordination is a practicable alternative to centralization. Additionally, informal coordination is preferable in this litigation given significant differences in three of the four proposed state classes and in the asserted state law claims. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/GBliN6 MDL 2917: Court Denies Bid for Centralization of 4 Air Crash Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: AIR CRASH NEAR ELLABELL, GEORGIA, ON AUGUST 28, 2017, MDL No. 2917, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Plaintiffs' motion for centralization of four cases: Southern District of Georgia ---------------------------- * COCKE, ET AL. v. CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:19-00169 * HUNTER, ET AL. v. CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:19-00174 District of Nebraska -------------------- * COCKE, ET AL. v. WHISLER AVIATION, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:19-00335 * HUNTER, ET AL. v. WHISLER AVIATION, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:19-00339 Plaintiffs in two actions (Cocke plaintiffs) move under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Southern District of Georgia. The parties' positions on centralization vary. Plaintiffs in the two other actions (Hunter plaintiffs) support centralization in the Southern District of Georgia, as do defendants Aviation Development Group, LLC, and Thomas Huff. Defendants Continental Motors, Inc., Whisler Aviation, Inc., and Central Cylinder Service, Inc., oppose centralization. However, Judge Vance concluded that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, or to further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions share factual issues arising out of the August 28, 2017, crash of a Beechcraft Bonanza A36 model aircraft shortly after take-off from Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport. But there are only four actions, brought by two plaintiff groups, in two districts, with no indication of more to come. The Panel has denied centralization of air crash litigation in similar circumstances. The small number of involved actions, minimal number of districts, and relatively few parties suggest that informal coordination and cooperative efforts by the involved courts and parties are practicable and preferable to formal centralization under Section 1407. A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/xe58fN MDL 2918: 4 Antitrust Lawsuits Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2918, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring four actions to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Eastern District of Michigan ---------------------------- * ELMAZI v. TDK CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-12244 * INTEGRITY FINANCIAL SERVICES OF TAMPA BAY, INC., ET AL. v. NHK SPRING CO. LTD., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-12258 * CMP CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. v. NHK SPRING CO. LTD., ET AL.,C.A. No. 3:19-12337 Southern District of New York ----------------------------- * CIMINO, ET AL. v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-07428 Plaintiff in one action in the Eastern District of Michigan moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in that district or, alternatively, the Southern District of New York. This litigation currently consists of four actions pending in two districts. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been notified of 19 related federal actions. All responding parties support centralization, but disagree on the transferee district. The responding defendants support centralization in the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs in two actions on the motion (Integrity Financial and CMP Consulting) and four potential tag-along actions also support the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs in the other action on the motion (Cimino) and seven potential tag-along actions support the District of Minnesota. And plaintiffs in four potential tag-along actions support the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the District of Minnesota. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, Judge Vance held that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share complex factual questions arising from allegations that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May 2008 through at least April 2016. The record indicates that discovery is likely to3be international in scope and will include a significant number of nonparties. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class certification and Daubert motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. The Judge concludes that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum. Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district. Plaintiffs in four potential tag-along actions support this district. Judge Maxine M. Chesney, who presides over those actions, is an experienced transferee judge with the ability and willingness to manage this litigation efficiently. Judge Vance is confident Judge Chesney will steer this matter on a prudent course. A full-text copy of the Court's October 8, 2019 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/AQOzRS MGM RESORTS: Settles Mandalay Bay Mass Shooting Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Tara Mahadevan, writing for Complex, reports that MGM Resorts International came to an agreement with the victims of a mass shooting that took place around one of their hotels two years ago. In October 2017, a gunman opened fire on a Las Vegas country music festival from the 32nd floor of MGM's Mandalay Bay resort, killing 59 people and wounding 422 more. According to lawyers for victims of the shooting, the hotel has agreed to pay between $735 and $800 million to settle several class action lawsuits. [GN] MID-CON HOSPITALITY: Trayes Sues over Collection of Biometrics -------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN TRAYES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MID-CON HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, & TINLEY PARK HOTEL & CONVENTION CENTER, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2019CH11117 (Ill. Cir., Sept. 25, 2019), seeks to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive biometric data. When Defendants or one of their affiliated facilities hire an employee, including Plaintiff, he or she is enrolled in an employee database shared and maintained by and between Defendants and the affiliate facilities to monitor the time worked by hourly employees. While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendants' and their affiliated facilities' employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Many businesses -- such as Defendants -- and financial institutions have incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in the form of biometric timeclocks, and into consumer products, including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts and cell phones. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendants' employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing fingerprints or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed - like in the recent Yahoo, eBay, Equifax, Uber, Home Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Omni Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and Suprema data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private information, the lawsuit says. The Defendant Mid-Con Hospitality Group, LLC is a hotel development and management company that manages multiple hotels in Illinois including Holiday Inn Chicago-Tinley Park Convention Center, located at 18501 Convention Center Drive, Tinley Park, Illinois, 60477.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312 233 1550 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com MIDWEST HOSPITALITY: Turner Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers ----------------------------------------------------------------- CIERRA TURNER on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff(s), vs. MIDWEST HOSPITALITY, LLC D/B/A LUMBERYARD 1 (DES MOINES), LUMBERYARD 2 (CEDAR RAPIDS), the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00306-JAJ-RAW (S.D. Iowa, Sept. 25, 2019), alleges that Defendants misclassify dancers, including Plaintiffs, as independent contractors so that they do not have to compensate them at the federally mandated minimum wage rate or the overtime rate. According to the complaint, the Defendants who own and operate two exotic dance clubs in Iowa, required and/or permitted Cierra Turner and others similarly situated to work as exotic dancers at their adult entertainment club but refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage. In fact, the Defendants refused to compensate 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. The Defendants also violated the FLSA by failing to pay time and a half to their employees when they worked more than 40 hours a week. The Defendants took money from Plaintiffs in the form of "house fees" or "rent". The Plaintiffs were also required to divide tips with Defendants' managers and employees who do not customarily receive tips.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Paige Fiedler, Esq. Madison Fiedler-Carlson, Esq. FIEDLER LAW FIRM, P.L.C 8831 Windsor Parkway Johnston, IA 50131 Telephone: (515) 254-1999 Facsimile: (515) 254-9923 E-mail: paige@employmentlawiowa.com madison@employmentlawiowa.com - and - Ved Chitale, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: vchitale@kennedyhodges.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: FPTPA Breaks Amateurism Rules -------------------------------------------------- Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq. -- tlacomb@moginrubin.com -- and Jennifer M. Oliver, Esq. -- joliver@moginrubin.com -- of MoginRubin, in an article for The National Law Review, report that Sept. 30, 2019, was a big day for college athletics. Alongside Lakers' star LeBron James (who ironically skipped college), California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Fair Pay to Play Act (FPTPA), which permits collegiate athletes in California to profit from the use of their names, images and likenesses (NILs) beginning in 2023. The governor said "colleges and universities reap billions from these student athletes' sacrifices and success but block them from earning a single dollar. That's a bankrupt model -- one that puts institutions ahead of the students they are supposed to serve." By enacting the FPTPA, California is knowingly breaking the amateurism rules set by the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), which preclude athletes from receiving compensation for their NILs beyond the cost of college attendance. The NCAA responded to the bill by threatening to ban all California member colleges from competing in NCAA championship events. The stage is now set for legal challenges from both sides. For context, the NCAA's rules restricting students from receiving compensation for their NILs beyond the cost of attendance have been upheld by courts. In O'Bannon v. NCAA, the Ninth Circuit held in an antitrust class action that the NCAA's rules were an unreasonable restraint of trade without procompetitive justifications to the extent they prevented schools from compensating players "up to the cost of attendance." Alternatively, the court held the NCAA had procompetitive justifications for restricting compensation beyond that level because an essential element of the "collegiate sports" product is the amateur status of its participants, and that once athletes "have captured the full value of their NIL [name, image, and likeness] . . . the NCAA will have surrendered its amateurism principles entirely and transitioned from its 'particular brand of football' to minor league status." Whether the NCAA's proposed ban of California member colleges violates antitrust laws is a different story. Arguably, by enacting ban, the NCAA is a monopolist association excluding certain members for refusing to both violate state law and impose a restraint on competition (albeit a restraint that courts have found reasonable). The NCAA could therefore find itself subject to a claim for group boycott in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as a group of competitors with market power generally cannot agree to not do business with targeted entities. Critics of the NCAA's proposed ban could also argue it is an attempt by a private association to seize legislative power from a state government – a practice condemned by early Supreme Court antitrust decisions. In sum, while there are legal hurdles for parties challenging the ban (e.g., defining a relevant market or proving market power), these plaintiffs may have a viable antitrust claim. Legal scholars agree. Marc Edelman, a sports business expert and Professor of Law at the Zicklin School of Business, believes parties challenging the ban would have a very strong antitrust case, contending that "the fact pattern of such a litigation would parallel NCAA v. Bd. of Regents very closely, as both would involve plaintiff-members of the NCAA challenging a boycott by the monopolist trade association against certain member schools for seeking to engage in free market economic competition." Likewise, California state Sen. Nancy Skinner, author of the FPTPA, stated that "[n]umerous legal scholars assert that SB 206 is constitutional and that an NCAA ban of California colleges from championship competition is a clear violation of federal antitrust law." The NCAA, on the other hand, will likely challenge the constitutionality of the FPTPA, arguing that it violates the dormant commerce clause. Put simply, the dormant commerce clause prohibits states from enacting legislation that discriminates against interstate commerce. The NCAA will argue the FPTPA does exactly this and will point to interstate commercial activities that could be negatively affected by the bill, such as interstate game broadcasting, sales and shipping of collegiate apparel across state lines, and interstate travel of collegiate players and coaches. And the NCAA has had success challenging state laws under the dormant commerce clause. In NCAA v. Miller, the NCAA blocked a Nevada law that required additional due process protections for Nevada students and employees accused of an NCAA rules infraction. While the present situation is distinguishable (e.g., the FPTPA pertains to relationships between athletes and third parties -- it does not impose an affirmative obligation on the NCAA), it is unclear whether these differences are enough to defeat the NCAA's constitutional arguments. It is also possible that the NCAA chooses to not enforce its ban or amends its rules to permit students to be paid for their NILs, as the ban could have significant economic and competitive consequences. California is not only the fifth largest economy in the world, but it also includes the 2nd, 6th, 20th, and 28th largest television markets in the country. California is also home to many of the most decorated collegiate sports programs in the country. Stanford University has won the Directors' Cup -- awarded to the school with the most success in various NCAA sponsored championships -- 25 years in a row. And UCLA and USC have finished in the top-10 a combined 38 times during that period. Additionally, by the time the FPTPA becomes effective in 2023, many more states will likely have passed similar legislation. Florida, Illinois, New York, and South Carolina have introduced comparable bills. A bill was introduced in Washington State in February 2019 and is currently with the Senate Ways & Means Committee. The Tennessee Senate passed a resolution in May 2019 calling on the state's universities to oppose the NCAA's ban on compensation for athletes as a violation of the free-market principle of economic freedom. North Carolina's legislature set up a committee to study the issue and has drafted a report and proposed legislation. Other states, including Ohio, are considering bills. If multiple states pass bills that mirror the FPTPA, then the NCAA's hands may be tied. It will be hard for the NCAA to ban several states from competing and also retain its legitimacy. While difficult to predict the impact of the FPTPA, unless the NCAA successfully quashes it and other similar legislation, we can be fairly certain that the collegiate sports landscape will look much different in the not-too-distant future. [GN] NATIONAL GENERAL: Bragar Eagel Investigates Officers, Directors --------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of National General Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: NGHC), Natural Health Trends Corp. (NASDAQ: NHTC), Omnicell, Inc. (NASDAQ: OMCL), and PolarityTE, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTE) on behalf of long-term stockholders. More information about each potential case can be found at the link provided. National General Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: NGHC) Bragar Eagel and Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of National General Holdings Corp. following a class action complaint that was filed against National General on July 25, 2019. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding National General's business and operations. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that National General, together with banking giant Wells Fargo, had engaged in a massive insurance scheme to bilk Wells Fargo customers out of millions of dollars. Through this scheme, National General forced thousands of customers to pay for auto insurance commonly known as Collateral Protection Insurance ("CPI") that they did not need or want. National General served as Wells Fargo's CPI vendor for all aspects of the program from July 2015 until the program was discreetly terminated in September 2016. Defendants possessed information showing that these customers already had their own insurance, but forced them to be subject to redundant, unnecessary, and overly expensive CPI policies anyway. In addition, while defendants were concealing their participation in the fraudulent CPI scheme from investors, they were reporting revenues and earnings results that had been artificially inflated by the illegitimate proceeds from the scheme. As a result of this information being withheld from the market, National General common stock traded at artificially inflated prices of more than $25 per share during the Class Period. For more information on our investigation into National General Holdings go to: https://bespc.com/nghc Natural Health Trends Corp. (NASDAQ: NHTC) Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of National Health Trends Corp. following a complaint that was filed against Natural Health Trends on January 8, 2019. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Natural Health Trends was operating as a pyramid scheme in China, which is contrary to Chinese law; (2) consequently, Natural Health Trends was not in compliance with applicable Chinese law; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Natural Health Trends' business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. For more information on our investigation into Natural Health Trends go to: https://bespc.com/nhtc Omnicell, Inc. (NASDAQ: OMCL) Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of Omnicell, Inc. following a class action complaint that was filed against Omnicell on July 18, 2019. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company recognized revenue for certain transactions before fulfilling its performance obligations; (2) that the Company engaged in improper accounting practices to meet revenue targets; (3) that the Company experienced weaker demand for new product lines than it had previously projected; (4) that, as a result, the Company would be required to write-off certain inventory; (5) that the Company misclassified certain expenses as capitalized expenditures; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on our investigation into Omnicell go to: https://bespc.com/omcl PolarityTE, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTE) Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of PolarityTE, Inc. following a class action complaint filed against PolarityTE on June 26, 2018. The complaint alleges that on June 25, 2018, Citron Research ("Citron") issued a report in which Citron detailed the company's track record of material misrepresentations, misstatements, and omissions pertaining to the status of a key patent application. The Citron report noted that as far back as March 31, 2017, the USPTO notified the company of its non-final rejection of patent #14/954,335. Citron's report continued to highlight the company's subsequent failure to disclose the patent's non-final rejection status and its continued behavior of representing the technology linked to the patent in a positive light. The report also pointed to the USPTO's final rejection of the patent on June 4, 2018 information that the company also failed to disclose. On this news, PolarityTE stock plunged more than 34%. For more information on our investigation into PolarityTE go to: https://bespc.com/pte Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] NEUROLOGY CENTER: Nurse Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- Patricia Case, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Neurology Center of Excellence, PLLC and Sheri Brisby, individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00486 (M.D. Fla., September 25, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and all other applicable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a neurology clinic in Lady Lake where Case worked as a licensed nurse. She claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime for hours over 40. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Gunter, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA. 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor PO. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 867-4791 Email: mgunter@forthepeople.com NOVO NORDISK: Insulin Drug Prices Inflated, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------- PROFESSIONAL DRUG COMPANY, INC. and FWK HOLDINGS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NOVO NORDISK INC., ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-18326 (D.N.J., Sept. 25, 2019), seek to recover damages incurred by themselves and the members of the Class due to the scheme that Defendants and their co-conspirators perpetrated to artificially inflate the prices of analog insulin drugs that Class Members directly purchased from Defendants. The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and a class of pharmaceutical distributors that directly purchased the analog insulin drugs NovoLog (TM), Humalog (TM), Lantus (TM), and Levemir (TM) from the Defendants during the period January 1, 2009 through the present. During the Class Period, PDC purchased Lantus directly from Defendant Sanofi on February 10, 2009 and May 15, 2009 and purchased Levemir directly from Defendant Novo on June 16, 2010. Based on information currently available, during the Class Period, FWK purchased approximately $113,143,774.13 of Lantus directly from Defendant Sanofi, approximately $25,455,136.10 of Levemir and $64,418,385.92 of NovoLog directly from Defendant Novo, and approximately $45,419,536.95 of Humalog directly from Defendant Lilly. All of those purchases came at prices dictated by the Defendants. According to the complaint, the Defendants conducted their Price Inflation Scheme through repeated acts of mail and wire fraud that amounted to a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and New Jersey's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Defendants' false representations concerned the distributor and retail prices of Humalog, NovoLog, Lantus, and Levemir. To ensure the success of the Price Inflation Scheme, Defendants conspired and formed RICO enterprises with the three largest pharmacy benefit managers (the PBM Conspirators) -- CVS Health Corporation, Express Scripts, Inc., and OptumRx, Inc. The PBM Conspirators were responsible for managing the prescription medication benefits maintained by roughly 180 million Americans, or 80% of the insured public, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Dianne M. Nast, Esq. Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq. Michael Tarringer, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923 9300 Facsimile: (215) 923 9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com dgalluccii@nastlaw.com mtarringer@nastlaw.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Debra G. Josephson, Esq. Karen S. Halbert, Esq. Stephane E. Smith, Esq. Sarah Deloach, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 Telephone: (501) 821 5575 Facsimile: (501) 821 4474 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us - and - Don Barett, Esq. Richard R. Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095-0927 Telephone: (662) 834 2488 Facsimile: (662) 834 2628 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com rrb@rrblawfirm.net - and - Phil Elbert, Esq. Ben Aaron, Esq. Charles Barrett, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL, PLC 1201 Demonbreum St., Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244 1713 Facsimile: (615) 726 0573 E-mail: pelbert@nealharwell.com baaron@nealharwell.com cbarrett@nealharwell.com P.S.J. INC: Lugo Seeks Pay for Hours Worked Over 40 --------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH LUGO, MARILY LUGO, and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. P.S.J., INC. d/b/a LUCKY MEATS II, a Florida corporation, HUGO RAMIREZ, an individual and ISIDRO PEREZ, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24193-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 10, 2019) is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, to recover unpaid back wages, and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs often worked more than 40 hours per week but were not paid time and half for those hours worked over 40 hours in violation of the statutory overtime rate as required by the laws of the United States, says the complaint. Plaintiffs were employees of LUCKY MEATS from September 2, 2017 through June 19, 2019. LUCKY MEATS is a Florida corporation doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Costales, Esq. GARY A. COSTALES, P.A. 1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1440 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 375-9510 Facsimile: (305) 375-9511 PAREA GROUP: Class in Argudo FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HENRY ARGUDO et al., Plaintiffs, v. PAREA GROUP LLC d/b/a TRATTORIA IL MULINO et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-0678 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and (i) denied Katzoff's motion summary judgment as to the claims against him; and (ii) granted the Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of an Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and a Rule 23 class action. Plaintiffs Argudo and Diego Sanay bring the action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, alleging violations of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiffs were employed as servers at restaurants owned and operated by the Defendants under the "Il Mulino" brand name. They allege that the Defendants failed to properly notify them that the Defendants were claiming a "tip credit" for the tips that they earned, forced them to share their tips with employees who do not ordinarily earn tips, and failed to pay them the minimum wage and overtime. Sanay and Argudo worked as servers at three of five New York City restaurants operating under the name "Il Mulino." Four of these restaurants -- "Il Mulino Uptown," "Il Mulino Downtown," "Il Mulino 60th Street," and "Il Mulino Prime" -- are owned by Galligan and Katzoff through a holding company, Il Mulino USA LLC. The fifth, "Trattoria Il Mulino," was owned by Parea Group LLC and operated pursuant to licensing and management agreements with Galligan and Katzoff, through their companies IM Franchise, LLC, and K.G. IM Management LLC. The Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action for all tipped employees who worked at any of the five Il Mulino restaurants from Jan. 26, 2015, to the present. They also move for certification of a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for all Il Mulino tipped employees who worked from Jan. 26, 2012, to the present, and for a subclass of tipped employees who worked at Trattoria Il Mulino from Jan. 26, 2012, to the present. In addition, Katzoff moves for summary judgment, arguing that he cannot be held liable because he does not qualify as an "employer" of the Plaintiffs. Judge Furman begins with Katzoff's summary judgment motion. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Judge concludes that a reasonable jury could conclude that Katzoff possessed "operational control" over the Plaintiffs' employment. Among other things, the Defendants' own depositions indicate that, as in Irizarry, Katzoff satisfied two Carter factors in ways that the Second Circuit has particularly emphasized that the hiring of managerial employees,such as CFO William Minner, and overall financial control of the company. More broadly, there is evidence that Katzoff possessed authority over decisions that would affect the conditions of the Plaintiffs' employment, including the ultimate power to open and close restaurants, as well as the power to make operational adjustments. Given this evidence and the inherently "fact-intensive character" of the inquiry, summary judgment is inappropriate and thus denied. With that, Judge Furman turns to the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of an FLSA collective action and a Rule 23 class action. Judge Furman grants the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of an FLSA collective action. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs present evidence that they and other servers at the Il Mulino restaurants were "tipped employees" and that the Defendants claimed a tip credit for their wages; that they were "never informed" that the Defendants would be claiming a tip credit, the amount thereof, or the other information required by the FLSA; and that the lack of notice was the result of a common policy at the five Il Mulino restaurants. Moreover, they establish that they and other tipped employees at Trattoria Il Mulino were forced to pool their tips with employees who did not provide direct customer service, such as dishwashers and expeditors. The Judge turns, then, to the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a Rule 23 class action with respect to their NYLL claims. With respect to the overall class, the Defendants' sole argument is that the Plaintiffs do not establish commonality and typicality because "each location was separately managed." As discussed, however, the evidence shows that tipped employees across all five Il Mulino restaurants received information about their wages pursuant to a uniform policy promulgated by the Defendants. Thus, the proposed class' claims plainly depend upon a common contention whose truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims, and their alleged injuries plainly "arise from the same allegedly unlawful practices and policies. The fact that damages would have to be calculated on an individualized basis does not alter those conclusions. The Defendants' arguments have even less purchase with respect to the Plaintiffs' request for certification of a subclass of employees of Trattoria Il Mulino since, by definition, the subclass is composed of employees in only one restaurant. Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, the Defendants do not even bother to address that request. In any event, the Judge finds that certification of the subclass is warranted, for largely the same reasons. Accordingly, Judge Furman grants the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of the Rule 23 class and subclass. Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP is named as class counsel. The firm is an obvious choice for the class counsel, and is qualified and experienced in wage and hour class actions. Further, it has invested considerable time investigating and litigating the case, and it has demonstrated to the Court's satisfaction that it will fairly and adequately represent the class and the subclass. Finally, Judge Furman approves the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and Consent to Join form, except that (1) Section 16 of the Notice will be modified to make clear that the opt-in Plaintiffs are entitled to retain their own counsel (or represent themselves) in connection with their claims under the FLSA; (2) putative members of the collective action and class will be given 60 days (rather than 30) to opt in to the collective action and to opt out of the class; and (3) the Consent to Join form will be revised to make clearer that the Plaintiffs are free to retain counsel of their choosing (or to represent themselves) and are not required to have the Plaintiffs' counsel represent them with respect to their FLSA claims. The Judge denies as meritless the Defendants' request to omit Katzoff's and Galligan's names from the Notice, for which they cite no authority. Without delay, the Defendants are tasked to produce to the Plaintiffs a list, in Microsoft Excel format, of all persons employed by the Defendants as captains, waiters, bussers, runners, bartenders, and barbacks, from Jan. 26, 2012, to the present, including the employee's name, last known address, alternate address(es) (if any), all known telephone numbers, all known e-mail addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment, and job titles. The parties will confer and submit an agreed-upon proposed order (or competing proposed orders), consistent with the Opinion and Order, regarding the procedures to be used in connection with the mailing of the Notice and Consent to Join forms. And finally, the parties will submit a joint letter setting forth their views on the need for discovery following the conclusion of the opt-in and opt-out period and whether the Court should hold a conference to discuss those issues or anything else. A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/eSLEyX from Leagle.com. Henry Argudo, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Diego Sanay, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Luis Gonzalez, Jaime Rivera, Victor Rivera & Marco Morales, Plaintiffs, represented by Lucas Colin Buzzard, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP, Yosef Nussbaum -- jnussbaum@jhllp.com -- Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP & Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum -- maimon@jhllp.com -- Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum. Miljan Zecevic & Trim Qorkadiu, Plaintiffs, represented by Lucas Colin Buzzard, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP. Liviu Movileanu, Plaintiff, represented by Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP. Parea Group LLC, doing business as Trattoria IL Mulino, Defendant, represented by Randi Weller Kochman -- rkochman@coleschotz.com -- Cole Schotz P.C., Lauren Michelle Manduke -- lmanduke@coleschotz.com -- Cole Schotz P.C. & Peter Hatzipetros -- info@petroslawgroup.com -- Petros Law Group, P.C. IMNY GS LLC, doing business as IL Mulino Tribeca, GFB Restaurant Corp., doing business as IL Mulino Downtown, Wonderful Restaurant LLC, doing business as IL Mulino Uptown, Brian Galligan, Gerald Katzoff, K.G. IM Management, LLC, IM 60 Street LLC, Il Mulino USA LLC & IM LLC-I, Defendants, represented by Mark Krassner -- mkrassner@borahgoldstein.com -- Law Office of Mark Krassner. GFB Restaurant Corp., Brian Galligan, IMNY GS LLC, K.G. IM Management, LLC, Gerald Katzoff & Wonderful Restaurant LLC, Cross Defendants, represented by Mark Krassner, Law Office of Mark Krassner. K.G. IM Management, LLC, Wonderful Restaurant LLC, Brian Galligan, Gerald Katzoff, IMNY GS LLC & GFB Restaurant Corp., Cross Claimants, represented by Mark Krassner, Law Office of Mark Krassner. PENNSYLVANIA: New York AG Files Class Action Against PHEAA ---------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that New York's attorney general filed a lawsuit on Oct. 3 against a loan servicer that handles a student loan forgiveness program for public service workers over how the program has been managed. Attorney General Letitia James' suit filed in federal court in Manhattan against the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency said it has "failed miserably" in how it administers the program. In her lawsuit, James said PHEAA, which operates under FedLoan Servicing, hasn't accurately kept track of borrowers' payments or adequately explained how it makes its tracking determinations. FedLoan is the only loan servicer for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, created by the federal government in 2007. That program allows certain borrowers to ask for loan forgiveness after 10 years, provided they have made the right amount of qualifying payments and are working in public service jobs. By not administering the program effectively, James said in her suit against PHEAA that the effects on borrowers include longer repayment periods and being denied when they apply for loan forgiveness. "PHEAA's failures as the PSLF servicer," James said, "have undermined the goals of the PSLF program and created financial hardship for many." Keith New, a spokesman for the loan servicer, said in an email statement, "Over the years, PHEAA has cooperatively worked with the NY AG's Office, along with many other regulators throughout the nation, to review specific borrower concerns and to identify and implement appropriate resolutions as they arise." He said James' allegations are "without merit" and PHEAA "intends to vigorously defend itself in this suit." PHEAA is facing other lawsuits, one filed by Massachusetts in state court, as well as some class-action lawsuits. [GN] PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Will FDCPA Class Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN P. WILL, Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-cv-02790-MSK-KMT (D. Colo.), Judge Marcia S. Krieger of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint. At some point in time, John Will defaulted on his debt in the amount of $7,084.52 to Bank of America. Bank of America sold Mr. Will's debt to Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates ("PRA"). In an attempt to collect the debt, on March 13, 2018, PRA sent Mr. Will a letter. The Collection Letter stated that PRA is a debt collector and that Mr. Will owed a debt in the amount of $7,084.52. The Collection Letter offered several options for Mr. Will to repay the debt including a 1-Month, a 12-Month, or a 24-Month payment plan. Due to the age of the debt and the fact that it is was beyond the applicable statute of limitations for any debt collection lawsuit, PRA's Collection Letter provided the following disclosure, "the law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it." Mr. Will did not make any payments to PRA, and instead, he sued them for sending the Collection Letter. The Complaint alleges that the State of Colorado has a statute of limitations that applies to prohibit the filing of lawsuits more than six years after the last payment made by a person, and that when the Collection Letter was sent to Mr. Will, the applicable statute of limitations had expired on the subject debt. Mr. Will alleges that because his last payment on the subject debt was more than six years from the date of the Collection Letter, he had "no legal responsibility" to repay the debt. In addition, the Complaint alleges that the Collection Letter's disclosure language violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") because it falsely represents the character and legal status of the Subject Time-Barred Debt, and unfairly fails to inform Mr. Will that choosing any of the repayment options would restart the statutory period for another creditor or debt collector if the debt were to be sold. The Complaint further alleges that the Collection Letter is intentionally deceptive and confusing to consumers and is designed to induce payment on debts that are time-barred. Mr. Will brought the following claims against PRA on behalf of himself and others similarly situated based on the March 13, 2018 Collection Letter: (1) an individual claim for a violation of sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA and (2) the same claim for a violation of sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA on behalf of a putative class of Colorado residents. PRA moved to dismiss all of Mr. Will's FDCPA claims, arguing they are legally insufficient on two grounds: (1) the section 1692e claim fails as a matter of law because the disclosure language set forth in the Collection Letter is accurate, unequivocal, and conveys that Mr. Will will not be sued on the timebarred subject debt; and (2) the section 1692f claim fails as a matter of law because under Colorado law, a timebarred debt cannot be revived based on making a partial debt payment, thus, Mr. Will could not have been misled by the omission of language in the Collection Letter regarding the potential reviving of the statute of limitations. Judge Krieger finds that the Complaint contains no factual allegations suggesting that the debt was invalid, had no legal basis or was not owed by Mr. Will. In addition, there is no showing that the Collection Letter threatened litigation or any other legally-precluded remedy. Indeed, quite the opposite is true -- it expressly states that no legal action would be taken. Taking Mr. Will's allegations as true, the District Court finds that as a matter of law, even a "least sophisticated consumer" would not find PRA's Collection Letter deceptive, false, or misleading. Accordingly, the Complaint's allegations fail to state a plausible claim that PRA violated Sectio692e of the FDCPA, and the claim must be dismissed. PRA contends Mr. Will's claim under Section 1692f fails because it does not accurately state Colorado law. Again, the Judge opines that PRA is correct. Mr. Will's fear is misplaced. His or any debtor's payment without evidence of a clear and unequivocal intention to revive the debt has no effect upon a fully satisfied statute of limitation. Because there was no risk to the statute of limitations might be revived by Mr. Will's payment, PRA could not have violated Section 1692f of the FDCPA. Even a "least sophisticated consumer" would not find PRA's Collection Letter used unfair or unconscionable means to collect the debt. The Complaint fails to state a claim for a violation of Section 1692f of the FDCPA, and the claim is dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Krieger granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. All the claims in the action are dismissed. There being no representation by Mr. Will that the deficiencies in the Complaint can be remedied by amendment, no period for same will be reflexively granted. Any request to amend will be made by Motion filed within 14 days from the date of the Order, failing which the Clerk of the Court will close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/zYhz50 from Leagle.com. John P. Will, Plaintiff, represented by Marwan Rocco Daher, Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd., Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. & James Constantine Vlahakis, Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy S. Gilbert -- agilbert@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP, David L. Hartsell -- dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP & Sarah Ann Zielinski -- szielinski@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP. PR DESIGN: Calcano Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------- PR Design Co., Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PR Design Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09583 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019). PR DESIGN CO INC is in the Men's and Boys' Clothing and Furnishings industry in New York, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zare Khorozian, Esq. Zare Khorozian Law, LLC 1047 Anderson Avenue Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Tel: (201) 957-7269 Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com PRAIRIE OPPORTUNITY: Bonner Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alice Bonner on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Prairie Opportunity, Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00171 (N.D. Miss., September 25, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bonner worked for Prairie Opportunity as a bookkeeper. She claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime for hours over 40. She claims that she was misclassified as exempt from overtime and full minimum wage exempt. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: W. Howard Gunn, Esq. 310 South Hickory Street Post Office Box 157 Aberdeen, MS 39730 Telephone: (662) 369-8533 Facsimile: (662) 369-9844 Email: whgunn@bellsouth.net PRICESMART INC: Bragar Eagel Investigates Officers, Directors ------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of PriceSmart, Inc. (PSMT), Pyxus International, Inc. (PYX), Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. (ACRS), and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH) on behalf of long-term stockholders. PriceSmart, Inc. (PSMT) Bragar Eagel and Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of PriceSmart, Inc. following a class action complaint that was filed against PriceSmart May 22, 2019. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the company's omni-channel business strategy had failed to reach key operating goals; (2) that the company's South America distribution strategy had failed to realize key cost saving goals; (3) that the company had invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into certificates of deposits with financial institutions; (4) that these investments had been improperly classified as cash and cash equivalents; (5) that the relevant corrections would materially impact financial statements; (6) that there was a material weakness in the company's internal controls over financial reporting; (7) that increasing competition negatively impacted the company's revenue and profitability; and (8) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the firm's investigation into PriceSmart, go to: https://bespc.com/PSMT Pyxus International, Inc. (PYX) Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating Pyxus International, Inc. following a class action complaint that was filed against Pyxus on June 7, 2019. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the company was experiencing longer shipping cycles; (2) that, as a result, the company's financial results would be materially affected; (3) that the company lacked adequate internal control over financial reporting; (4) that the company's accounting policies were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the firm's investigation into Pyxus go to: https://bespc.com/pyx Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. (ACRS) Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. following a class action complaint that was filed against Aclaris on July 30, 2019. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the company's advertising materials minimized the risks and overstated the efficacy of ESKATA to generate sales; (2) that, as a result, the company was reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the firm's investigation into Aclaris go to: https://bespc.com/acrs Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH) Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of Zimmer Biomet Holdings following an amended class action complaint that was filed on March 21, 2019. The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of material misstatements and omissions to investors regarding, among other things, (1) Zimmer's discovery of wide-ranging "systemic issues" with the quality system at the primary Legacy Biomet manufacturing facility in Warsaw; (2) Zimmer's failure to take prompt and necessary actions to remediate these issues fully; and (3) Zimmer's inability to simultaneously satisfy the demand for its products while remediating these issues. For more information on the firm's investigation into Zimmer go to: https://bespc.com/zbh Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] RADIUS GLOBAL: Bonilla Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Andrea Bonilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05837 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Radius Global Solutions is a collection agency providing accounts receivable services and customer relationship management outsourcing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com - and - Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com RADIUS GLOBAL: George Files FDCPA Suit in North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Bernard L. George, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00540 (W.D. N.C., Oct. 16, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Radius Global Solutions is a collections agency providing accounts receivable services and customer relationship management outsourcing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq. Arthur H. Piervincenti, P.A. 631-200B Brawley School Road, Box 225 Mooresville, NC 28117 Tel: (704) 997-9529 Fax: (704) 230-0413 Email: arthur@lawahp.com REALTORS NAT'L ASSO: DOJ Probes Missouri Suit on Excessive Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the U.S. Department of Justice is looking into a Missouri class-action lawsuit accusing national real estate brokers of conspiring to charge excessive fees. Attorneys in the department's antitrust division noted in a recent court filing that it is investigating the matter, The Kansas City Star reported. A pair of Kansas City law firms sued major residential real estate brokerage companies this year on behalf of Missouri residents who sold a house since April 2015, contending the real estate agents' common practices stifle competition and harm owners. The suit took aim at mandates that sellers pay the buyer's broker a commission, regularly an amount at or around 6% of the sale price of a house. It also alleges brokerage firms regularly charge inflated commissions. The lawsuit also challenges numerous listing services, which are databases of houses that are purchased and sold and only accessible to buyers and sellers represented by real estate agents. Those agents must follow the National Association of Realtors' rules, including the agreement that sellers pay commissions of a purchaser's agent. The association, a trade group for real estate brokers, and other brokerage houses, has filed a motion seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed. The group alleges, in part, that the Justice Department had given its approval to the rules that limit access to multiple listing services when the two parties resolved a dispute in 2008. The Justice Department, in an unusual filing of its type in a civil case, said the association erroneously portrayed the 2008 settlement. "It cannot be overstated how damaging this is to the NAR's credibility with the court," said Brandon Boulware, a Kansas City attorney representing plaintiffs against the real estate group. A footnote in the Justice Department's filing acknowledged that the agency had issued a civil investigative demand - an official request for records or information in an investigation — related to a probe into residential real estate brokerages. A spokesperson for the National Association of Realtors didn't return a message from the newspaper seeking comment. The Missouri suit is comparable to one filed in Illinois that some spectators have said could put the business model of residential real estate brokerages in jeopardy. [GN] RUHNN HOLDING: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Ruhnn Holding Limited (NASDAQ:RUHN) resulting from allegations that Ruhnn may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. On or about April 3, 2019, Ruhnn announced the pricing of its initial public offering ("IPO") at $12.50 per share. However, since the IPO, Ruhnn stock has declined. As of market close on September 30, 2019 the stock price was $7.28 per share. Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered Ruhnn investors. If you purchased shares of Ruhnn please visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1686.htmlto join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SHIRE LLC: Mass. Court Certifies Class in Intuniv Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. (RDC) and FWK Holdings LLC's motion for class certification in the INTUNIV ANTITRUST LITIGATION (Direct purchaser), Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-12653-ADB (D. Mass.) The "pay-for-delay" or "reverse settlement" case concerns an allegedly anticompetitive settlement of patent litigation related to the ADHD drug Intuniv. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. ("RDC") and FWK Holdings LLC brought antitrust claims on behalf of a putative class comprised of entities that purchased Intuniv (the brand name for extended release guanfacine hydrochloride) from brand Intuniv manufacturer Shire LLC and Shire U.S., Inc. or generic Intuniv manufacturer Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Holdco US, Inc., and Actavis LLC. The DPPs allege that the Defendants improperly delayed competition for both brand Intuniv and generic Intuniv in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, causing the DPPs to pay an inflated price for Intuniv. Shire manufactures and sells Intuniv, which is generally prescribed to treat ADHD. On Sept. 2, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved Shire's New Drug Application ("NDA") for Intuniv pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Section 355. During the relevant time period, Shire held three patents that covered Intuniv. Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, a generic manufacturer may file an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") to seek approval of a proposed generic version of a brand drug. On Dec. 29, 2009, Actavis became the first company to file an ANDA for a generic version of Intuniv. FWK filed the case on Dec. 30, 2016 and RDC filed similar claims on Jan. 11, 2017. The Court granted a joint motion to consolidate the two actions in March 2017. RDC is a regional distributor of pharmaceuticals and FWK holds, by assignment, the antitrust claims of Frank W. Kerr Co., a former pharmaceutical wholesaler that entered bankruptcy and subsequently closed. The consolidated action has proceeded in coordination with claims brought on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of Intuniv. In November 2018, DPPs sought a certification of a class of entities that purchased Intuniv from Shire or Actavis from 212 to 2015. The Defendants filed their opposition to class certification on Feb. 12, 2019. Judge Burroughs finds that pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, (i) joinder of all the class members is impracticable; (ii) there are questions of law and fact common to the class; and (iii)the DPPs' claims and the potential defenses are typical of the putative class. As for adequacy, Judge Burroughs opines that the personal, financial, and business relationship between FWK, FWK-associated individuals, and the class counsel is simply too entangled and that FWK must be dismissed as a class representative, particularly considering that it is not engaged in meaningful supervision of the litigation and another class representative is available. Judge Burroughs concludes that RDC is an adequate Plaintiff. Given the history of RDC, the Judge accepts RDC as an adequate representative. RDC is under new management, its conduct in the case to date seems conscientious, and there is no obvious credibility issue that will impinge on its ability to adequately represent the class. Additionally, there does not appear to be any conflict among the class as a result of the allegations against RDC, and there is no indication that RDC has been anything but forthright with the Court or will otherwise fail to supervise and participate in the litigation. Finally, the Judge concludes that questions of law or fact common to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and that a class action is superior to other available methods for adjudicating the controversy. Accordingly, Judge Burroughs granted in part and denied in part the Motion for Class Certification. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the following class is certified: All persons or entities in the United States and its territories, or subsets thereof, that purchased Intuniv and/or generic Intuniv in any form directly from Shire or Actavis, including any predecessor or successor of Shire or Actavis, from Oct. 19, 2012 through June 1, 2015. Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. is appointed as class representative. FWK Holdings LLC is dismissed as class representative. Thomas M. Sobol and Lauren Guth Barnes of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP are appointed as class counsel counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/BP6udf from Leagle.com. Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin G. Coslett , Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice, David F. Sorensen -- dsorensen@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice, Joseph T. Lukens, FARUQI & FARUQI, pro hac vice, Peter Kohn -- pkohn@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas M. Sobol -- tom@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Kristie A. LaSalle -- kristiel@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Lauren G. Barnes, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. FWK Holdings LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by April D. Lambert, Radice Law Firm, pro hac vice, Bart D. Cohen, NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C., pro hac vice, Bradley J. Demuth, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice, Clark Craddock, Radice Law Firm, pro hac vice, David P. Germaine, Sperling & Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Hannah W. Brennan, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jessica Weiner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, John P. Bjork, Sperling & Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, John Quinn Kerrigan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, pro hac vice, John D. Radice, Radice Law Firm, PC, pro hac vice, Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph M. Vanek, SPERLING & SLATER, P.C., pro hac vice, Kenneth Pickle, Radice Law Firm, P.C, pro hac vice, Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., pro hac vice, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, TERENCE S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Donna M. Evans, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kiersten Taylor, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Kristie A. LaSalle, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Lauren G. Barnes, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Shire PLC, Defendant, represented by Nicholas F. Giove -- ngiove@haugpartners.com -- Haug Partners LLP, pro hac vice & Joshua S. Barlow -- jbarlow@haugpartners.com -- Haug Partners LLP. Shire, LLC & Shire U.S., Inc., Defendants, represented by David S. Shotlander, Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLLP, pro hac vice, David A. Zwally, Haug Partners LLLP, pro hac vice, Michael F. Brockmeyer, Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas F. Giove, Haug Partners LLP, pro hac vice, Fred A. Kelly, Jr., Haug Partners, Joshua S. Barlow, Haug Partners LLP & Tarae L. Howell, Nixon & Peabody, LLP. Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Holdco US, Inc. & Actavis LLC, Defendants, represented by Aviv A. Zalcenstein -- azalcenstein@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Alicia Rubio-Spring, Goodwin Procter LLP, Christopher T. Holding -- cholding@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP, Sarah K. Frederick, Goodwin Procter LLP & Srikanth K. Reddy, Goodwin Procter, LLP. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Intervenor, represented by Christopher T. Holding, Goodwin Procter, LLP. SKM RECYCLING: Settles Coolaroo Blaze Class Action for $1.2-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clay Lucas and Noel Towell, writing for The Age, report that Melbourne residents who were forced to evacuate when SKM Recycling's Coolaroo plant went up in flames will receive about $2,000 each from a $1.2 million settlement with the failed recycler. More than 200 claimants joined the class action, and will now share in the $475,000 SKM has been ordered to pay. The law firm that led the class action, Maddens, will get $725,000. The ruling in the class action was released on Oct. 7. It detailed the impacts of the massive fire that burnt out of control for two days in July 2017, and then smouldered for more than a week. Residents in Coolaroo and Dallas in Melbourne's north were forced to leave their homes for days, and businesses had to shut their doors, after the fire broke out at the Coolaroo plant cloaking the northern suburbs in acrid smoke. Lead claimant Castor Murillo, who was forced to sleep in his family's car with his pregnant wife and four children for two nights after they could not get emergency accommodation, was awarded $5,000 by Supreme Court Judge John Dixon. The payment to Mr. Murillo was to cover expenses including $520 for four nights accommodation at the Hume Villa Motor Inn, $165 for a replacement couch for one ruined by smoke, and almost $400 for medical expenses. As a result of the fire, Justice Dixon wrote, Mr Murillo was also forced to spend "many hours of physically cleaning the discomforting effect of the emissions from his home". Other residents would get similar small payments for ruined clothing, couches and soft furnishings that Justice Dixon said had been "effectively destroyed by the emissions because of the smell taint". For most of this year SKM, which previously had contracts to process waste for around 30 Victorian councils, has been at the centre of a recycling crisis. In July, it abruptly told councils it would not accept recycling, forcing most to send their waste to landfill. After being placed into receivership in August, SKM is now for sale and has begun taking waste again for Melbourne, Moonee Valley, Brimbank, Hobsons Bay, Port Phillip, Hume and Nillumbik councils. The judge said the fire came after a series of smaller fires in 2017 at the Coolaroo plant had made a large blaze clearly foreseeable. SKM "should have known that a failure to properly store the waste . . . would increase the risk of a fire starting and significantly increase the risk that [it] would spread uncontrollably," Justice Dixon wrote. News of payouts over the 2017 fire came as a council in Melbourne's inner-west secured an injunction against an owner of a warehouse stacked with thousands of tonnes of SKM's unwanted waste. Maribyrnong Council took action in the Sunshine Magistrate's Court against 85 Ashley Pty Ltd, a company that owns a warehouse in Ashley Street, Braybrook. The company was left with about 2000 tonnes of recycling by SKM. The owner of the warehouse is one of five companies left with unwanted waste by SKM Corporate, which was put into liquidation in August. One of the warehouse's owners said they were unaware of the order obtained by the council and that the stored material was not a fire risk. Environment Minister Lily D'Ambrosio, in Tottenham in Melbourne's west on Oct. 7 to announce $1.6 million in grants for technological solutions to reuse or recycle waste, said discussions with warehouse managers continued. Ms D'Ambrosio said SKM's receivers, KordaMentha, had received a "very enthusiastic response" from potential buyers of the recycling business, but did not provide further details. An order for the property owner to meet these measures has been made by the Magistrates Court. [GN] SKYWEST INC: Transfer of Hirst & Tapp Cases to Calif. Court Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motions to transfer the cases ANDREA HIRST, MOLLY STOVER, and EMILY STROBLE SZE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SKYWEST, INC. and SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., Defendants; and CHERYL TAPP, RENEE SITAVICH, SARAH HUDSON, BRANDON COLSON, and BRUNO LOZANO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SKYWEST, INC. and SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., Defendants, Case Nos. 15 C 02036, 15 C 11117 (N.D. Ill.), to the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs commenced the lawsuits in 2015, challenging SkyWest's "block-time" compensation structure for flight attendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and wage and hour laws of several states (Arizona, California, Illinois, and Washington). Initially, the Hirst case was filed in the Northern District of Illinois and the Tapp case in the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs stipulated to transfer the Tapp case to the Illinois District Court. The Tapp case was assigned to the Illinois District Court as related to Hirst, and the two cases have thereafter moved in tandem. After first dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice and permitting repleading, the Illinois Court ultimately dismissed all FLSA claims in both cases and held that the Dormant Commerce Clause precluded their state law wage claims. It entered final judgment on behalf of SkyWest in November 2017, and the Plaintiffs appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims but reinstated their state law claims. The parties filed petitions for writs of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court and requested to stay proceedings pending the Illinois Court's ruling on those petitions. Both petitions were denied, and the Illinois Court lifted the stay on June 27, 2019. Meanwhile, in February 2019, another action by SkyWest flight attendants, asserting wage claims under California law, was filed in the Superior Court of San Francisco. SkyWest removed to the Northern District of California the case captioned Wilson et al. v. SkyWest et al., No. 3:19-CV-01491-VC, and then filed a motion to transfer the Wilson case to the Northern District of Illinois. SkyWest withdrew that transfer motion, however, in light of the Ninth Circuit's authority prohibiting courts from considering the claims of the putative class members for purposes of determining venue prior to class certification. Shortly after the Illinois Court lifted the stay of proceedings in the Hirst and Tapp cases, SkyWest filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML"), seeking to establish a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") proceeding comprising of the three cases and to transfer the Wilson case to the Illinois Court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Three weeks later, the Plaintiffs in both the Hirst and Tapp cases filed the instant motion to transfer their cases to the Northern District of California, where the Wilson case is pending, for consolidated proceedings in that District. The premise of SkyWest's MDL motion is that consolidation of these three cases in a single forum is necessary because the cases involve similar legal claims arising from a common factual context (the operation of SkyWest's "block-time" compensation structure). It would be inconvenient and manifestly unfair, SkyWest maintains, to require it to defend itself against similar claims, brought on behalf of the same employees, on the same theory, in different jurisdictions, potentially resulting in conflicting results. SkyWest also posits that consolidating the three cases would cure the inconvenience to the witnesses -- on both sides -- who would have to repeatedly pause their lives to testify in depositions in multiple jurisdictions 2,000 miles apart. For their part, the Hirst and Tapp Plaintiffs acknowledge that consolidation in a single location is in the interest of judicial economy and cross-district consistency. There is, then, no dispute between the parties about whether consolidating these cases in a single court is appropriate. The parties agree that these cases should be litigated in one forum -- they just disagree about whether that forum should be the Northern District of Illinois or the Northern District of California. And as to that dispute, each side accuses the other of forum shopping. On review, Judge Tharp concludes that the Plaintiffs have not shown that California is clearly more convenient than Illinois to adjudicate the claims in the Tapp case. And because neither the Hirst case nor the Wilson case can be transferred pursuant to Section 1404(a), transferring the Tapp case will not significantly change the circumstances under which SkyWest's compensation structure is litigated; substantial efficiencies and decisional consistency are most likely to be achieved if all three cases are handled in the same forum. As noted at the outset, on this the parties, and the Judge, agree. As that end cannot be achieved by means of Section 1404(a), however, the decision as to whether to consolidate these cases and, if so, where, is for the JPML, Judge Tharp opines. To be clear, however, Judge Tharp views consolidation of these cases to be of greater moment than the location of a consolidated proceeding. Consolidation, whether in the District or the Northern District of California, is preferable to proceeding in both, the Judge says. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Tharp denied the Plaintiffs' motions to transfer. The Parties are directed to proceed with the briefing schedules set for the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended operative complaint and the Defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Illinois District Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/58FoPP from Leagle.com. Cheryl Tapp, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Renee Sitavich, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Sarah Hudson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Brandon Colson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Bruno Lozano, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Dylan S. Hughes -- dsh@classlawgroup.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, Steven Augustine Lopez -- sal@classlawgroup.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Edward A. Wallace , Wexler Wallace LLP, Lisa Anne White -- lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Tyler J. Story, Wexler Wallace LLP & Eric H. Gibbs -- ehg@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP. Skywest, Inc. & Skywest Airlines, Inc., Defendants, represented by Michael D. Ray -- michael.ray@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Jones Day, Colleen Grace DeRosa -- colleen.derosa@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Daniel Oscar Canales, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Rodney A. Harrison -- rodney.harrison@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Clark-Alonso Suit Moved to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Mike Clark-Alonso, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Southwest Airlines Co., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 0971-13740213, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland) on Sept. 26, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case no. 4:19-cv-06113-KAW. To the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Southwest Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and is the world's largest low-cost carrier.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Matthew D. Pearson, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: mpearson@bakerlaw.com SPARK SPORT: Suit Mulled Over Poor Rugby World Cup Streaming ------------------------------------------------------------ Anuja Nadkarni, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that one frustrated Spark Sport viewer has threatened to file class action proceedings against the company for poor streaming of the Rugby World Cup. The creator of the People versus Spark Sport Facebook page has threatened Spark Sport with legal action for not providing a simulcast option for all world cup matches following numerous complaints of glitches, freezing and mixed audio feeds. The woman behind the page has refused to have her identity disclosed because of concerns it could damage her professional interests. She alleged the company had breached the Consumer Guarantees Act and Fair Trading Act by offering a product that was not fit for purpose. "I followed all of [Spark Sport's] steps on their app, we went out and bought a brand new, 2019 LG TV to make sure it would be compatible. We're big rugby fans and didn't want to miss this," she said. "[Taking legal action] is not something anyone wants to do, but they have the ability to simulcast and said they would if there were issues and they're not doing that." She said the class action represented all Spark Sport customers, and those who did not support it, could opt out. Have you been affected? Email anuja.nadkarni@stuff.co.nz The night of the All Blacks versus Springboks game the rugby fan said she had to help troubleshoot the streaming service for her father. "I started ringing around, Spark Sport admitted straight away they were having issues and directed us to watching the game on TVNZ Duke." "I feel terrible for the older people out there who are having troubles, my dad told me he wouldn't have known what to do if I wasn't there." The woman's threatened litigation had garnered numerous comments of support on Facebook. One supporter of the class action on Facebook said Spark Sport had broken its promise. "They promised to make it possible for anyone who paid the appropriate fee able to watch all the games. When that wasn't possible for many they downplayed the numbers of affected, cast aspersions on the IT equipment that those people had and instructed their 'Help Team' to obfuscate by offering ways for people to check their equipment. "In fact, it wasn't the equipment at fault." Another commenter said he would support the lawsuit financially. "I love this, I love that you want to hold Spark accountable. The atmosphere and hype for this world cup in my eyes has been ruined by the delivery and for so many Kiwis to miss out is just absolutely shit. I wish you all the best, I saw a comment suggesting to crowdfund, I'd be happy to donate and share your page." A Spark Sport spokeswoman said it was aware of the proposed lawsuit, but had not yet been provided with any information as to the basis of the claims to be alleged. "Spark is comfortable that we have satisfied our legal obligations," she said. The spokeswoman said Spark Sport could only use its contingency plan if it had noticed a significant breakdown of the platform, as had happened on September 21, during the pool match between the All Blacks and South Africa." "Since that date, we have not had a significant failure or widespread breakdown of streaming availability, so we will not be simulcasting on TVNZ." Following the All Blacks vs Springboks match, Spark Sport has repeatedly said it had not had any streaming problems and that games had been streamed successfully. Yet numerous people have complained of issues on social media. Spark Sport introduced additional customer service measures for viewers who were still experiencing technological issues with the Spark Sport live streaming app. These measures included providing a Freeview SmartVu streaming device free of charge, and visits to a small number of customers so that technicians could perform advanced diagnostics and tests. The Spark Sports spokeswoman said the number of its viewer complaints had declined by 80 per cent between September 21 and September 28 and further since then. "However, we recognise there are still some customers, albeit a small minority, who continue to have issues watching Spark Sport. The best way for these customers to ensure that they can swiftly improve their experience of Spark Sport for the rest of the RWC is to engage directly with us." "So far, the measures that we have put in place have been very successful – while we're not sharing numbers today, 96 per cent of home visits have solved the issue the customer was experiencing (and the remaining 4 per cent were due to the issues being related to broadband infrastructure that need to be resolved by an alternative provider)." She said home visits found the root cause of most problems was poor wi-fi strength and older or underpowered device that Spark Sport did not perform well on. The People versus Spark Sport Facebook page was set up after its founder was blocked from commenting on Spark Sport's Facebook page because she made more than 50 comments over the course of two days. The Spark Sports spokeswoman said she was blocked because she was "inhibiting other customers from receiving help from the Spark Sport team". "This is against our house rules and clearly not in the best interests of customers who had visited the page seeking a resolution." On Oct. 3, the Commerce Commission said it had received 31 complaints about Spark Sport's coverage of the 2019 Rugby World Cup, up from 19 on Oct. 7. Spark Sport said it would keep the watchdog in the loop on the steps it was taking to provide a good service. Consumer New Zealand head of research Jessica Wilson said Spark Sport had a legal obligation under the Consumer Guarantees Act to provide its services with reasonable care and skill, and to ensure those services are fit for purpose. "If you're not getting the streaming service promised, and the problem isn't with your set-up, then Spark needs to put things right. We'd expect it to be offering compensation to affected customers where the problems are clearly the result of failures in its service delivery," Wilson said. "If the company doesn't succeed in fixing problems, customers would be entitled to cancel the contract and request a refund." [GN] SPECIALTY RETAILERS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Slade Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. SPECIALTY RETAILERS, INC. d/b/a Stage.com, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08935 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2019), alleges that Specialty Retailers failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Stage.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Specialty Retailers provides to non-disabled customers. The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer.[BN] Attorneys for 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 SPRINT SAFETY: Lobo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL LOBO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. SPRINT SAFETY, INC and TOTAL SAFETY U.S., INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03934 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 10, 2019) is a claim arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendants violated the FLSA by employing Lobo and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of forty hours at a rate not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which they are or were employed." Moreover, the Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for Lobo and other similarly situated nonexempt employees as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Lobo was employed by Defendants as a Safety Technician from approximately January 2016 until June 2018. Defendants provides industrial safety services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 - and - Samantha Martinez, Esq. MARTINEZ FIRM, PLLC 325 Heights Blvd. Houston, TX 77007 Phone: (713) 333-3270 Facsimile: (713) 333-3275 STRADA SERVICES: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT for Electricians ---------------------------------------------------------------- FREDDIE VARGAS, on his own behalf and on behalf of all electricians, the Plaintiff, vs. STRADA SERVICES, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01842 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Vargas worked as an "electrician" for Defendant in Florida from August 7, 2018 through November 9, 2018. The action is intended to include all "electricians" who worked for the Defendant at any time within the past three years. However, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff time and one half for all hours worked over 40 per week. Estrada Electric is a full service electrical contracting company servicing residential, commercial and industrial customers in Florida for over 20 years.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Louis Montone, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1950 Lee Road, Suite 213 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com lmontone@theleachfirm.com SUBARU OF AMERICA: Settles Starlink Class Action for $6.2 Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Walsh, writing for Cherry Hill Courier-Post, reports that Subaru of America could pay more than to $6.2 million to its customers to settle a lawsuit over an allegedly defective dashboard component. The class action suit targets the Starlink infotainment system, which includes a video screen for a vehicle's back-up camera. It contends "a range of technical glitches" caused the system "to freeze, become non-responsive or otherwise malfunction" in six 2018 Subaru models and one 2017 model. The settlement, which has received preliminary approval from a federal judge in Camden, would offer extended warranty protection, cash and coupons to qualifying motorists. The lawsuit describes the Starlink system as "a touchscreen multimedia and video interface" in the vehicle's center console that "controls the audio and radio system, cellphone connectivity, weather information, navigation and more." In promotional materials, Subaru claims the Starlink system "helps make every drive more entertaining, confident and enjoyable," the lawsuit says. But the suit contends the system frequently "causes extreme headaches (for operators of affected vehicles) and poses a safety risk to operators, passengers and other drivers." The proposed deal would cover 2017-18 Impreza vehicles, as well as 2018 Outback, Forester, Crosstrek, Legacy and BRZ models, with Generation 3.0 Starlink systems made by Harman International Industries. Subaru admits no wrongdoing under the proposed settlement, which was reached after mediation sessions before a retired judge. The deal would extend warranties for the Starlink system to five years or 100,000 miles, according to the Oct. 3 decision from U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler. Camden-based Subaru would offer "monetary compensation" to motorists who previously purchased extended warranty coverage. The auto distributor and its Japanese parent firm, Subaru Corp., also would provide cash or coupon compensation to drivers "who made multiple trips to authorized Subaru dealers complaining of Starlink malfunctions." Drivers could be reimbursed if they had to wait more than one full day to receive a replacement Starlink unit, and "for certain repair-related expenses, including rental car and ride-hailing expenses," according to Kugler's ruling. The lawsuit, filed in November 2018, acknowledged Subaru "has taken several steps to try and fix the defects in the infotainment system, such as issuing software updates." But it said these efforts "have failed to remedy the defect." Some drivers seeking to replace an allegedly defective part in their Starlink system, called the head unit, were told that component was "on backorder for up to six months or even indefinitely," Kugler's ruling said. A spokesperson for Subaru and attorneys for the company's customers could not be reached for immediate comment. The proposed agreement would automatically extend warranties for qualifying motorists. Subaru customers would need to submit claim forms and supporting records to receive monetary compensation. "The parties estimate that the value of these forms of relief will exceed $6,250,000," Kugler's ruling says. The judge will decide on final approval for the proposed deal at a future hearing. [GN] SUNRIDGE NURSERIES: EEOC Sues over Unlawful Employment Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, the Plaintiff, vs. SUNRIDGE NURSERIES, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-25 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-at-00691 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2019), seeks to correct unlawful retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to a group of workers including Marcelino Cadiz, Jerold Cadiz, Melicio Cadiz, Anabelle Cadiz, Aleli Cadiz and a class of similarly situated employees under the Civil Rights Act. The case asserts that Defendant subjected the claimants to retaliation in violation of Title VII for internally opposing discrimination by complaining verbally and in writing to Sunridge and externally opposing discrimination by filing charges with the Commission. Since at least 2014, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices, including refusing to hire or rehire the Claimants because they engaged in protected activities. Cadiz et al. were all employed by Defendant continuously during the rootstock and vinestock harvesting seasons: a. Marcelino Cadiz began working for Sunridge in 1982; b. Aleli Cadiz began working for Sunridge in 1987; c. Melecio Cadiz began working for Sunridge in 1987; d. Annabelle Cadiz began working for Sunridge in 2012; and e. Jerold Cadiz began working for Sunridge in 2012. According to the complaint, the Defendant Sunridge's ordinary practice was to contact one or more of Cadiz et al. every year at the start of a season to rehire all of them for seasonal employment. Cadiz et al. each only applied for a position when they were initially hired. Thereafter, Sunridge initiated the contact each season for rehire. Starting in December of 2011 and continuing until Spring of 2014, Cadiz et al. collectively verbally complained of racial discrimination on a continuous basis. They verbally complained to Joaquin Perez, Hugo Gomez, and others. The verbal complaints of racial discrimination related to the treatment of Filipino employees being treated differently from non-Filipino workers in pay, assignments, and working conditions, among other things. The Claimants continued to be given the worst rows, continued to be the first to be dismissed, continued not to be recalled to work after stoppages, and continued to be given lower-paying assignment than non-Filipino workers. Cadiz et al. submitted a written complaint to Sunridge in February or March of 2014, complaining of the working conditions faced by the Filipino employees, the lawsuit says. Sunridge is primarily in the business of propagating and grafting grape nursery stock. the company is based in Bakersfield and operates more than 600 acres of rootstock, scionwood increase blocks, and outdoor nursery blocks. Sunridge has continuously been a California corporation doing business in Kern County, State of California, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Anna Y. Park, Esq. Sue J. Noh, Esq. James R. Mugridge, Esq. U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 255 East Temple Street, Fourth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-1083 Facsimile: (213) 894-1301 E-Mail: lado.legal@eeoc.gov SUSQUEHANNA VILLAGE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Knapp FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert D. Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's complaint in WILMA KNAPP, Plaintiff, v. SUSQUEHANNA VILLAGE FACILITY OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-CV-1941 (M.D. Pa.). On Oct. 8, 2018, Plaintiff Knapp, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Plaintiffs, filed the class action lawsuit against Defendant Susquehanna, alleging that the Defendant breached its contractual obligation when it unilaterally eliminated its employees' accumulated sick and vacation leave (Count I), and that, by breaching its contractual obligation, the Defendant violated the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL") (Count II). Pled in the alternative, Knapp's Complaint also alleges, based on the Defendant's elimination of its employees' accumulated sick and vacation leave, promissory estoppel (Count III) and unjust enrichment (Count IV). Defendant Susquehanna operates nursing, assisted living, and rehabilitation facilitates throughout several states. It operated a nursing home in Millersburg, PA, which employed over 50 individuals. Plaintiff Knapp worked as a nurse at the Millersburg, PA Facility at an hourly pay rate of $26.66. The Defendant distributed an "Employee Guidebook" to all employees that provided employees with an overview of the Defendant's policies. The Guidebook states sick leave is accrued at a rate equal to 10 days per year, there is no maximum cap for the number of sick days employees may carry-over and earn. It also states employees may carry over unused vacation days up to a maximum of two times their annual accrual amount. Each pay period, the Susquehanna Village Facility Operations employees' pay stubs reflected the aggregate number of sick leave and vacation leave hours earned by and available to each employee. Knapp and other employees received the Guidebook and earned, accumulated, and used sick leave and vacation leave pursuant to the policies enumerated in the Guidebook throughout their employment with Susquehanna Village Facilities Operations. By mid-September 2017, Knapp had accumulated 1,019 hours of sick leave and 120 hours of vacation leave. Knapp alleges that these hours carry a monetary value of approximately $30,365.74. Throughout her employment, Knapp understood that she was accumulating sick and vacation time pursuant to the policy articulated in the Guidebook based on the tally of aggregate earned leave time appearing on Knapp's pay stubs and by the Defendant's actual course of conduct in administering the leave program. She relied on the understanding and, as a result, did not pursue other employment opportunities because changing employers would result in the loss of many years of earned leave time that she understood would be available to her in her time of need. In 2017, the Defendant informed Knapp and other employees that their earned and accumulated leave time was being eliminated in order to facilitate its sale of the Millersburg Facility to a nursing home company called Priority Healthcare Group. Thereafter, each employee's accrued sick leave and vacation was summarily and unilaterally wiped-out and no consideration was offered or paid. Knapp alleges that the Defendant's unilateral elimination of its employees' earned and accumulated vacation and sick leave time enabled the Defendant to sell the facility for a higher purchase price than the price that would have been realized had the Defendant's leave time liabilities been honored. Susquehanna thereafter filed a Motion to Dismiss. It moves to dismiss all four Counts of Knapp's Complaint, asserting a failure to meet the pleading standard of Ashcroft v. Iqbal. It further contends that the dismissal of Knapp's claims also requires dismissal of the underlying class action suit. Judge Mariani denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with respect to Count I. He concludes that, taking the allegations in Knapp's Complaint as true and drawing every inference in Knapp's favor, it is plausible that a contract with respect to the accrued sick leave and vacation time existed, and that the contract was breached when the Defendant summarily eliminated the accrued sick leave and vacation time. The Defendant has not met its burden to show that no claim has been stated. Because the Court has concluded that Knapp has sufficiently pled a breach of contract claim, Judge Mariani also concludes that Knapp has sufficiently pled a WPCL claim. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with respect to Count II is therefore denied. Judge Mariani also denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with respect to Count III. He concludes that Knapp has sufficiently pled a promissory estoppel claim. Because the Defendant's promise with respect to sick leave and vacation time may be collateral to Knapp's at-will status, her at-will status does not necessarily preclude a claim for promissory estoppel. Additionally, the Defendant's argument that Knapp failed to plead detrimental reliance is unfounded, the Court opines. Knapp reasonably alleges that she relied on Defendant's promise, given the circumstances that gave rise to the claimed reliance. The Judge further denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to Count IV. He concludes that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts to sustain an unjust enrichment claim. Knapp's Complaint sets forth the necessary allegations to plead a claim for unjust enrichment. If taken as true, the allegations in Knapp's Complaint suggest that Knapp conferred a benefit on Susquehanna by working and foregoing other employment opportunities, which Knapp was rewarded with accrued vacation and sick leave. The Defendant argued that a finding that the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) disqualifies her as a proper class representative, and without a class representative who has standing to bring an action against the Defendant, there can be no class action. Because the Court concludes that the Plaintiff's Complaint did not fail to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Judge Mariani rejects the Defendant's argument that the class action must be dismissed and denied they Defendant's motion on this basis. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mariani denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/TrcPh5 from Leagle.com. Wilma Knapp, Plaintiff, represented by Mark J. Gottesfeld -- mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Peter Winebrake -- pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC & R. Andrew Santillo -- asantillo@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC. Susquehanna Village Facility Operations, LLC, Defendant, represented by Adam Michael Barnes -- abarnes@walshlegal.net -- Walsh Barnes Collis & Zumpella, P.C.. TARTE, INC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Traynor Says --------------------------------------------------------- YASEEN TRAYNOR A/K/A YASEEN TRAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TARTE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08879 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people; and that Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, 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. Because Defendant's website, www.tartecosmetics.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Russel Weinrib, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com TRANSUNION INTERACTIVE: Site not Accessible to Blind, Traylor Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ YASEEN TRAYNOR A/K/A YASEEN TRAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TRANSUNION INTERACTIVE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08961 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2019), seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. 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 Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Russel Weinrib, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com UBER TECH: Shortchanges Drivers' Expense Reimbursements, Says Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ James Calabrese, Gregory Cabanillas and Matthew Mechanic, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-18371 (D. N.J., September 25, 2019), seeks all available relief for unpaid minimum wages unpaid overtime wages and unreimbursed business expenses pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, New Jersey Wage and Hour Regulations, the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a transportation services company that provides drivers who can be hailed and dispatched through a mobile phone application. Raiser, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber and handles and processes all payments to Uber drivers. Plaintiffs are Uber drivers who provide on-demand transportation services for Uber. Defendant allegedly under-reimbursed its drivers for vehicular wear and tear, gas, tolls, airport fees, and other driving-related expenses, thereby reducing their net pay below the minimum wage rate. [BN]. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH LLC 363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C Montclair, NJ 07042 Tel: (973) 259-6990 Fax: (866) 848-1368 Email: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com UNITED STATES: Patent Office Seeks Dismissal of SAWS Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Brachmann, writing for IPWatchdog, reports that on Sept. 26, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office filed a motion to dismiss a class action complaint filed by two inventors alleging violations of the Privacy Act created by the agency's handling of its Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS). The USPTO is seeking a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim, arguing that application flags under the SAWS program don't concern individual patent applicants and that omission of those flags from patent application files isn't the proximate cause of adverse determinations such as increased scrutiny holding up patent grants. The case was first filed this June in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Paul Morinville and Gil Hyatt, two inventors who allege that they have filed patent applications on inventions that they believe to have been flagged by the SAWS program. Morinville is an inventor on nine patents who has had 26 patent applications pending at the USPTO since February 2000. Hyatt is listed as an inventor on 70 patent applications and has had patent applications pending at the agency since 1990. Hyatt was first informed that he had patent applications flagged by the SAWS system in June 2017, more than two years after the USPTO officially retired the SAWS program. SAWS Flags: A Scarlet Letter Worn by Patent Applications "A SAWS flag served as a scarlet letter for patent applications, alerting PTO personnel that a flagged application was considered to be an abusive 'submarine' application or otherwise objectionable,'" the original complaint reads. Scrutiny under the SAWS program has led to delays in the issuance of patent grants on purported bases that have never been disclosed to patent applicants, rendering applicants unable to dispute the grounds on which their applications have been included in the SAWS program. By withholding documents pertaining to SAWS flags and reports from application files, plaintiffs allege that the USPTO has violated the Privacy Act's mandate that federal agencies maintain records related to determinations made about individuals that are required to assure fairness to those individuals. Plaintiffs Morinville and Hyatt are representing the class of all patent applicants whose applications have been flagged by SAWS at any time since the program was developed in 1994 until it was retired in March 2015. Inventors who have encountered the SAWS program's impacts on their own patent applications have understandably been vexed by the situation. One inventor's account published on this website in December 2014 explained that he was told by his patent examiner that a patent couldn't be granted on his patent application because it was flagged by the SAWS program. Despite being told by USPTO officials that the flag only meant that his examiner was receiving help for applying examination standards on the flagged patent application, his patent examiner was receiving no such help. In fact, despite the examiner granting an allowance that was approved by that examiner's supervisor, the USPTO rejected the patent application because of its inclusion in the SAWS program. Further digging into the reasons behind the SAWS flag indicated that the patent application was rejected because the claimed invention read on Apple's iTunes Store despite the fact that the patent application claimed a priority filing date in 1999, several years before Apple introduced the iTunes Store service. USPTO Refutes Inventors' Privacy Act Claims In its recent motion to dismiss, the USPTO noted that patent applications could be deemed "sensitive" under SAWS if they claimed subject matter that could be considered politically or ethically controversial. Reasons for shuttering the SAWS program included the facts that the SAWS program had only been "marginally utilized and provide[d] minimal benefit," said the USPTO. The Office contends that Morinville and Hyatt have failed to state a claim because SAWS flags and reports provide information on the substance of patent applications, not the individual inventors themselves, and that the SAWS information itself, and not the omission of that information from patent applicant files, is what plaintiffs allege have caused the adverse determinations of patent grant delay and inability to receive patent grants. The USPTO's arguments that the SAWS flags and reports aren't "record[s] concerning an individual" are premised on two previous cases: Tobey v. NLRB, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in December 1994; and Fisher v. National Institutes of Health, decided by the District Court for the District of Columbia in August 1996. Under Tobey, the USPTO argues that "records" under the Privacy Act must be about an individual and contain that individual's name "or other identifying particular." Fisher further limited determinations regarding information "about an individual" when it held that annotations in medical literature databases maintained by the NIH were about the articles themselves and not their authors, even when those annotations indicated information about the authors themselves. Following this precedent, the USPTO alleged that patent application files are about the inventions and not the inventors themselves, thus they don't constitute "records" under the Privacy Act. Although the USPTO includes a Privacy Act notice in the patent application files, the agency contends that the notice primarily relates to the inventor's oath and excludes the scope of the other parts of the files that describe the claimed invention. Because the SAWS flags were issued due to the identity of the invention and not the inventor, the USPTO argues that the plaintiffs don't have a Privacy Act claim, regardless if the reasons for an invention being flagged could be seen as pejorative to inventors. The USPTO further alleges that, to make a claim for damages under the Privacy Act, a plaintiff must show that agency reliance on inaccurate records "was the proximate cause of an adverse determination;" the agency claims that the harm shown by Morinville and Hyatt neither amounts to the adverse determination nor was it caused by reliance on the patent application file without the SAWS flags and reports. Although the plaintiffs have numerous claims about how the SAWS program prejudiced the prosecution of their patent applications, the USPTO contends that they haven't claimed that the lack of adequate records was itself the cause of an adverse determination. The agency notes that it's plausible that plaintiffs could claim that the omission of SAWS information from the patent application files prevented them from contesting their classification as "sensitive," but that the plaintiffs didn't allege such determinations in their complaint but rather delays and procedural burdens in the prosecution process. "Even assuming the confidential nature of the SAWS program may have prevented Plaintiffs from disputing the classification of their patent applications and pretermitting the delay and additional layers of review attendant to SAWS review, prosecution delay and additional quality checks are not 'adverse determinations.' At most, they are 'adverse effects' of SAWS materials remaining confidential." How Can an Inventor Adequately Challenge a Secret Determination? That a SAWS flag creates serious adverse effects on a patentee is a fact that is little in doubt. Keeping such information confidential from prospective patentees renders them unable to challenge the SAWS determination, which can be fatal to their case if that determination is the reason why their patent application has been rejected. Morinville appealed the rejection of one of his patent applications that was likely targeted by SAWS to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In July 2018, he filed an opening brief in which he noted that the patent at issue, first filed in December 2004, had survived nine prior rejections: once under Section 101; twice under Section 102; four times under Section 103; and twice under Section 112. Morinville appealed another Section 101 rejection, arguing that the patent examiner had already found an inventive concept to survive the earlier 101 rejection and that the invention logically couldn't cover a "well-established business practice" if it survived Section 102 novelty and Section 103 obviousness challenges. This April, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's rejection of Morinville's patent claims. Although it's not confirmed that this particular patent application has been flagged by SAWS, the long delay in examination and questionable basis for rejection would seem to fit the fact pattern. If the inability to challenge a SAWS determination is a detriment to patent owners, that issue is greatly exacerbated by the incredible delays caused by a process that becomes ever more expensive just to maintain a patent application that the USPTO doesn't want to grant, as Morinville's July 2018 opening brief at the Federal Circuit makes clear: "To put this long and tortured prosecution history into real-world perspective, when I filed the '557 Application, my daughter had just started kindergarten. As of the date of this brief, my daughter has completed her first year as a freshman at Baylor University. I have spent more money on the prosecution and appeals of this patent application than I will spend on my daughter's entire college education." Of course, in the USPTO's view, an interminable delay in the issue of a patent grant is a reality that any patent applicant must be prepared to handle. "There is no legal right to a decision on patentability within a certain time frame, or to a particular set of PTO procedures in the review of patent applications," the USPTO argued in its motion to dismiss. The agency noted that Hyatt himself had previously failed on similar arguments in a separate case on unreasonable examination delays that was brought under the Administrative Procedures Act. "The Court explained that 'PTO is under no legal obligation to cause an expeditious -- or even an efficient -- examination of a patent application,'" the USPTO's motion reads. [GN] VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: 67 Names in Emissions Scandal to Stay Secret -------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Bonyhady, writing for The Age, reports that the identities of 67 people allegedly involved in the Volkswagen emissions cheating scandal that rocked the car industry will remain secret after their names were suppressed by an Australian judge. Federal Court Justice Lindsay Foster warned "very serious" criminal trials in the United States and Germany could be prejudiced if the identities of the 67, who worked for or were connected to Volkswagen, were revealed. Justice Foster's decision means consumers will have to wait until more proceedings are launched overseas to learn the identities of many of those allegedly involved in one of the world's largest corporate scandals in recent years. The global car company was forced to tell the court the names as part of five class-action lawsuits it faced in Australia over the so-called "Dieselgate" scandal, in which some Volkswagen cars were fitted with a software "defeat device" between 2009 and 2015. Volkswagen settled the class actions, brought by law firms Bannister Law and Maurice Blackburn, in mid-September for a figure that could rise to as high as $127 million, but did not admit liability. Cars with the defeat device produced artificially low emissions readings when tested by authorities compared with their real-world performance. Volkswagen, which owns other car makers including Audi, Porsche and Skoda, has already paid out about EUR30 billion ($48 billion) globally in fines, compensation and legal costs as a result of the scandal. It disclosed in the Australian court documents that the 67 people were "involved in some way in the development, installation, modification or approval of the switching or 2-mode software installed in . . . [the] affected vehicles". Of those, Justice Foster found, five had already been indicted in Germany with indictments of a further 27 likely. Others are formal suspects in ongoing investigations. The judge found that, if those people were publicly named as among those Volkswagen believed were "involved in the development of the impugned software", lay judges in Germany or jury members in the US "would find it difficult to place that fact out of ... mind" when deciding their cases. The class actions alleged Volkswagen and its other brands misleadingly claimed their vehicles complied with emissions standards when some cars did not. Among other remedies, the class-action members wanted damages to make up for the drop in the value of their vehicles they say they have experienced as a result of the scandal. Volkswagen and the other defendants denied those claims on various grounds, but settled the cases with a payout of $1400 a car. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and a group of other claimants also filed claims against the company. Some of Volkswagen's most senior executives, including its chairman, chief executive and a former chief executive have been charged overseas in relation to the scandal and more than 400,000 people have signed up to a class action in Germany. The executives deny the charges against them and Volkswagen is defending the German claim. [GN] WAITR HOLDINGS: Docs on Going Public Deal Misleading, Welch Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- WALTER WELCH, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHRISTOPHER MEAUX, DAVID PRINGLE, JEFF YURECKO, TILMAN J. FERTITTA, RICHARD HANDLER, WAITR HOLDINGS, INC. f/k/a LANDCADIA HOLDINGS, INC., JEFFERIES FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., and JEFFERIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01260 (W.D. La., Sept. 26, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act, and/or Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with Old-Waitr's going public transaction and business combination on November 15, 2018, with Landcadia Holdings, Inc., and the follow-on secondary offering on May 16, 2019 of Waitr securities. According to the lawsuit, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements that were published into the market from May 17, 2018 to August 8. As investors ultimately learned following the end of the Class Period, the statements contained in or incorporated in the May 17, 2018 Proxy Statement and the November 19, 2018 Registration Statement -- Going Public Transaction Proxy/Prospectus Filings -- issued in connection with the Going Public Transaction, were each materially false and misleading for these reasons, among others: -- At the time Waitr began trading publicly it was not true that the Company was on the verge of profitability, because Defendants had artificially bolstered profits and revenues by unilaterally raising prices in breach of customer contracts and by failing to properly reimburse drivers for mileage expenses; -- At the time Waitr began trading publicly it was not true that it was providing its services at a sustainable low take rate established at 15%; -- At the time Waitr began trading publicly it was not true that Waitr was able to extract efficiencies from its full time fixed-rate labor force that was purported to allow the Company to offer its services at a lower rate than competitors; -- At the time Waitr began trading publicly, it was not true that its financial statements and SEC reports or its Sarbanes Oxley certifications were true, accurate or reliable; -- At the time Waitr began trading publicly, contrary to Defendants' representations, its software provided little or no competitive advantages and what first-mover advantage the Company claimed existed, was quickly squandered by the inability to obtain sophisticated high-level programmers and software engineers who could enable Waitr to refine and develop the software necessary to stay competitive in its market; and -- As a result of the aforementioned adverse conditions that Defendants failed to disclose, at the time Waitr began trading, Defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Waitr was operating according to plan, or that Waitr could achieve guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by Defendants. Nor was it true that Waitr maintained an adequate system of internal controls so as to report and eliminate material conflicts of interest. Desperate to create revenues, as soon as a public market for Waitr shares existed, the Defendants immediately announced plans to acquire Bite Squad using $100 million of stock as currency in the transaction. The Bite Squad acquisition was conducted with little or no due diligence and with disregard for the fact that Bite Squad's haphazard structure, caused as a result of it being cobbled together through 17 other acquisitions, was not consistent with Waitr's "contiguous growth" model, whereby the Company grew in an orderly, regional contiguous expansion. The Bite Squad acquisition also meant digesting a company of equal size -- a difficult task under ideal circumstances for even experienced management. As investors would also soon discover, the Defendants were entirely unable to integrate Bite Squad and now have to run two poorly managed, money losing operations with little regional overlap and few "synergies." The first full quarter of Bite Squad's operating results revealed the weakness in its operations. Also, as a result of its operational problems and increased costs and disruptions caused by the Bite Squad merger, Waitr was burning through cash at an alarming rate. The Company had approximately $123 million of debt and was operating with significantly negative EBITDA.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Matthew E. Lundy, Esq. LUNDY, LUNDY, SOILEAU & SOUTH, LLP 501 Broad Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (337) 439-0707 Facsimile: (337) 439-1029 E-mail: mlundy@lundylawllp.com - and - Melinda A. Nicholson, Esq. Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. Michael J. Palestina, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 Email: Melinda.Nicholson@ksfcounsel.com Lewis.Kahn@ksfcounsel.com Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com WESCO AIRCRAFT: Monteverde & Associates Files Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC on Oct. 5 disclosed that it has filed an amended complaint lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:19-cv-08528, on behalf of public common shareholders of Wesco Aircraft Holdings, Inc., ("Wesco" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: WAIR) who held Wesco securities as of the record date on September 9, 2019 (the "Class Period"), and have been harmed by Wesco's and its board of directors' (the "Board) alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in regarding its acquisition by indirect subsidiaries of funds managed and advised by Platinum Equity Advisors, LLC ("Platinum"). Under the terms of the transaction, each share of Wesco common stock will be converted into the right to receive $11.05 in cash. The complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration is inadequate and that the Proxy Statement provided shareholders with materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company's financials and the Merger, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In particular, the complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement contained materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the sales process leading up to the Proposed Transaction; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by Wesco's financial advisors, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan Stanley") and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC ("J.P. Morgan") regarding the Proposed Transaction; and (iii) the nature of the work Morgan Stanley provided Platinum and its affiliates in the two years prior to the date of its fairness opinion for Wesco. The special meeting of Wesco stockholders to vote on the Merger will be October 24, 2019. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 4, 2019. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/wesco-aircraft-holdings-inc. It is free and three is no cost or obligation to you. Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017- 2019 an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017- 2019 Top Rated Lawyer. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] WILMINGTON TRUST: Henry Files ERISA Class Action in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ MARLOW HENRY, on behalf of the BSC Ventures Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., BRIAN C. SASS, and E. STOCKTON CROFT IV, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01925-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 10, 2019) is a suit against Wilmington Trust, N.A., the trustee for the BSC Ventures Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan when the Plan acquired shares of BSC Ventures Holdings, Inc. in 2016, and against selling shareholders Brian C. Sass and E. Stockton Croft IV. This action is brought under Sections 404, 406, 409, 410, and 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, for losses suffered by the Plan and its participants caused by Wilmington Trust when it caused the Plan to buy shares of BSC for more than fair market value in 2016 and other relief. The Plan has been injured and its participants have been deprived of hard-earned retirement benefits resulting from Defendants' violations of ERISA, asserts the complaint. BSC was a privately held company and a party in interest to the Plan. On January 14, 2016, the Plan purchased 809,892 shares of BSC's common stock, representing 100% of the outstanding shares, for $50 million, which was financed by $3.45 million cash and a note payable to BSC of $46.55 million bearing a 2.65% interest rate with a final payment due December 2045. At that time, BSC became 100% employee owned. Wilmington Trust represented the Plan and its participants as Trustee in the ESOP Transaction. It had sole and exclusive authority to negotiate the terms of the ESOP Transaction on the Plan's behalf. The ESOP Transaction allowed the Selling Shareholders to unload their interests in BSC above fair market value and saddle the Plan with tens of millions of dollars of debt over a 30- year repayment period to finance the Transaction, the complaint asserts. Wilmington Trust failed to fulfill its ERISA duties, as Trustee and fiduciary, to the Plan and its participants, including Plaintiff. Brian C. Sass and E. Stockton Croft IV, the Selling Shareholders, are parties in interest who sold shares in the ESOP Transaction. The Selling Shareholders are liable under ERISA for participating in the prohibited transactions and in Wilmington Trust's breaches of fiduciary duty, the complaint says. Plaintiff brings this action to recover the losses incurred by the Plan, and thus by each individual account in the Plan held by Plaintiff and similarly situated participants, resulting from Wilmington Trust's engaging in, and causing the Plan to engage in, prohibited transactions under ERISA, and breaching its fiduciary duties under ERISA, and the Selling Shareholders' participation in these violations. Plaintiff is a participant in the Plan, as defined by ERISA. Wilmington Trust is a trust company chartered in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com - and - Daniel Feinberg, Esq. Todd Jackson, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Phone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 Email: dan@feinbergjackson.com todd@feinbergjackson.com - and - David A. Felice, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP Red Clay Center at Little Falls 2961 Centerville Road, Suite 302 Wilmington, DE 19808 Phone: (302) 504-6333 Facsimile: (302) 504-6334 Email: dfelice@baileyglasser.com WORLD TRAVEL HOLDINGS: Betit Sues Over Illegal Email Ads -------------------------------------------------------- Amy Betit, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. World Travel Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-62394 (S.D. Fla., September 25, 2019), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of Florida's Electronic Mail Communications Act. World Travel offers package tours and cruise line tickets. Betit has never provided them with her email address. Yet, in September 24, 2019, World Travel sent her an e-mail offering a discounted tour package. [BN] American Directions is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Thomas J. Patti, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com XPRESSCAPITALGROUP.COM: Schlesigner Suit Moved to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as BRIAN SCHLESINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JOSHUA COLLINS, an individual, d/b/a/ XPRESSCAPITALGROUP.COM, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-03483 (Filed June 18, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa) on Sept. 26, 2019. The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-02392-VMC-TGW to the proceeding. The suit:demands $5 million in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to stop its unconsented calling, as well as an award of actual and statutory fines to the Class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Collins sells business capital loans. As a primary part of his marketing efforts, the Defendant and his agents placed thousands of automated calls employing a prerecorded voice message to consumers' cell phones nationwide. Unfortunately, the Defendant did not obtain consent prior to placing these calls and, therefore, are in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Mark Louis Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 480 S. Ellsworth Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 648-0705 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***