/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191101.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 1, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 219 Headlines 180 EXPRESS: Denied Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay, Gil Suit Says 50 EGGS INC: Duque Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages AETNA LIFE: Curtis Class Suit Seeks Redress for ERISA Breach ALLERGAN INC: Faces Doe Suit in N.Y. Over BIOCELL Breast Implants ALLIANCE FUNDING: Appeals Decision in Vandenberg Suit to 6th Cir. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Landy Suit Alleging of Violation TCPA ALOHA POOL: Dunsavage Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ALTRIA GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline APPLEBEE'S: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ARG RESOURCES: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT: Shortchanges Resto Staff's Wages, Says Suit AUTOMAX FINANCIAL: Medina Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA BARRICK GOLD: Drywall Acoustic 675 Fund's $3BB Suit Gets Go Signal BED BATH & BEYOND: Delacruz Files ADA Class Action in NY BEN & JERRY'S: Misrepresents Ice Cream Products, Ehlers Alleges BEST BUY CO: Delacruz Files Class Suit Under ADA BHRAGS HOME CARE: Jean Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Wage Statements BLUE CROSS: Houston Home Hits Illegal Price-fixing Scheme BURGER KING: Mendez Brings ADA Class Suit in NY BURTON CLAIM: Sloan Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA CAPITAL BUILDING: Moreno Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Wilmore Sues Over Racial Discrimination CHEMOURS COMPANY: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Violates ADA, Thorne Suit Asserts CITIZENS BANK: McAuliffe Suit Removed to Mass. Dist. Ct. CLICK SALES: Faces Acosta Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Fennel Disputes Debt in Collection Letter CORNERSTONE SUPPORT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lewis Claims CRICUT INC: Reid Sues Over ADA Breach CURO MANAGEMENT: Johnson Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Inquiries CVS HEALTH: Thorne Brings ADA Class Action in New York DELTA DENTAL: Fisher Sues Over Dental Insurance Antitrust Claims DENNY'S CORPORATION: Faces Tucker ADA Class Suit in New York DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Calcano Class Suit Under ADA EAGLE OILFIELD: Azure Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA EVER AND COMPANY: Winston Seeks Overtime Pay for Accountants EXPRESS INC: Faces Tucker Suit for ADA Breach FIESTA LATINA: Mendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FORD MOTOR CO: F-150 Owners Sue Over Erroneous Fuel Economy Ratings FRITO-LAY INC: Ct. Certifies Class in Sanchez; Settlement OK Denied GAMESTOP CORP: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GENERAL ELECTRIC: Breached Duties on BHI Merger, Providence Says GEO GROUP: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Puga Suit Alleges GILA LLC: Faces Federal Class Action for Overcharging Tolls GROUPON INC: 7th Cir. Gives Limited Remand on Instagram Suit HARO BICYCLE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HOLLISTER CO: Tucker Sues Over Inaccessible Store Gift Cards IHOP RESTAURANTS: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN: Abbott Suit Removed to C.D. California JD'S TOWING: Glenn Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA JUUL LABS INC: M.D. Suit Transferred to N.D. California KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: Faces Class Action for Overcharging Tolls KEY FIRE: Parham Seeks Overtime Wages for Construction Workers KRISPY KREME: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KUYKENDAHL COUNTRY: Javed Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LABRA TELECOM: Reyes Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LAND ORIGINS: Arias FLSA Suit Removed to District of New Jersey LANDS END INC: Airline Staff Sue Over Substandard Uniforms LAZER SPOT: Boyd Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MCT RESTAURANTS: O'Neill Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages MDL 2913: Nessmith v. JUUL over E-cigarettes Consolidated MDL 2915: Zosiak Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated METROPOLITAN LIFE: Miller Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Cir. MGM SPRINGFIELD: Faces Connors Wage and Hour Suit in D. Mass. MITCHELL RESTAURANT: Fabelo Seeks Unpaid OT Pay, Wage Statements MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Perry Claims MYRIAD GENETICS: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Class Action Suit MYRIAD GENETICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action NHK SPRING: Faces Integrity Suit Alleging Hard Drive Price Fixing NIPPON TRENDS: Faces Damian Suit for Failing to Pay Proper Wages NORDSTROM INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NORTH CAROLINA: Hodge Seeks Unpaid Wages for Corrections Officers OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PANERA LLC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PEAK DEBT: Faces Phan Suit Alleging Violation of Consumer Laws PICK 6 TAHOE: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Johnson Suit Says PRO HARVESTING: Vasquez Seeks Proper Wages for Farm Labor Help QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Faces Mantha Suit Over Telemarketing Calls RED WING: Illegally Prints Debit/Credit Card Nos., Southam Says SAM HOUSTON: Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted in Berry Suit SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Sherman Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. SEMGROUP CORP: Faces Lawrence Suit Over Energy Transfer Merger SEPHORA USA INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Franchi Sues Over Decline of IPO Price SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit STEKLEN & WALKER: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TALIA'S RESTAURANT: Hamilton Seeks to Recover Wages, Tips TARGET CORPORATION: Delacruz Files Suit Under Disabilities Act TENCENT MUSIC: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Nov. 25 Deadline TESLA INC: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Wilson Wage and Hour Suit THESY LLC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TIM HORTON'S: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TRADER JOE'S: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TUTELIAN & CO: Jimenez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks ULTA BEAUTY: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNILEVER: Culver Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Mustard Products UNILEVER: Stewart Files Fraud Class Suit VIEWRAY INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of Nov. 12 Plaintiff Deadline VIEWRAY INC: Rosen Reminds Investors of Nov. 12 Plaintiff Deadline VILLA PARK, IL: Ferrill Wants Parking Tickets Deemed Invalid VTS STAFFING: Robinson Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Employees WALGREENS BOOTS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WEGMAN FOODS: Class Action Claims Vanilla Ice Cream a 'Fraud' WWF OPERATING: Hyde Hits Artificial Vanilla Flavor in Drink [*] Restaurants Back Law that Would Curb Class Suits by Servers Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,461 Bendix Claims vs. Honeywell Still Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 118 Pending Talc Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BonDurant Claims vs. Gould Electronics Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. Ct. App. Remands Linsowe Case for New Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Still Pending at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Colvin's Case Reversed On Appeal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.5BB Bendix Liabilities at Sept.30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.4-Bil. Liabilities at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $895MM NARCO Liabilities at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. App. Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss Leavitt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Defends PI Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Vazquez Case Stayed Pending Appeal ASBESTOS UPDATE: WCERS Voluntarily Drops SEC Charges vs. Honeywell ********* 180 EXPRESS: Denied Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay, Gil Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lazaro Garcia Gil, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lukakila Cafe Inc., Declan Morrison and John Moloney, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-05592 (S.D. N.Y., October 2, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for Defendants' failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control a bar, "Austin Public House" located at 70-28A Austin Street, Forest Hills where Gil has been employed as a cook. He claims to have spent in excess of forty hours per week but did not receive overtime pay for this. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 50 EGGS INC: Duque Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Duque, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 50 EGGS, INC., a Florida for-profit corporation, SOUTHERN OPERATIONS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and JOHN KUNKEL, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24455-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff alleges that he and those similarly situated, were required to share their tips with employees, who were not customarily and regularly tipped, such as dishwashers, in an illegal tip-sharing scheme in violation of the FLSA. He also alleges that he and those similarly situated were regularly required to engage in non-tip-producing sidework, in excess of twenty percent of their work time. He adds that he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per seven-day week and was denied applicable minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA. Mr. Duque worked as a tipped employee (server) for the Defendants from August 2017 to August 2019. The Defendants operated a restaurant known as Yardbird restaurant located at 1600 Lenox Avenue, in Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305.358.6800 Fax: 305.358.6808 Email: robert@kuvinlaw.com AETNA LIFE: Curtis Class Suit Seeks Redress for ERISA Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS E. CURTIS, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:19-cv-01579-VLB (D. Conn., Oct. 8, 2019), is brought pursuant to the Employee Income Retirement Security Act to redress Aetna's breach of its obligations to administer the Plaintiff's and other class members' claims for benefits under their ERISA group medical benefits plans in accordance with the plans' provisions. Mr. Curtis is a beneficiary of a group medical benefits plan established by Yale University for its employees and their beneficiaries. The plan (the "Yale Plan") is an employee benefit plan subject to ERISA. Claims administration for the Yale Plan is provided by Defendant Aetna, a Connecticut corporation that performs claims administration services for ERISA plans funded by third party employers (such as Yale), as well as for ERISA plans that Aetna or its affiliated companies directly insure. According to the complaint, Aetna has violated the fundamental requirement of ERISA claims administration by denying benefits to plan members based upon the definitions of "medically necessary" contained in a series of internal Aetna Clinical Policy Bulletins that are not a part of, or incorporated in, any of the ERISA plans and that modify and limit, to plan members' detriment, the plans' definition of "medically necessary." Aetna is a corporation formed pursuant to the laws of the State of Connecticut and has its principal place of business in Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Golub, Esq. Sarah A. Ricciardi, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP 184 Atlantic Street Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 Facsimile: (203) 325-3769 E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com sricciardi@sgtlaw.com ALLERGAN INC: Faces Doe Suit in N.Y. Over BIOCELL Breast Implants ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERGAN, INC. F/K/A INAMED CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA, INC., ALLERFAN PLC, MCGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION, AND INAMED CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09995 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks relief for damages and harms caused by Allergan's recalled products, BIOCELL breast implants. On July 24, 2019, Allergan announced a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration called for the action following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to a vast majority of cases of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implant. Allergan announced that BIOCELL would no longer be sold or distributed in any market. BIA-ALCL is a type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (cancer of the immune system). In violation of federal law requiring Allergan to report adverse events to the FDA, in order to conceal from doctors and the public the full extent of the risks of BIOCELL products, Allergan submitted adverse event reports with incorrect manufacturer names, including "Santa Barbara" and Costa Rica," instead of under the name "Allergan," according to the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that Allergan received a substantial benefit from selling thousands of the recalled BIOCELL products from 2006 through July 24, 2019, at the expense of the Plaintiff and the Class, who are exposed to the risk of developing BIA-ALCL, a serious and deadly disease. The Plaintiff, thus, brings this action individually and on behalf of others in the United States, who have recalled BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders, to seek relief for damages and harms caused by the Defendants' conduct at their expense. Plaintiff Jane Doe was implanted with a BIOCELL recalled product, Natrelle 115 Silicone-filled breast implants. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone filled breast implants and tissue expanders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Mendelsohn, Esq. David A. Mazie, Esq. Christopher J. Geddis, Esq. MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 228-9898 Facsimile: (973) 228-0303 Email: mrm@mazieslater.net dmazie@mazieslater.net cgeddis@mazieslater.net ALLIANCE FUNDING: Appeals Decision in Vandenberg Suit to 6th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Alliance Funding Group filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Vandenberg & Sons Furniture, Inc. v. Alliance Funding Group, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01255, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. The nature of suit is stated as other statutory actions. The appellate case is captioned as Vandenberg & Sons Furniture, Inc. v. Alliance Funding Group, et al., Case No. 19-2164, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee VANDENBERG & SONS FURNITURE, INC., a Michigan corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, is represented by: Ross M. Good, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Wallace Cyril Solberg, Esq. Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: rgood@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com wsolberg@andersonwanca.com bwanca@andersonwanca.com Defendant-Appellant ALLIANCE FUNDING GROUP is represented by: Herman Daniel Hofman, Esq. VARNUM LLP P.O. Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI 49501 Telephone: (616) 336-6000 E-mail: hdhofman@varnumlaw.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Landy Suit Alleging of Violation TCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Insurance Company. The case is captioned as Brennan Landy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06830 (Ill. Cir., Oct. 15, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber. Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company that is in the United States. The company also has personal lines insurance operations in Canada. Allstate was founded in 1931 as part of Sears, Roebuck and Co., and was spun off in 1993.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq. Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com ALOHA POOL: Dunsavage Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL DUNSAVAGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALOHA POOL SERVICES, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, MICHAEL A. FOLZ, individually, and PAMELA M. FOLZ, individually, jointly, and severally, Case No. 0:19-cv-62509-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 8, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wage compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Aloha Pool Services, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation conducting business and headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. The Individual Defendants are/were supervisors, manager or owners of the Company. The Defendants run a pool service company, where the Plaintiff worked as a pool technician.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 10368 West State Road 84, Suite 103 Davie, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com ALTRIA GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuits has commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded company Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE: MO). Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court and further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE: MO) Class Period: December 20, 2018 - September 24, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019 Join the action: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/altria-group-inc-loss-form?wire=3 About the lawsuit: During the class period, Altria Group, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Altria had conducted insufficient due diligence into JUUL prior to the Company's $12.8 billion investment, or 35% stake, in JUUL; (ii) Altria consequently failed to inform investors, or account for, material risks associated with JUUL's products and marketing practices, and the true value of JUUL and its products; (iii) all of the foregoing, as well as mounting public scrutiny, negative publicity, and governmental pressure on e-vapor products and JUUL made it reasonably likely that Altria's investment in JUUL would have a material negative impact on the Company's reputation and operations; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To learn more about the Altria Group, Inc. class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Contact: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] APPLEBEE'S: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Applebee's Restaurants LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Applebee's Restaurants LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09861 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Applebee's is an American company which develops, franchises, and operates the Applebee's Neighborhood Grill + Bar restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com ARG RESOURCES: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY SMITH individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARG RESOURCES, LLC d/b/a Arby's, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12528 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Oct. 28, 2019), seeks to put a stop to the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--fingerprints/handprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, ARG disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA, says the complaint. Specifically, ARG has violated (and continues to violate) the BIPA because it did not properly inform Plaintiff and the Class members in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by the BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's and the Class's fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor receive a written release from the Plaintiff or the members of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints, as required by the BIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in the State of Illinois. ARG operates under the popular name of Arby's. It is part of Inspire Brands which has 11,200 restaurants, is the 4th largest restaurant company in the United States, and has thousands of employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. Mara Baltabos, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Phone: 630.355.7590 Fax: 630.778.0400 Email: admin@fishlawfirm.com dfish@fishlawfirm.com jkunze@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT: Shortchanges Resto Staff's Wages, Says Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Garza, Christal King and Logan Blake, on behalf of all past and present employees of Defendants at any Pizza Hut franchises owned and/or operated by Atlantic, Plaintiffs, v. Atlantic Development Corporation af Pennsylvania, Mike Washinger, Bryan Biser, and ABC Entities 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01664 (M.D. Pa., September 26, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and all other applicable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law. Defendants operate a Pizza Hut franchise restaurant in Waynesboro where Garza, King and Blake were employed as shift manager, server and prep cook, respectively. They claim that the Defendants deliberately reduced their hours' work at their time-keeping software. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse C. Klaproth, Esq. KLAPROTH LAW PLLC 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Email: (215) 644-7463 Email: jklaproth@klaprothlaw.com AUTOMAX FINANCIAL: Medina Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Damita Medina, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOMAX FINANCIAL, LLC, CARNOW ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01582-NJ (E.D. Wisc., Oct. 29, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Defendant operates an unlawful compensation system that deprived current and former hourly paid, non-exempt employees of their wages earned for all compensable work performed each workweek, including overtime rate pay for each hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendants' deliberate failure to compensate its hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for hours worked and work perform at the proper and legal rate of pay violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an Account Manager working primarily in a call center setting at Automax in August 2014. The Defendants service automobile contract for customers, provide financing to customers who purchase automobiles, and accept customers' automobile payments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com BARRICK GOLD: Drywall Acoustic 675 Fund's $3BB Suit Gets Go Signal ------------------------------------------------------------------ James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that an Ontario court has given the go-ahead for a pension fund's proposed $3-billion securities class action against Barrick Gold Corp. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted a motion brought by the trustees of the Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675 pension fund seeking leave to bring a class action against Barrick for alleged misrepresentations in the company's financial disclosure involving a massive mining project that ultimately failed. The allegations, which have not been proven, involve secondary market misrepresentations regarding the construction of the multi-billion-dollar Pascua Lama gold mining project in Chile and Argentina. According to the court ruling, the pension trustees are suing the company over various disclosures it made about the project, which was ultimately abandoned, resulting in billions worth of shareholder losses. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave concerning an alleged environmental misrepresentation that appeared in the company's MD&A in its second quarter 2012 report. "The proposed class action is confined to this single representation," the court ruled, noting that the plaintiffs established a "reasonable possibility" of success at trial on that count. However, it denied leave for various other alleged misrepresentations in the company's financial disclosure. The court also limited the claim to buyers of Barrick common shares, not all securities, stating, "the plaintiff has presented no evidence of materiality in relation to Barrick's debt securities." The ruling also notes that a U.S. class action has been settled. [GN] BED BATH & BEYOND: Delacruz Files ADA Class Action in NY -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09852 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is an American chain of domestic merchandise retail stores. Bed Bath & Beyond operates many stores in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, and Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com BEN & JERRY'S: Misrepresents Ice Cream Products, Ehlers Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- James Ehlers, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE INC., and CONOPCO INC. d/b/a UNILEVER UNITED STATES, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00194-cr (D. Vt., Oct. 29, 2019), arises from the Defendants' misrepresentations on the source of milk and cream in their ice cream products. To the detriment of consumers, operations and marketing for the Ben & Jerry's brand are very different as a part of its multinational parent, Unilever, than they were when Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., was run in Vermont by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the Plaintiff states. Nevertheless, Unilever continues to capitalize on the goodwill that Ben & Jerry's earned in Vermont and nationwide during its earlier decades. During the past several years, Unilever has breached consumer trust by representing the Ben & Jerry's Products as being made with milk and cream sourced exclusively from "happy cows" on Vermont dairies that participate in a special, humane "Caring Dairy" program, Mr. Ehlers contends. In reality and contrary to the message knowingly conveyed by Unilever to consumers, he alleges, only a minority percentage of the milk and cream in the Products actually is sourced from these "happy cows" on Caring Dairy farms; the remaining milk and cream originates from factory-style, mass-production dairy operations, exactly what consumers, who choose Ben & Jerry's products would like to avoid. Unilever's misrepresentations about milk and cream sourced exclusively from "happy cows" on "Caring Dairies" prompt consumers to buy more Ben & Jerry's Products, and to pay more for them than they otherwise would, Mr. Ehlers asserts. Because Unilever's labeling and advertising of the Ben & Jerry's Products are false and misleading to reasonable consumers, the Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of himself and the members of the class and subclass seeking injunctive and monetary relief. James Ehlers is a long-time purchaser of Ben & Jerry's Products. The Defendants manufacture and/or cause the manufacture of the Ben & Jerry's products, and market, distribute, and sell the Products throughout the United States, including in Vermont.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua E. Simonds, Esq. THE BURLINGTON LAW PRACTICE, PLLC 2 Church St., Ste. G New York, NY 10027 Phone: 802-651-5370 Fax: 802-651-5374 Email: jls@burlingtonlawpractice.com - and - Kim E. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW GROUP 8 W. 126th Street New York, NY 10027 Phone: 728.705.4579 Fax: 728.228.8522 Email: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com BEST BUY CO: Delacruz Files Class Suit Under ADA ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Buy Co., Inc. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09860 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Best Buy Co., Inc. is an American multinational consumer electronics retailer headquartered in Richfield, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com BHRAGS HOME CARE: Jean Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Wage Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- Marie Jean, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. BHRAGS Home Care Corp., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05617, (E.D. N.Y., October 3, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and any other statutory penalties as recoverable, compensatory damages sustained as a result of Defendants' retaliation, including back pay, front pay, punitive damages, redress for failure to provide wage statements, costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. BHRAGS Home Care is a Brooklyn-based home health care staffing agency where Jean worked as a home health aide from February 1990 to the present. She regularly works more than forty hours in a workweek, but was not paid the statutorily-required overtime rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for any hours that she has worked each week in excess of forty and was denied accurate wage statements on each payday. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel. (516) 248-5550 Fax. (516) 248-6027 BLUE CROSS: Houston Home Hits Illegal Price-fixing Scheme --------------------------------------------------------- Houston Home Dialysis, LP on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Anthem, Inc., Health Care Service Corporation, Cambia Health Solutions, Inc., CareFirst, Inc., Premera Blue Cross, Premera Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alaska, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc., USAble Mutual Insurance Company, Blue Cross of California, California Physicians' Service, Inc., Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service, Inc., Anthem Health Plans, Inc., Highmark, Inc., Highmark BCBSD, Inc., Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc., Hawaii Medical Service Association d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Hawaii, Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc., Regence BlueShield of Idaho, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., Wellmark, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc., Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company, Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc., CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, BCBSM, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mississippi, HMO Missouri, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Caring for Montanans, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nevada, Anthem Health Plans of New Hampshire, Inc., Horizon Health Care Services, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico, HealthNow New York, Inc., Blue Shield of Northeastern New York, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Western New York, Inc., Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc., Excellus Health Plan, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Inc., Noridian Mutual Insurance Company, Community Insurance Company, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon, Hospital Service Association of Northeastern Pennsylvania, Capital Blue Cross, Highmark Health Services, Inc., Independence Blue Cross, Triple-S Salud, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode Island, BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina Inc., Wellmark of South Dakota, Inc., BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont, Anthem Health Plans of Virginia, Inc., Inc., Regence BlueShield, Highmark West Virginia, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wisconsin, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming, Consortium Health Plans, Inc., National Account Service Company, LLC and Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-03791, (S.D. Tex., October 2, 2019), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs together with other relief for violation of the Sherman Act. Defendants are an Association and affiliated companies that operate as Blue Cross and Blue Shield, providing health insurance coverage for approximately 100 million people in the United States. Defendants are alleged of engaging in an illegal horizontal market allocation or price-fixing scheme under which Blue affiliates gets the benefit of the artificially reduced prices that are paid to healthcare providers through the established national programs, thus reducing the competition. Houston Home Dialysis provides staff-assisted home dialysis treatments serving Harris and the surrounding counties. Many of their patients are insured by Blue or are included in employee-benefit plans administered by Blue. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Earnest W. Wotring, Esq. David George, Esq. Karen Dow, Esq. BAKER WOTRING LLP 700 JPMorgan Chase Tower 600 Travis Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 980-1700 Facsimile: (713) 980-1701 Email: ewotring@bakerwotring.com dgeorge@bakerwotring.com kdow@bakerwotring.com BURGER KING: Mendez Brings ADA Class Suit in NY ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burger King Corporation. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Burger King Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09855 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Burger King is an American multinational chain of hamburger fast food restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com BURTON CLAIM: Sloan Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SLOAN, KENDRA HAMILTON, and KLISA SAPP on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BURTON CLAIM SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-19-021309 (Fla. Cir., Oct. 15, 2019), seeks to recover overtime wages, damages, and reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants at various times within the last three years. Throughout their work for the Defendant, the Plaintiffs were not paid for their overtime hours worked at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they were employed for workweeks longer than 40 hours, the lawsuit says. Burton Claim Service Inc. provides a variety of claim services and specialized programs to meet your needs including the following: Property and Casualty Claims Adjusting; Personal Lines; Commercial Lines; Specialty Lines; Construction Defect; Transportation; Heavy Equipment & Machinery; Large Loss; Professional Liability; Litigation File Management; Flood; Workers Compensation; Investigation; Catastrophe Services; Third Party Administration; Appraisal & Mediation; Fraud Investigation; Audit & Re-inspection Services; Subrogation; and Salvage.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C. Ryan morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave. Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com CAPITAL BUILDING: Moreno Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- EFREN MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE & CLEANING SERVICES, INC. Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07087 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2019), is brought on behalf of similarly situated employees as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for violations of federal overtime laws. The lawsuit is also brought a class action lawsuit pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for violations of the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders, including Wage Orders 5-2001 and 16-2001. When the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers worked more than 40 hours in a week, their regular rate of pay for purposes of computing overtime pay was not based on a weighted average of all the hourly rates within the workweek. At various times relevant to this action, the Defendants lowered overtime pay to an overtime rate of just a few dollars more than the regular rate. The overtime hours would also primarily be put in separate pay checks with separate wage statements paid in the same pay period. The Defendant had a pay system, used by all workers, in which they would not properly record all hours worked, resulting in workers not being paid for all hours worked and not being paid minimum wage for all hours worked. The Defendant also violated California Labor Code section 226 by issuing wage statements for overtime pay that did not list the regular rate of pay and did not properly calculate overtime wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant. The Defendant provides various labor services, including window washing, construction clean up, floor maintenance, pressure washing, trash and graffiti removal and other specialty services described on its website (http://www.capitalbldg.com/special-services/).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marco A. Palau, Esq. Joseph D. Sutton, Esq. Eric s. Trabucco, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR WORKER RIGHTS LLP 212 9th Street, Suite 314 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 269-4200 Fax: (408) 657-4684 - and - Tomas E. Margain, Esq. Huy Tran, Esq. JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP, LLP 1550 The Alameda, Suite 302 San Jose, CA 95126 Phone: (408) 317-1100 Facsimile: (408) 351-0105 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Wilmore Sues Over Racial Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- BEVERLY WILMORE, for and on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS a/k/a SPECTRUM REACH, Case No. 1:19-cv-09353 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2019), challenges the Defendant's alleged discriminatory employment practices as they relate to former and current African-American employees and applicants. Ms. Wilmore is an African American female resident of the state of California and was last employed with the Defendant at its Birmingham, Alabama location. She worked for the Defendant from October 2012 to June 27, 2018, and her last position was as Senior Manager Digital Sales-Media. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in a demonstrable policy of race discrimination in promotions, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She contends that Spectrum has followed a general practice of discriminating against African-Americans/blacks on the basis of race with respect to promotions and lay-offs to high level senior management positions by enforcing a corporate policy and practice that expressly and impliedly discourages them from seeking higher paying and higher responsibility positions. Charter Communications, also known as Spectrum Reach, is a corporation headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roderick T. Cooks, Esq. Lee D. Winston, Esq. WINSTON COOKS, LLC 505 20th Street North, Suite #815 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 502-0970 Facsimile: (205) 278-5876 E-mail: rcooks@winstoncooks.com lwinston@winstoncooks.com CHEMOURS COMPANY: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood announces that on Oct. 8, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against The Chemours Company (NYSE: CC). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is February 16, 2017 through August 1, 2019. To learn how to participate in this action, please visit https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-the-chemours-company/. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all The Chemours Company shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, December 9, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: Robin Hester FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com Contact: Robin Hester, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD Website: www.federmanlaw.com Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN] CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Violates ADA, Thorne Suit Asserts --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09867 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., often known simply as Chipotle, is an American chain of fast casual restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style burritos.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com CITIZENS BANK: McAuliffe Suit Removed to Mass. Dist. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Barbara McAuliffe on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, Defendant, Case No. 1982CV01177 was removed from Norfolk Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-12197. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Citizens Bank offers personal and business banking, student loans, home equity products, credit cards, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Michael E. Pastore, Esq. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC One Financial Center, 42nd Flr. Boston, MA 02111 Phone: (617) 542-6000 Fax: (617) 897-0926 Email: mepastore@mintz.com CLICK SALES: Faces Acosta Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy ----------------------------------------------------------- KHEMEELA ACOSTA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLICK SALES INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-08697 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2019), arises from the Defendants' illegal actions in negligently contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading her privacy. Click Sales Inc. is an online retail company that conducted business in the state of California and in the County of Los Angeles. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Fennel Disputes Debt in Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aja A. Fennell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05599 (E.D. N.Y., October 3, 2019), seeks damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Convergent Outsourcing is a collection agency with its principal office located in King County, Washington. It attempted to collect a debt incurred by Fennel to Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC via collection letter in the amount of $2,243.63. Fennel denied such debt. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com CORNERSTONE SUPPORT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lewis Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Damon Lewis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORNERSTONE SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04389-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind., Oct. 29, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Indiana Wage Claims Statute by failing to pay proper overtime wages. Cornerstone failed to pay him time and one-half his hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40, instead paying him only straight time, Mr. Lewis alleges. In fact, in 2016, Cornerstone instructed its former Human Resources Manager, Kristen DeLong, to pay employees straight pay regardless of whether they worked overtime, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was originally hired by the Defendant in May 2016 in the position of Direct Support Staff. The Defendant is a domestic limited liability company that maintains offices and conducts business within the Southern District of Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Williams, Esq. FOX WILLIAMS & SINK, LLC 6177 North College Ave. Indianapolis, IN 46220 Phone: 317-254-8500 Email: cwilliams@fwslegal.com CRICUT INC: Reid Sues Over ADA Breach ------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cricut, Inc. The case is styled as Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cricut, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09811 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cricut is the leader in creative technology for makers, a company dedicated to helping people live their most creative lives by providing the tools they need to make beautiful, high-quality DIY projects with ease.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com CURO MANAGEMENT: Johnson Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Inquiries ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID S. JOHNSON, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CURO MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-02061 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2019), seeks to enjoin the deceptive business practices of the Defendant relating to its systematic unauthorized credit inquiries. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff did not have an account with the Defendant and his debts were ordered discharged through bankruptcy on November 14, 2016, the Defendant continued to submit unauthorized account review credit report inquiries to Equifax. Upon review of his Equifax credit report dated January 25, 2019, the Plaintiff says he discovered the Defendant's multiple unauthorized credit inquiries on November 10, 2018, September 4, 2018, and July 29, 2017--all of which were after his bankruptcy discharge. Mr. Johnson contends each of the Defendant's inquiries were unauthorized and illegal. He says he had never heard of Curo Management prior to reviewing his Equifax credit report. Additionally, after he received the discharged order, there would have been no debt owed to the Defendant and no account with the Defendant by operation of the bankruptcy. The Defendant's inquiries for his consumer report information, without his consent, falls outside the scope of any permissible use or access, the Plaintiff contends. He asserts that the Defendant accessed his private and confidential information without his consent or a permissible purpose. The Plaintiff is a natural person who resided in the County of San Bernardino, California. The Defendant is a Nevada limited liability company located in Wichita, Kansas, that is authorized to and regularly conducts business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Email: yana@kazlg.com CVS HEALTH: Thorne Brings ADA Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Health Corporation. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CVS Health Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09866 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. CVS Pharmacy is an American healthcare company that owns CVS Pharmacy, a retail pharmacy chain, CVS Caremark, a pharmacy benefits manager, Aetna, a health insurance provider, among other brands, and CVS Health headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com DELTA DENTAL: Fisher Sues Over Dental Insurance Antitrust Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary M. Fisher, DDS, P.C., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Delta Dental Insurance Company; DeltaCare USA; Delta USA Inc.; Delta Dental Plans Association; Delta Dental Insurance Company Alabama; Delta Dental of Alaska; Delta Dental of Arizona; Delta Dental of Arkansas; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Connecticut; Delta Dental of Delaware; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Delta Dental of Florida; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Georgia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental of Idaho; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental of Indiana; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas; Delta Dental of Kentucky; Delta Dental Insurance Company-Louisiana; Delta Dental of Maryland, Inc.; Delta Dental of Massachusetts; Delta Dental of Michigan; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Mississippi; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Montana; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Nevada; Delta Dental of New Jersey; Delta Dental of New Mexico; Delta Dental of New York; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental of North Dakota; Northeast Delta Dental (of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont); Delta Dental of Ohio; Delta Dental of Oklahoma; Delta Dental of Oregon; Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico; Delta Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Carolina; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Texas; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Utah; Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental of West Virginia; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental of Wyoming, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07090 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 28, 2019), is a case involving Delta Dental's violation of federal antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United States. Delta Dental secured unlawful monopsony power through its artificial territorial division of that market among the Delta Dental State Insurers (which are all the Defendants except the Association), and is abusing it to: (1) restrict competition among the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating under the "Delta Dental" brand (the "Market Allocation Conspiracy"); (2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the Delta Dental State Insurers to the dentists and dental practices who provide services to patients under Delta Dental insurance plans (the "Price Fixing Conspiracy"), and (3) restrict competition between the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating under non-"Delta Dental" brands (the "Revenue Restriction Conspiracy"). Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the U.S. By carving the 50 U.S. States into exclusive territories in which the Delta Dental State Insurers are guaranteed to be free from competition from other Delta Dental State Insurers, the Delta Dental State Insurers have each secured monopsony control within their assigned territories, and Defendants as a group have secured monopsony control over the market for dental insurance across the U.S. Absent the monopsony powers and territorial protections secured to Defendants by the Market Allocation Conspiracy, dental plan sponsors and members would have greater choice as to the dental insurance they choose to purchase, and the Delta Dental Providers, including the Plaintiff, would have greater choice in the dental insurance they choose to accept from their patients. The Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. All three of the Market Allocation Conspiracy, the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy have reduced competition in the market for dental insurance in each of the territories in which the Delta Dental State Insurers are based and across the U.S., the Plaintiff asserts. This decreased competition has harmed the Delta Dental Providers (in the form of reduced choice in the dental insurance plans they can accept from patients, and lower reimbursement rates paid to them under those plans), and has also harmed dental plan sponsors and members (in the form of higher premiums paid to Delta Dental in a non-competitive market, and through lower quality services offered to patients by the Delta Dental Providers that have been starved of reimbursement revenue by the Defendants' artificially low prices). While the Defendants are predominantly non-profit entities, they have reaped the benefits of their anticompetitive conspiracies in the form of lavish executive compensation and by building up excessive capital reserves. All three of the Market Allocation Conspiracy, the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy also have given Delta Dental unequalled dominance in the market for dental insurance. Delta Dental's dominance in this market gives it monopsonist control of the rates of reimbursement paid to the Delta Dental Providers, says the complaint. Plaintiff Mary M. Fisher, DDS, P.C. is a dental services provider and a Michigan professional corporation, who provided dental goods and services to consumers insured by Delta Dental pursuant to its in network contract with Delta Dental of Michigan, Inc. The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories, multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. London, Esq. Douglas A. Millen, Esq. Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq. Brian M. Hogan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Phone: (224) 632-4500 Fax: (224) 632-4521 Email: wlondon@fklmlaw.com dmillen@fklmlaw.com mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com bhogan@fklmlaw.com - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Randall B. Weill Michael S. Smith, Esq. Elizabeth F. Quinby, Esq. PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112-9546 Phone: 207-791-3000 Email: ghansel@preti.com rweill@preti.com msmith@preti.com equinby@preti.com DENNY'S CORPORATION: Faces Tucker ADA Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Denny's Corporation. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Denny's Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09843 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Denny's is an American table service diner-style restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Calcano Class Suit Under ADA -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Domino's Pizza, Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09823 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Domino's Pizza, Inc., branded as Domino's, is an American multinational pizza restaurant chain founded in 1960. The corporation is headquartered at the Domino's Farms Office Park in Ann Arbor, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com EAGLE OILFIELD: Azure Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW AZURE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EAGLE OILFIELD RENTALS, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00221-CRH (D.N.D., Oct. 9, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were flowback operators working at oilfield sites within the state of North Dakota, but were not paid for all the overtime hours they worked, as Eagle only paid a day rate for all hours worked. Eagle Oilfield Rentals, LLC, is a North Dakota limited liability company. Eagle provides flowback services and rental equipment to oil and gas producers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq. MORELAND VERRETT, P.C. 700 West Summit Drive Wimberley, TX 78676 Telephone: (512) 782-0567 Facsimile: (512) 782-0605 E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com edmond@morelandlaw.com EVER AND COMPANY: Winston Seeks Overtime Pay for Accountants ------------------------------------------------------------ SIERRA WINSTON, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. EVER AND COMPANY, P.A., an active Florida corporation; JUDAH EVER, individually; and AARON EVER, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-62534-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 11, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is an accountant who worked for Defendant, from February 2018, until she voluntarily resigned her employment on July 22, 2019. The lawsuit claims that the Plaintiff and similarly situated accountants were not paid time and one half for all hours worked over 40 in a given work week. After her resignation, the Plaintiff learned that AE was, without authorization, continually accessing her personal emails contained in her personal Gmail account. According to the lawsuit, AE used the information gained from Plaintiff's personal Gmail account to harass, defame, intimidate and bully Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff worked as an accountant for EC, she Plaintiff was paid by the hour. Therefore, Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee. Other similarly situated accountants who worked for EC, AE and JE were also paid by the hour. Therefore, these other similarly situated accountants were non-exempt employees. Ever & Company offers Business Tax Preparation, Tax Preparation for Individuals, Tax Planning Services. IRS Tax Problem Resolution, Financial and Business Consulting.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Michael L. Elkins, Esq. MLE LAW 633 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 401-2608 E-mail: melkins@mlelawfirm.com - and - Joshua M. Entin, Esq. ENTIN LAW GROUP, P.A. 633 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 761-7201 E-mail: josh@entinlaw.com EXPRESS INC: Faces Tucker Suit for ADA Breach --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Express, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Express, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09840 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Express, Inc. is an American fashion retailer that caters mainly to young men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com FIESTA LATINA: Mendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FIESTA LATINA MARKET. The case is styled as ALEJANDRO MENDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. FIESTA LATINA MARKET, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY, ABDULLA MOHSEN, INDIVIDUALLY, SAEED SALEH, INDIVIDUALLY, ADAM OBAID, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-103046 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Oct. 24, 2019). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited". Fiesta Latina Market is a Grocery Store in Bakersfield, CA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by DOUGLAS HAN, ESQ. FORD MOTOR CO: F-150 Owners Sue Over Erroneous Fuel Economy Ratings ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosalynda Garza and Jeffrey Quizhpi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-12895 (E.D. Mich., October 3, 2019), seeks redress for negligence, breach of express warranties and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Washington's Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiffs purchased 2018 Ford F-150 and claims that Ford's fuel economy ratings were erroneous and overstated. Ford engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, and leasing automobiles. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Novak, Esq. Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq. Diana Gjonaj, Esq. Tiffany Ellis, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 3011 West Grand Blvd., Suite 2150 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 800-4170 Email: pnovak@weitzlux.com dgjonaj@weitzlux.com dstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com tellis@weitzlux.com - and - Howard T. Longman, Esq. Melissa Emert, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: (212) 490-2022 Email: memert@ssbny.com hlongman@ssbny.com - and - Gary S. Graifivan, Esq. Jay Brody, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Rd. Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Tel: (845) 356-2570 Fax: (845) 356-4335 Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com Email: jbrody@kgglaw.com FRITO-LAY INC: Ct. Certifies Class in Sanchez; Settlement OK Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge DALE A. DROZD of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order granting preliminary class certification and denying motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case captioned ELIAZAR SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-00797-DAD-BAM, (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff filed this putative class action in Kern County Superior Court on April 11, 2014, alleging the following causes of action under California law: (1) failure to pay regular hourly wages (2) failure to pay overtime wages (3) failure to pay the correct overtime rate of pay (4) failure to pay premium wages for denial of meal and rest periods (5) failure to pay vested vacation wages (6) illegal deductions of vested vacation wages (7) breach of contract for failure to pay vested wages (8) failure to pay final wages due upon termination (9) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and (10) violation of the Unfair Competition Law. The putative class is comprised of non-exempt hourly employees of defendant Frito-Lay, Inc., the owner and operator of several distribution centers throughout California. Plaintiff alleges that defendant implemented policies and practices that resulted in the alleged violations of employment laws. On May 23, 2014, defendant removed the case to this court. Plaintiff is seeking preliminary settlement approval and conditional class certification. Pursuant to the proposed Revised Settlement, the class consists of 193 putative class members who are divided into two subclasses: (1) the 4x10 Subclass and (2) the 5x8 Subclass. The 4x10 Subclass is comprised of 131 current and former Maintenance Mechanics who worked four ten-hour days a week. The 5x8 Subclass is comprised of 62 current and former Maintenance Mechanics who worked five eight-hour days a week. The class period begins on April 11, 2010 and ends June 24, 2015. Under the Revised Settlement, defendant has agreed to increase the maximum settlement amount from $600,000 to $710,473.33. The agreement provides for the following allocation of that maximum amount: (i) attorneys' fees of $177,618.33, or twenty-five percent of the settlement fund; (ii) $20,000 to be paid to class counsel for reasonable costs; (iii) an incentive award to plaintiff in the amount of $7,500; (iv) a PAGA payment in the amount of $5,000; (v) $10,000 for the fees and costs of the Settlement Administrator; and (vi) the remaining payout fund of $490,3552 to be distributed to class members. The payout fund of $490,355 will be divided between the two subclasses, with the 4x10 Subclass receiving 90.1 percent of the allocation, or $441,809.86 ($490,355 x 90.1%), and the 5x10 Subclass receiving 9.9 percent of the allocation, or $48,545.14 ($490,355 x 9.9%). Each class member's settlement payment will be a proportionate share of the payout fund based on weeks worked during the class period. Any unpaid or unclaimed funds will be distributed to the State Treasury's Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund, the State Treasury Equal Access Fund of the Judicial Branch, and The United Way. As such, no money will revert to defendant. Plaintiff sought an order from this court: (i) preliminarily certifying the class for purposes of settlement, with appointment of plaintiff as class representative, appointment of plaintiff's counsel as class counsel, and approval of ILYM Group, Inc. as the settlement administrator; (ii) approving the proposed form and method of notice to be disseminated to the class; and (iii) scheduling the hearing date for the final approval of the class settlement. Rule 23(a) Requirements Rule 23(a) establishes four prerequisites for class action litigation: (1) numerosity (2) commonality (3) typicality and (4) adequacy of representation. Numerosity A proposed class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Here, plaintiff asserts that there are 193 members in the settlement class. The class is readily ascertainable because all class members have worked for defendant and can be easily identified through defendant's employee and payroll records. This showing with respect to numerosity is adequate to meet the requirements of Rule 23(a)(1). Commonality Rule 23(a) also requires questions of law or fact common to the class. To satisfy the commonality requirement, the class representatives must demonstrate that common points of facts and law will drive or resolve the litigation. Here, plaintiff argues that the alleged California law violations are common to each member of the class. The proposed class action stems from the same factual and legal issues centered on whether defendant provided class members with second meal periods and third rest breaks when they worked over ten hours. Because it appears that the same conduct which defendant allegedly engaged in would form the basis of each of the plaintiff's claims, the court finds that commonality is satisfied. Typicality Rule 23(a)(3) also requires that the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Typicality is satisfied when each class member's claim arises from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability. Here, plaintiff Sanchez worked for defendant four ten-hour day a week as a Maintenance Mechanic during the relevant class period. Although plaintiff was a member of the 4x10 Subclass and did not work five eight-hour days a week like the class members in the 5x8 Subclass, plaintiff's claims for meal and rest premiums for shifts when he was not provided a second or third rest break are typical of each subclass identified in the Revised Settlement. Plaintiff's claims arise from the same course of conduct and are based upon the same legal theories as those applicable to class members in each of the two subclasses. The court concludes that plaintiff's claims are reasonably co-extensive with those of the settlement class, and that typicality is therefore satisfied here. Adequacy of Representation The final Rule 23(a) prerequisite is satisfied if the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff Sanchez, the proposed class representative, appears to have no conflicts of interests adverse to those of the class members in the 4x10 or the 5x8 Subclasses and is committed to vigorously prosecuting the case on behalf of the class. Moreover, plaintiff's counsel has provided declarations representing that they have no conflicts of interest and are experienced class action litigators who are fully qualified to pursue the interests of the class. As such, the court finds that plaintiff Sanchez and plaintiff's counsel satisfy the adequacy of representation requirement. Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements In addition to the requirements of Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(3) requires: (i) that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and (ii) that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Predominance First, common questions must predominate over any individual questions. While this requirement is similar to the Rule 23(a)(2) commonality requirement, the standard is much higher at this stage of the analysis. Plaintiff contends that all class members during the class period were subjected to defendant's alleged practice of failing to provide second meal breaks and third rest breaks when they worked shifts of over ten hours. Thus, plaintiff and the putative class share a common nucleus of operative facts and potential legal remedies. Class actions in which a defendant's practices are challenged generally satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). The predominance requirement has therefore been met in this case. Superiority Rule 23(b)(3) also requires a court to find a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair adjudication of the controversy. In resolving the Rule 23(b)(3) superiority inquiry, the court should consider class members' interests in pursuing separate actions individually, any litigation already in progress involving the same controversy, the desirability of concentrating in one forum, and potential difficulties in managing the class action although the last two considerations are not relevant in the settlement context. By consolidating approximately 193 potential individual actions into a single proceeding here, plaintiff argues that the class action device enables more efficient management of this litigation for the court and the litigants alik. Plaintiff also argues that, absent class treatment, the cost of litigation would far exceed the potential recovery for each individual class member with small, but potentially meritorious claims. These reasons are persuasive, and warrant finding that the superiority requirement is also satisfied here. Accordingly, Judge Drozd grants plaintiff's motion for preliminary class certification; plaintiff's counsel Bisnar Chase, LLP is appointed as class counsel; named plaintiff, Eliazar Sanchez, is appointed as class representative; and ILYM Group Inc. is approved as Settlement Administrator. However, the court denies plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Judge Drozd said it appears that no PAGA claim was brought by plaintiff on his behalf or on behalf of other aggrieved employees. Although the proposed release of liability for the class includes "violations of. . . [the] Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA")," plaintiff has also not provided any evidence that he appropriately commenced a civil action by serving notice of his PAGA claim to the LWDA or to defendant so as to demonstrate he has authority to settle any PAGA claim. Accordingly, absent further explanation by the parties, the court declines to preliminarily approve the PAGA penalties called for in the Revised Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. "The court is mindful of the strong judicial policy favoring settlements and this denial is without prejudice to plaintiff renewing his motion for preliminary approval of the settlement yet again to address the court's concerns regarding the purported PAGA claim settlement, release of claims, and notice form," rules Judge Drozd. In the event a renewed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is not filed first, the parties are once again directed to file a joint status report within 21 days of electronic service of this order informing the court how they intend to proceed in this litigation. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y53zchzs from Leagle.com. Eliazar Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Chase - bchase@bisnarchase.com - Bisnar Chase, LLP & Jerusalem F. Beligan - jbeligan@bisnarchase.com - Bisnar Chase, LLP. Frito-Lay, Inc., Defendant, represented by Samantha D. Hardy - shardy@sheppardmullin.com - Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ashley Teiko Hirano - ahirano@sheppardmullin.com - Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Daniel Francisco De La Cruz ddelacruz@sheppardmullin.com , Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. GAMESTOP CORP: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gamestop Corp. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gamestop Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09814 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. GameStop Corp. is an American video game, consumer electronics and gaming merchandise retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcos Calcano, Esq. 150 E 18 St. New York, NY 10003 c/o Gottlieb & Associates PRO SE GENERAL ELECTRIC: Breached Duties on BHI Merger, Providence Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF PROVIDENCE, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GREGORY D. BRENNEMAN, CLARENCE P. CAZALOT, JR., WILLIAM EASTER III, LYNN L. ELSENHANS, ANTHONY G. FERNANDES, CLAIRE GARGALLI, PIERRE JEAN-MARIE HENRI JUNGELS, JAMES A. LASH, J. LARRY NICHOLS, JAMES W. STEWART, CHARLES L. WATSON, MARTIN S. CRAIGHEAD, AND KIMBERLY ROSS, Defendants, Case No. 2019-0857- (Del. Ch., Oct. 28, 2019), is brought on behalf of public stockholders of Baker Hughes Incorporated against GE and Baker Hughes' former directors and officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting thereof and tortious manipulation of and fraud upon a board process in connection with the combination of Baker Hughes with GE's Oil and Gas sub-segment to form Baker Hughes, a General Electric Company, which closed on July 3, 2017. In this case, GE knowingly provided Baker Hughes, its Board and advisors, false financial statements that significantly inflated the prospects of its struggling oil and gas business, the Plaintiff alleges. The Board approved a merger agreement and recommended that shareholders do the same based on those false financials. After signing the merger agreement and receiving audited financials that portrayed a fundamentally less valuable deal for Baker Hughes stockholders, the Board and GE inexplicably hid from investors the massive divergence between the unaudited financials on which the deal was negotiated and structured and those disclosed in Baker Hughes' definitive proxy statement. Worse yet, the Plaintiff contends, GE O&G was a non-publicly traded segment of GE, making it difficult for Baker Hughes investors to value GE O&G independently and further increasing stockholders' reliance on the Board's recommendation. In the fall of 2015, with its oil and gas business struggling under the systemic oil and gas price slump, GE knew certain critical facts that could give it leverage in any negotiation to acquire Baker Hughes, including the fact the GE knew that Baker Hughes was reeling on the heels of its dramatic and strategically damaging failed sale to industry competitor Halliburton, and that GE knew that its GE O&G business, not being publicly traded, did not have audited financial statements reflecting its value as an independent company separate from its GE parent. The Plaintiff asserts that GE cannot escape liability because it knowingly gave false financials to broker a multi-billion dollar merger. GE pressured the Baker Hughes Board into closing a deal that would keep them from terminating or renegotiating the deal upon learning the truth about GE O&G's financials. The Plaintiff points out that nobody forced GE to contribute information for the issuance of public filings that falsely represent, among other things, that GE O&G's audited financials did not materially differ from the unaudited financials on which the deal was actually valued and structured. Under these very unique circumstances, the Board should be liable for breaching their duties, and GE should be liable to Baker Hughes investors, who are the reasonably foreseeable victims of GE's manipulation of the Baker Hughes Board's process, fraud upon the Board and the Baker Hughes stockholders alike, and aiding and abetting of the Baker Hughes Board's breaches of duty, says the complaint. Plaintiff City of Providence was a stockholder of Baker Hughes. General Electric is a leading global high-tech industrial company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Thomas Curry, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 573-2540 GEO GROUP: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Puga Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- Araya Puga on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., GEO CORRECTIONS AND DETENTION, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, and DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-at-01028 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violate the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders by failing to pay their employees for all hours worked. The Defendants knew that they had a duty to properly compensate her and Class Members, and they willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to do so in order to increase their profits, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendants knew that they had an obligation to pay for all hours worked by Plaintiff and Class Members, without reduction or rounding, but they willfully, knowingly and intentionally failed to do, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former GEO employees and member of the Defendants' non-exempt security personnel. GEO Group is a for-profit corporation that operates private prisons throughout the Unites States through many subsidiaries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Patterson, Esq. Jennifer M. French, Esq. PATTERSON LAW GROUP APC 1350 Columbia St., Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 756-6990 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com jenn@pattersonlawgroup.com - and - James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory E. Mauro, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949)387-7200 Fax: (949)387-6676 Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com GILA LLC: Faces Federal Class Action for Overcharging Tolls ----------------------------------------------------------- Aprile Rickert, writing for Wave 3 News, reports that a federal class-action lawsuit is pending against the companies responsible for tolling three of the five bridges that span the Ohio River between Indiana and Louisville. Indiana resident Melissa Barker filed the lawsuit in February against Kapsch TrafficCom USA, Inc. and Gila, LLC, the companies which act as tolling and invoicing agents for the Ohio River Bridges Project. Her complaint, initially filed in Marion County, states that the two companies overcharged her for tolls in 2017 and 2018, and she wants compensation for herself and the others in the lawsuit. The number of plaintiffs is unclear, but it is over 100, because the case has moved to federal court. "The proposed case contains hundreds or even thousands of motorists," according to the complaint. The toll a driver pays to tolling company RiverLink for crossing one of the three bridges varies, depending on the type of vehicle and type of account. For drivers without a prepaid account or one with insufficient funds, paper invoices are mailed to the drivers' homes roughly two months after a crossing. The first notice sent is expected to have only the toll charges, with 30 days to pay them. The second notice includes a $5 administrative fee and if that isn't paid in 30 days, a violation notice is sent out that includes the $5 fee plus $25 late fee. If this is not remedied, a collection notice is sent which includes the tolls and a total of $60 in fees - late fee, administrative fee and a $30 collection fee. The federal complaint states that on two instances, Barker received second notices with late fees after never having received the first notice. On Aug. 18, 2017, she received what was labeled as a second toll notice for trips across a bridge on June 29 and June 30. On Jan 16, 2018, she received the same type of notice for trips made Sept. 4 and Nov. 26. "These notices were falsely identified as "2nd Toll Notices" when in fact no first toll notice had been provided to plaintiff and the notices were not, in fact, "2nd" Toll Notices," the complaint reads. The charges alleged by the plaintiffs include fraud, violation of the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, deception or intentional misrepresentation and negligence. The plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial and seek monetary damages to be determined by the court. They have also requested preliminary and permanent injunction, the purpose to ensure that the alleged overcharging is not happening now. [GN] GROUPON INC: 7th Cir. Gives Limited Remand on Instagram Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a federal appeals panel has given a fresh chance at life for a class action against Groupon over its use of people's images posted on Instagram. On Oct. 9, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a "limited remand" of a federal judge's decision rejecting the class action attempt. U.S. District Judge Ronald Guzman in March refused to grant class action status to lead plaintiff Christine Dancel, who filed a 2016 suit in Cook County court alleging Groupon wrongly used Instagram photos to promote deals for restaurants and other businesses. In his decision, the judge said there are too many individualized claims for a class action to be practical. Groupon had removed the case to federal court and asked the judge to deny the class certification. Dancel appealed the decision. Seventh Circuit Judge William Bauer wrote the opinion on Dancel's appeal. Circuit judges Michael Brennan and Amy St. Eve concurred. Dancel said she took a photograph of herself and her boyfriend in August 2015 at a Vernon Hills restaurant, then posted it on Instagram and tagged it with the restaurant's name. Groupon posted the photo, along with others, on the restaurant's deal page in January 2016. Dancel said she neither has a Groupon account nor mentioned Groupon in her post. She alleged tens of thousands of possible class members should each get $1,000 in statutory damages. Bauer wrote: "[Dancel] proceeded as though we gave her a free ticket to redo her opposition to the removal of her suit from state court. Although we refuse to entertain the bulk of her arguments, she has drawn our attention to a critical hole in the notice of removal — it does not allege the citizenship of even one diverse member of the putative class." In its motion to remove Dancel's complaint to federal court, Groupon, which is incorporated in Delaware but is based in Chicago, said the class "undoubtedly would include at least some undetermined number of non-Illinois and non-Delaware citizens as class plaintiffs," yet did not identify any one of these class members or their citizenship. However, Dancel's motion for a remand argued the "removal was improper not because jurisdiction was lacking but because it had always existed, and therefore Groupon had waived its right to remove," Bauer wrote. But in a later filing, Dancel argued that Groupon needed to identify an absent class member who lives in neither state to show minimal diversity. Groupon maintained it could cure that deficiency, but found it unnecessary. Although the panel said Groupon's allegations are deficient, Bauer explained an immediate remand to state court would be inappropriate so long as subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal court is apparent in the record or if the notice of removal could be amended to cure the shortcoming. "The record does not currently reveal the existence of jurisdiction, so Groupon must amend its allegations, as it may do even on appeal," Bauer wrote. "We asked Groupon to correct the jurisdictional statement in its appellate brief but it added only that its system did not screen photos for their owners' citizenship - still providing nothing but a guess of diversity, educated and sensible though it may be." The panel further acknowledged the bar to clear is low - Groupon only needed to allege "on information and belief" the class included at least one person who lived outside Delaware or Illinois - and noted Groupon said during appellate arguments it could identify a specific, diverse class member through discovery after a remand to the federal court. Bauer said the panel considered such a procedure earlier this year in Miller v. Southwest Airlines Co., and elected to follow that approach for Groupon, retaining its jurisdiction over Dancel's appeal pending resolution. "If the district court," Bauer wrote, "after a reasonable time, is not convinced that Groupon can carry its burden, then it may enter an indicative ruling that it is inclined to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and we will take appropriate steps." Dancel has been represented by Ari Scharg, Esq. -- ascharg@edelson.com -- Benjamin Richman, Esq. -- brichman@edelson.com -- Benjamin Thomassen, Esq. -- bthomassen@edelson.com -- and Jay Edelson, Esq. -- jedelson@edelson.com -- of the Chicago firm of Edelson PC, as well as by Rafey Balabanian, Esq. -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- of the firm's San Francisco office. Groupon has been defended by Brian Cohen, Esq., Christopher Moore, Esq. and Eric Macey, Esq. of the Chicago firm of Novack & Macey. [GN] HARO BICYCLE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haro Bicycle Corporation. The case is styled as Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Haro Bicycle Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09818 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Haro Bikes Corporation is an American BMX and Mountain bicycle manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com HOLLISTER CO: Tucker Sues Over Inaccessible Store Gift Cards ------------------------------------------------------------ HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLLISTER CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10033-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards that contain writing in Braille so they can be fully accessible and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift cards and, therefore, denial of its products and services and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff argues. Hence, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its store gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit cards, etc. The Defendant operates Hollister retail stores, as well as stores for various subsidiary companies. The Defendant advertises, markets, distributes and/or sells retail merchandises in the City and State of New York and throughout the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 IHOP RESTAURANTS: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IHOP Restaurants LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. IHOP Restaurants LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09854 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. IHOP is an American multinational pancake house restaurant chain that specializes in breakfast foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN: Abbott Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit entitled JERAMIE ABBOTT, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RIC1904487, was removed on Oct. 9, 2019, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01941 to the proceeding. On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff Jeramie Abbott filed this complaint in the Superior Court. The Plaintiff purports to bring the Complaint as a class action on his own behalf, as well as on behalf of each and all other persons similarly situated seeking, on behalf of all class members dating back to August 29, 2015, payment of allegedly unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages plus liquidated damages, meal break premium wages, and rest break premium wages.[BN] Defendant INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN CORPORATION is represented by: Thomas H. Petrides, Esq. VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 204-7700 Facsimile: (424) 204-7702 E-mail: tpetrides@vedderprice.com - and - Matthew L. Goldberg, Esq. VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2464 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 749-9500 Facsimile: (415) 749-9502 E-mail: mgoldberg@vedderprice.com JD'S TOWING: Glenn Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- James Glenn, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. JD'S TOWING OF NASHVILLE, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00961 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he regularly worked for JD's Towing without receiving overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. He was regularly required to work and performed work for the Company for more than 40 hours in a workweek. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive overtime pay under the FLSA for all time worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is employed by JD's Towing primarily as a tow truck driver. JD's Towing provides tow truck services in addition to general road side assistance such as wench outs and tire changes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner IV, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com - and - Nina H. Parsley, Esq. MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES 400 Professional Park Drive Goodlettsville, TN 37072 Phone: (615) 851-1776 Fax: (615) 859-7033 Email: nina@poncelaw.com JUUL LABS INC: M.D. Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The class action styled as M.D., individually and as legal guardian of her minor grandchild, M.E.D; on behalf of themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs Inc., Altria Group Inc., Philip Morris USA Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00180 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 24, 2019, and assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-06928-WHO. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury. Juul Labs, Inc. is an American electronic cigarette company which spun off from Pax Labs in 2017. It makes the Juul e-cigarette, which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use cartridges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: F. Hall Bailey, Esq. LALOR BAILEY & ABY, PLLC 2506 Lakeland Drive, Suite 203 Jackson, MS 39232 Phone: (601) 714-1150 Fax: (601) 326-9746 Email: hbailey@lalorbaileyaby.com - and - Robert Keith Morgan, Esq. LALOR BAILEY & ABY, PLLC 230 Trace Colony Park Drive, Suite 4 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 714-1153 Fax: (601) 326-9743 Email: kmorgan@lalorbaileyaby.com The Defendants are represented by: R. David Kaufman, Esq. BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES P. O. Drawer 119 Jackson, MS 39205-0119 Phone: (601) 948-3101 Email: dkaufman@brunini.com KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: Faces Class Action for Overcharging Tolls ------------------------------------------------------------ Aprile Rickert, writing for Wave 3 News, reports that a federal class-action lawsuit is pending against the companies responsible for tolling three of the five bridges that span the Ohio River between Indiana and Louisville. Indiana resident Melissa Barker filed the lawsuit in February against Kapsch TrafficCom USA, Inc. and Gila, LLC, the companies which act as tolling and invoicing agents for the Ohio River Bridges Project. Her complaint, initially filed in Marion County, states that the two companies overcharged her for tolls in 2017 and 2018, and she wants compensation for herself and the others in the lawsuit. The number of plaintiffs is unclear, but it is over 100, because the case has moved to federal court. "The proposed case contains hundreds or even thousands of motorists," according to the complaint. The toll a driver pays to tolling company RiverLink for crossing one of the three bridges varies, depending on the type of vehicle and type of account. For drivers without a prepaid account or one with insufficient funds, paper invoices are mailed to the drivers' homes roughly two months after a crossing. The first notice sent is expected to have only the toll charges, with 30 days to pay them. The second notice includes a $5 administrative fee and if that isn't paid in 30 days, a violation notice is sent out that includes the $5 fee plus $25 late fee. If this is not remedied, a collection notice is sent which includes the tolls and a total of $60 in fees - late fee, administrative fee and a $30 collection fee. The federal complaint states that on two instances, Barker received second notices with late fees after never having received the first notice. On Aug. 18, 2017, she received what was labeled as a second toll notice for trips across a bridge on June 29 and June 30. On Jan 16, 2018, she received the same type of notice for trips made Sept. 4 and Nov. 26. "These notices were falsely identified as "2nd Toll Notices" when in fact no first toll notice had been provided to plaintiff and the notices were not, in fact, "2nd" Toll Notices," the complaint reads. The charges alleged by the plaintiffs include fraud, violation of the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, deception or intentional misrepresentation and negligence. The plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial and seek monetary damages to be determined by the court. They have also requested preliminary and permanent injunction, the purpose to ensure that the alleged overcharging is not happening now. [GN] KEY FIRE: Parham Seeks Overtime Wages for Construction Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM PARHAM and CHRISTOPHER STEPHENS, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. KEY FIRE PROTECTION ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00180-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., Oct. 15, 2019), seeks unpaid straight time wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendant: Foremen, Helpers, Fitters, and other workers whom the Defendant compensated on an hourly basis, whose primary duties consisted of manual labor for installing fire protection systems, and whom the Defendant directed, suffered, or permitted to work off the clock without compensation, including without overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant applied policies and practices to the Collective under which the Defendant: (a) compensated Collective members on an hourly basis, (b) directed, suffered, or permitted them to work off the clock, including in excess of 40 hours per work week, and (c) intentionally failed to pay them for their off the clock work hours, including failing to pay them 1.5 times their regular hourly rates for hours in excess of 40 per week. Parham was employed by the Defendant as a Foreman from 2014 through September 2019. Stephens was employed by the Defendant as a Helper from October 2016 through August 2018. The Defendant is primarily in the business of installing fire protection systems, such as sprinkler systems.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee W. Brigham, Esq. BELL & BRIGHAM 457 Greene Street Post Office Box 1547 (30903) Augusta, GA 30901 Telephone: (706) 722-2014 Facsimile: (706) 722-7552 E-mail: lee@bellbrigham.com KRISPY KREME: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation. The case is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09859 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation operates as a restaurant. The Company offers milk shakes, doughnuts, cookies, buns, sundaes, coffee, fruit beverages, and other related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com KUYKENDAHL COUNTRY: Javed Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mukhmoor Ahmed Javed, and All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs v. Anil Jewanee, and Kuykendahl Country Pines LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-04232 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 28, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. During his period of employment, Mr. Javed says he worked an average of 14 hours a day, seven days a week. At the outset of his employment, Mr. Javed was promised pay at $12.00 per hour. In fact, Mr. Javed only received $12.00 per hour, and received no overtime pay despite working well in excess of 40 hours a week. Defendant Jewanee consistently failed to pay overtime wages to Mr. Javed and to all similarly situated clerks for which they now collectively sue under the FLSA. Mr. Javed contends he seeks collective action certification in order to litigate the unpaid overtime wages of all similarly situated clerks at all Gas Stations that are/were owned, operated and/or controlled by Defendant Jewanee during the Relevant Period. The Plaintiff was an employee, who worked as a clerk at a gas station and convenience store owned, operated, controlled by the Defendants from March 1, 2018, until May 27, 2019. The Defendant owns (or owned), operates (or operated) and controls (or controlled) gasoline stations and convenience stores engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq. ALI S. AHMED, P.C. 430 W. Bell Street Houston, TX 77019 Phone: (713) 898-0982 Facsimile: (713) 255-0013 Email: aahmedlaw@gmail.com LABRA TELECOM: Reyes Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE REYES, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. LABRA TELECOM, INC., STERLING TELECOM, INC., PAUL CONTINO and VERONICA HONOR, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09955 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2019), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff and others are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages; unpaid wages at the overtime wage rate; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals were not properly compensated wages at the overtime wage rate for all hours worked over 40 in a work week, according to the complaint. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals' wages for the hours worked over 40 hours in a week at the overtime wage rate, in violation of the FLSA and NYLL and the supporting Federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a public pay phone technician from November 10, 2015, to September 27, 2019. LABRA TELECOM INC., AND STERLING TELECOM, INC., are domestic business corporations and they are existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James F. Sullivan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C. 52 Duane Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 374-0009 Facsimile: (212) 374-9931 LAND ORIGINS: Arias FLSA Suit Removed to District of New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action lawsuit styled JUAN RAMIREZ ARIAS, JAVIER ANGEL, MIGUEL RAMIREZ ARIAS, and all other similarly situated employees of LAND ORIGINS, LLC v. LAND ORIGINS, LLC, and JASON BEATRICE, individually, Case No. UNNL-003030-19, was removed on Oct. 9, 2019, from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-18823 to the proceeding. On August 28, 2010, Plaintiffs Juan Ramirez Arias, Javier Angel, and Miguel Ramirez Arias commenced this civil action in the Superior Court. The Plaintiffs seek recovery of overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs also assert causes of action relating to wages under New Jersey laws, i.e., the New Jersey State Wage Payment Law, and associated New Jersey Administrative Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregg H. Salka, Esq. SALKA LAW LLC One University Plaza, Suite 516 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 880-6220 Facsimile: (201) 882-6065 E-mail: ghs@salkalaw.com LANDS END INC: Airline Staff Sue Over Substandard Uniforms ---------------------------------------------------------- Gwyneth Gilbert and Michael Marte, on behalf of themselves and the Putative Class, Plaintiffs, v. Lands' End, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00823 (W.D. Wisc., October 3, 2019), seeks actual damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other relief for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Gilbert and Marte are flight attendants and customer service agents for Delta Air Lines and have been required to wear uniforms manufactured by Lands' End, Inc. They claim that said uniforms cause skin rashes, headaches, fatigue, breathing difficulties, hair loss, low white blood cell counts and nausea. Additionally, the dyes used in coloring the textile is not colorfast and result in stains. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Zoeller, Esq. Caitlin M. Madden, Esq. Nicholas E. Fairweather, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. Post Office Box 2155 Madison, WI 53701-2155 Telephone: (608) 257-0040 Facsimile: (608) 256-0236 Email: cmadden@hq-law.com dzoeller@hq-law.com nfairweather@hq-law.com - and - Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. Randee M. Matloff, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 618-0400 Email: bnagel@nagelrice.com rmatloff@nagelrice.com - and - Edward Cerasia II, Esq. CERASIA & DEL REY-CONE LLP 150 Broadway, Suite 1517 New York, NY 10038 Tel: (646) 525-4231 Email: ed@cdemploymentlaw.com LAZER SPOT: Boyd Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES BOYD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAZER SPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12511 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Oct. 28, 2019), seeks to redress and curtail the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data. While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), the Defendant's employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from such situation, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, disseminates, and uses its employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, the Plaintiff alleges. Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate BIPA because it did not and continues not to: properly inform the Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by BIPA; receive a written release from the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to collect, store, or otherwise use their fingerprints, as required by BIPA; publish a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprints, as required by BIPA; and obtain consent from the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their fingerprints to a third party as required by BIPA, says the complaint. Plaintiff James Boyd is a natural person and a citizen of the State of Illinois. Lazer Spot, Inc. is a North American logistics company that provides yard management services and is headquartered at 6525 Shiloh Road, in Alpharetta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 233-1550 Fax: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McDonald's Corporation. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McDonald's Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09836 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. McDonald's Corporation is an American fast food company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com MCT RESTAURANTS: O'Neill Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- James O'Neill, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. M.C.T. RESTAURANTS INC. d/b/a FINN MAC COOL and CORENELIUS O'REILLY, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06087 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2019), alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff and others are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages at the minimum wage rate; unpaid wages at the overtime wage rate for all hours over 40 hours in a work week; spread of hours pay; liquidated damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid at a minimum wage rate and was not paid the overtime rate for all hours worked over 40 in a work week. The Defendants' knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals a wage at the minimum wage rate and overtime wages for the total hours worked over 40 hours in a work week in violation of the FLSA and NYLL and the supporting Federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in October 2002 to work as a bartender. M.C.T. RESTAURANTS INC. d/b/a FINN MAC COOL is a domestic business corporations and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James F. Sullivan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C. 52 Duane Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 374-0009 Facsimile: (212) 374-9931 MDL 2913: Nessmith v. JUUL over E-cigarettes Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as RIN NESSMITH and JARED NESSMITH, individually, and as guardians of their minor child, A.N., on behalf of themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JUUL LABS INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00884 (Filed March 15, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District California (San Francisco) on Oct 4, 2019. The Northern District California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-06344-WHO to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Act. The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices in Florida. In particular, Defendants have knowingly developed, sold, and promote a product that contained nicotine levels in excess of cigarettes with the intention of creating and fostering long-term addiction to JUUL products for minors to continue that addiction into adulthood; selling a product that aggravates nicotine addiction; creating advertising to target youth into using JUUL e-cigarettes, and disseminating that advertising through unregulated social media platforms commonly used by youth. The Plaintiffs and class members reasonably relied to their detriment on Defendants' unlawful conduct in that they purchased JUUL not knowing the true propensity of its dangers. They have sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' tortious conduct and seek injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive advertising and marketing practices. JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the lawsuit says. The Nessmith case is being consolidated with MDL 2913 in RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. 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 its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the 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 Panel select 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. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III. The lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Jonathan Robert Gdanski, Esq. Scott Schlesinger, Esq. Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, PA 1212 SE 3rd Ave Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 320-9507 Facsimile: (954) 320-9509 E-mail: jonathan@schlesingerlawoffices.com scott@schlesingerlaw.com JHaberman@schlesingerlaw.com Attorneys for Altria Group, Inc., and Philip Morris USA, Inc. are: Geoffrey Jonathan Michael, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, DC 20001-3743 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 E-mail: geoffrey.michael@aporter.com - and - William J. Schifino , Jr., Esq. BURR & FORMAN, LLP 201 N Franklin St Ste 3200 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 221-2626 Facsimile: (813) 221-7335 E-mail: bschifino@gunster.com Attorneys for JUUL Labs Inc. are George S. LeMieux, Esq. GUNSTER YOAKLEY & STEWART 450 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 468-1339 Facsimile: (954) 523-1722 E-mail: glemieux@gunster.com- and - - and - George Charles Nierlich, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission St Ste 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 E-mail: GNierlich@gibsondunn.com MDL 2915: Zosiak Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Kevin Zosiak individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital One Financial Corporation; Capital One, National Association; and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02265, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct. 11, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02916-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga. The Zosiak case is being consolidated with MDL 2915 in re: CAPITAL ONE CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. 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 in to 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. In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel select the Eastern District of Virginia as the transferee district for the 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 we are confident he will steer these proceedings on a prudent course. The Panel find 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. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga. The lead case is Case No. 1:19-md-02915-AJT-JFA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP P. C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 40 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9102 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com The Defendants are represented by: John C. Toro, Esq. KING & SPALDING (GA-NA) 1180 Peachtree St NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-2806 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: jtoro@kslaw.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Miller Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Dale Miller and John F. Barton, Jr., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled Dale Miller and John F. Barton, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York Corporation, Metlife, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 17-cv-7284, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 15, 2019, District Court Judge Analisa Torres granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). Plaintiffs Miller and Barton are commercial airline pilots. At all relevant times, Miller resided in California and Barton resided in Colorado. Miller has been a commercial airline pilot with United Airlines since 1990. As part of his employee benefits package, Miller enrolled in a life insurance program with MetLife. Around March 2000, Miller was notified that his life insurance policy was changing to a Group Variable Universal Life ("GVUL") policy. As part of enrolling in the GVUL policy, Miller completed a GVUL Special Enrollment Change Form. Section 1 of this enrollment form was labeled "Smoker/Non-Smoker Status Change." Miller left both of these options blank because he did not smoke and had not smoked during the relevant period, so there was no change to report. Shortly thereafter, MetLife began charging Miller a smoker rate for his life insurance policy. In October 2016, Miller decided to change the coverage on his GVUL policy through the United Airlines employee benefits website. He was required to complete an online form that included a question regarding his tobacco use for the previous five years. He answered that he was not a smoker. After noting that the new price of insurance was lower than what he had been previously paying, he contacted MetLife customer service. The customer service agent told Miller that he had been designated a smoker since his GVUL policy went into effect. Miller contacted his union and MetLife to request a refund. Miller estimates that MetLife's decision to designate him as a smoker resulted in a 19.7% overcharge in premium payments. Miller informed Barton about this experience. After his own investigation, Barton too realized that he had been charged smoker rates for his life insurance. Unlike with Miller, MetLife declined to provide Barton with his enrollment form for the GVUL policy. Barton, like Miller, was a non-smoker during the relevant five-year lookback period under the policy. The Plaintiffs initiated the action on Sept. 25, 2017. They filed their first amended complaint on Feb. 20, 2018, bringing claims for breach of contract and fraud. MetLife moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, arguing that the claims were precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA"), that the Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim, and that the Plaintiffs' claims were time-barred. The District Court referred the motion to the Hon. Sarah Netburn. In the report and recommendation, the District Court found that the Plaintiffs' fraud claim was precluded by SLUSA and that the Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for breach of contract. The District Court gave the Plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint in order to identify which specific contractual provision was allegedly breached and/or to assert a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on Jan. 4, 2019. The SAC asserts claims for breach of contract, contractual breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. The Plaintiffs bring these claims on behalf of themselves as well as putative California, Colorado, and nationwide classes, consisting of all persons who resided in California, Colorado, or the United States, and who entered into a contract with MetLife in response to a Group Variable Universal Life insurance offer in replacement of their Optional Term Life or Group Universal Life policy, wherein the enrollment form provided for a change in smoker status section which was left blank, and where [MetLife] charged smoker rates despite the class members never having enrolled as smokers. The appellate case is captioned as Dale Miller and John F. Barton, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York Corporation, the Defendant-Appellee, and Metlife, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19-3383, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. MetLife, Inc. is the holding corporation for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, better known as MetLife, and its affiliates. MetLife is among the largest global providers of insurance, annuities, and employee benefit programs, with 90 million customers in over 60 countries.[BN] The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Joshua Fields, Esq. KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP 1638 South Pacific Coast Highway Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Telephone: (310) 536-1000 Facsimile: (310) 536-1001 E-mail: jf@kirtlandpackard.com The Defendant-Appellee is Represented by: Edward Morris Holt, Esq. MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P. C. 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza 1901 6th Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1102 E-mail: tholt@maynardcooper.com MGM SPRINGFIELD: Faces Connors Wage and Hour Suit in D. Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN CONNORS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. MGM SPRINGFIELD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-30144 (D. Mass., Oct. 28, 2019), alleges violation of state and federal wage-and-hour laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends the wage-and-hour violations include MGM implementing and enforcing illegal policies of: (1) calculating overtime rates for tipped employees based on service rates instead of the basis minimum wage, (2) paying its tipped employees less than the basic minimum wage, (3) taking a tip credit towards its minimum wage obligations for tipped employees without providing required notice that it was doing so and (4) deducting gaming employee license fees (a/k/a "Badge/Card" fees) from employees' wages. The Plaintiff says he worked more than forty hours in at least one workweek and was not paid overtime wages at the rate of one-and-one-half times the basic minimum wage for all hours worked in excess of forty during each workweek, as required by the FLSA and Massachusetts law. The Plaintiff was not paid at least the basic minimum wage for all hours worked under forty in a workweek as required by the FLSA and Massachusetts law; instead, he was paid a service rate during his employment with MGM. The Defendant took a tip credit related to the payment of the Plaintiff's wages, and also failed to properly inform its employees, including the Plaintiff, about the tip credit as required by Massachusetts law, says the complaint. the Plaintiff is a resident of Uncasville, Connecticut, and was employed by the Defendant. MGM is a casino with approximately 125,000 square feet of gaming space, 2,500 slot machines, 93 gaming tables, 23 poker tables and a high limit VIP gambling area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq. STEFFANS LEGAL LLC 7 North Street, Suite 307 Pittsfield, MA 01201 Phone (413) 418-4176 Email: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com MITCHELL RESTAURANT: Fabelo Seeks Unpaid OT Pay, Wage Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Muhammad Fabelo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mitchell Restaurant Deli, Inc., Mokthar M Issah and Michael Issah, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-05573 (E.D. N.Y., October 2, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and unpaid spread of hours premium and statutory damages for failure to provide required wage and hour law notices pursuant to New York Labor Laws and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. Defendants own and operate a latin cuisine restaurant under the trade name "Piquant Restaurant," where Fabelo worked as a server. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY Tel: (718) 669-0714 Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Perry Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- GARY M. PERRY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00952 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 28, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Tennessee state law. Mr. Perry was a non-exempt employee who was entitled to be paid time and a half for hours over 40 worked in any workweek. In his role as the Captain District Chief Paramedic, Perry was required to work 120 hours for two weeks, 120 hours for the next two weeks, and then 96 hours for the final two-week period. This work cycle repeated every six weeks for Perry and the Collective Class. The Plaintiff was paid $38.61 per hour for all worked performed, regardless if the work exceeded 40 hours per week. The Defendant's failure to pay overtime compensation as required by the FLSA results from a policy or practice applicable to Perry and the Members of the Class. The Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out its illegal pattern or practice of failing to properly pay overtime compensation with respect to Perry and the Members of the Class, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in 1990. Most recently, he served as the Captain District Chief Paramedic for the Montgomery County EMS. The Defendant's Montgomery County EMS is the sole 911 provider for Clarksville-Montgomery County, providing 24-hour emergency medical transportation, rope rescue, dive rescue/recovery, trench rescue, tactical medics and many other specialized rescue operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle F. Biesecker, Esq. BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC 3200 West End Avenue, Suite 500 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 783-2171 Facsimile: (812) 424-1005 Email: kfb@bdlegal.com MYRIAD GENETICS: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that class action complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of MYGN, TME, and OSTK. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the lead plaintiff deadlines listed below. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no action, you may remain an absent class member. To discuss the cases below, please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414. Myriad Genetics (MYGN) CLASS PERIOD: 09/2/2016-08/13/2019 LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 26, 2019 Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GeneSight lacked evidence or information sufficient to support the tests in their current form, including their purported benefits; (ii) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had requested changes to GeneSight and questioned the validity of the tests purported benefits; (iii) Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding the FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (iv) Myriad's acquisition of Counsyl and thereby, Foresight caused the Company to incur the risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for its expanded carrier screening tests, which had the potential to, and actually did, materialize into a material negative impact on the Company's revenue; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To get additional information about the Myriad Genetics Shareholder Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME) CLASS PERIOD: 12/12/2018-08/26/2019 LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 25, 2019 Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tencent Music's exclusive licensing arrangements with major record labels were anticompetitive; (ii) consequently, sublicensing such content from Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese antimonopoly laws; (iii) these anticompetitive efforts were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (iv) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. To get additional information about the Tencent Shareholder Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK) CLASS PERIOD: 05/09/2019-09/23/2019 LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 26, 2019 Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (i) that the Defendants had engineered the tZERO offering as revenge upon short sellers and tried to create a short squeeze by offering a digital token dividend that would not be registered and could not be resold for at least 6 months; and (ii) that there were substantial risks to this plan; (iii) that Overstock's incredibly high Directors & Officers insurance rates and other problems were causing the Company to miss earnings projections for the year. To get additional information about the Overstock Shareholder Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact: Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Website: http://www.bernlieb.com Tel: (877) 779-1414 Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] MYRIAD GENETICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN). To determine your eligibility and get free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery assistance, please contact the firm. There will be no cost or obligation to you. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN) Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 2, 2016 - August 13, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 26, 2019 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/myriad-genetics-inc-loss-form?prid=3894&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Myriad Genetics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Myriad's product, GeneSight, lacked evidence or information sufficient to support the tests in their current form, including their purported benefits; (ii) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had requested changes to GeneSight and questioned the validity of the test's purported benefits; (iii) Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding the FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (iv) Myriad's acquisition of Counsyl-and thereby, Foresight-caused the Company to incur the risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for its expanded carrier screening tests, which had the potential to, and actually did, materialize into a material negative impact on the Company's revenue; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Contact: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] NHK SPRING: Faces Integrity Suit Alleging Hard Drive Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- INTEGRITY FINANCIAL SERVICES OF TAMPA BAY INC. d/b/a INTEGRITY FINANCIAL SERVICES and COWDEN ASSOCIATES, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.; NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; TDK CORPORATION; NAT PERIPHERAL (HONG KONG) CO., LTD.; NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD.; NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD.; TDK CORPORATION; MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD.; SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD; HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-10 Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07046-MMC (E.D. Mich., Oct. 28, 2019), is an antitrust lawsuit arising from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to eliminate competition, fix prices, and allocate markets for hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the United States. The action is brought against the Defendants--manufacturers and suppliers of HDD Suspension Assemblies--for engaging in a years-long conspiracy to unlawfully raise the prices of those products to artificial levels and allocate markets for those products. HDD Suspension Assemblies are a critical component of hard disk drives, which are used to store electronic information. HDDs are either incorporated into electronic devices, such as desktop computers, laptops, gaming consoles, and MP3 players, or sold as stand-alone storage devices. Pursuant to their anticompetitive agreements not to compete, the Defendants exchanged pricing information, including anticipated pricing quotes, which they used to inform their negotiations with U.S. and foreign customers that purchased suspension assemblies and produced hard disk drives for sale in, or delivery to, the U.S. and elsewhere. Competition authorities in the U.S. and across the globe have been investigating the Defendants' conspiracy since at least 2016. In as early as July 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice opened an investigation relating to HDD Suspension Assemblies. NHK Spring disclosed later that on July 26, 2016, DOJ performed an on-sight inspection of an NHK company. In July 2019, DOJ filed a one-count information in this court against NHK Spring Co. Ltd, charging the company with fixing prices on HDD Suspension Assemblies. NHK Spring has agreed to plead guilty and pay a $28.5 million criminal fine, subject to court approval. In 2016, the Japanese Fair Trade Commission ("JFTC") also raided Defendants NHK Spring and TDK on suspicion that the companies were colluding in the supply of HDD components, including HDD Suspension Assemblies. In 2018, NHK Spring and one of its subsidiaries were fined 1.1 billion yen (nearly $10 million) for price fixing HDD Suspension Assemblies; TDK cooperated with the Japanese regulators. South Korean and Brazilian competition authorities have also been investigating the cartel. The conspiracy engaged in by the Defendants and their co-conspirators was an unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in violation of state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws. As a direct result of the anticompetitive and unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and members of the Class paid artificially inflated prices for HDD Suspension Assemblies and have been injured in their business and property for the period beginning at least as early as May 2008 and continuing until at least April 2016, says the complaint. To redress the economic injury the Defendants caused, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, seek damages under state antitrust, consumer protection, and common laws. Plaintiff Integrity Financial Services is a full-service residential and commercial lending company. Integrity Financial Services purchased HDD Suspension Assemblies indirectly from one or more Defendants. NHK Spring manufactured and/or supplied HDD Suspension Assemblies during the Class Period.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay L. Himes, Esq. Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Domenico Minerva, Esq. Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. Tianran Song, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 Email: gasciolla@labaton.com jhimes@labaton.com kgarvey@labaton.com dminerva@labaton.com jcrevier@labaton.com tsong@labaton.com - and - Paul F. Novak, Esq. Diana Gjonaj, Esq. Gregory Stamatopoul, Esq. Tiffany Ellis, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C. 3011 West Grand Blvd., Suite 2150 Detroit, MI 48202 Phone: (313) 800-4170 Email: pnovak@weitzlux.com dgjonaj@weitzlux.com gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com tellis@weitzlux.com NIPPON TRENDS: Faces Damian Suit for Failing to Pay Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- TEOFILA DAMIAN v. NIPPON TRENDS FOOD SERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV356328 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Oct. 8, 2019), is brought by the Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated employees, accusing the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code. Ms. Damian was a packager for the Defendant. She alleges that the Defendants violated the Labor Code by, among other things, failing to pay her and other employees all wages owed, including minimum wage and overtime wage. Nippon Trends Food Service, Inc. is a California corporation that manufactures authentic Japanese-style noodles, whose facilities are located in San Jose, California. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq. Emily Stewart, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net balem@mahoney-law.net estewart@mahoney-law.net NORDSTROM INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nordstrom, Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nordstrom, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09817 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nordstrom, Inc. is a fashion retailer of apparel, shoes, and accessories for men, women, and children. It is an American chain of luxury department stores, also operating in Canada and headquartered in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com NORTH CAROLINA: Hodge Seeks Unpaid Wages for Corrections Officers ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW HODGE, DAVID HOLBROOK, PHILIP KAY, JACOB FRANCKOWIAK, BROOKS DICKERSON, and RALPH BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY and DIVISION OF ADULT CORRECTION AND JUVENILE JUSTICE, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00478-D (E.D.N.C., Oct. 28, 2019), is a collective/class action brought on behalf of current and former Corrections Officers employed by the Defendants to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and the Class members are and were paid pursuant to Section 7(k) of the FLSA, which allows payment of overtime to "any employee in law enforcement activities (including security personnel in correctional institutions)" based on a 28-day work period, known as a "tour of duty" rather than the traditional 40-hour work week. The Plaintiffs and the Class members are, therefore, entitled to receive overtime pay (or compensatory time) at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 171 hours in their 28-day tours of duty, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Corrections Officers, a Corrections Sergeant, and Corrections Officers II. DPS owns and/or operates correctional facilities across the State of North Carolina, where the Plaintiffs and the Class members work or have worked.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: 919-600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 Email: dan@wbmllp.com pat@wbmllp.com - and – Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 Email: gmason@wbmllp.com dperry@wbmllp.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-214-7900 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com lreasons@dicellolevitt.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. R. Michael Smith, Esq. Katherine Van Dyck, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 789-3960 Email: charles@cuneolaw.com mike@cuneolaw.com kvandyck@cuneolaw.com - and – Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 226-1015 Facsimile: 202) 789-1813 Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Shoshana Savett, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net stsavett@bm.net kconnon@bm.net OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09858 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC owns and operates a chain of steakhouse restaurants in the United State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com PANERA LLC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panera, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Panera, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09862 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Panera Bread Company is an American chain store of bakery-cafe fast casual restaurants with over 2,000 locations, all of which are in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com PEAK DEBT: Faces Phan Suit Alleging Violation of Consumer Laws -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was filed against Peak Debt Consumption, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Vickie Phan, individually and Behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Peak Debt Consumption, LLC; Chris McCormick; Credit Precision, Inc.; Mark Miller; Fisher Law Group, PLLC; David Fisher; and Hegemon Group International, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-04613-JPB (N.D. Ga., Oct. 15, 2019). The lawsuit alleges violation of consumer credit related laws. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. P. Boulee. The Defendant in the nonresidential building operators business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Eliot DeWoskin, Esq. DEWOSKIN LAW FIRM, LLC 535 N. McDonough Street Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 987-0026 Facsimile: (404) 378-0717 E-mail: dan@atlantatrial.com - and - James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq. HURT STOLZ, P.C. 1551 Jennings Mill Road Suite 3100-B Watkinsville, GA 30677 Telephone: (706) 395-2750 Facsimile: (866) 766-9245 E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com - and - Sam S. Han, Esq. DEWOSKIN LAW FIRM, LLC 535 N. McDonough Street Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 987-0026 E-mail: prof.sam.han@gmail.com PICK 6 TAHOE: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Johnson Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Johnson, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. PICK 6 TAHOE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02186-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2019), alleges that in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the California Labor Code, the Defendant fails to properly pay the Plaintiff and other employees. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendant did not pay wages on time with respect to the regularly scheduled paydays, and it wrote bad checks with insufficient funds to cover pay checks. The Defendant also failed to reimburse employees for costs of such violations, including bank fees and statutory damages/wages. The Defendant also failed to pay wages for all hours worked, and did not provide rest breaks in which employees were free of work duties. Moreover, the Defendant altered time cards to change start and end time to reduce wages recorded being due to employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from May 5, 2019, through August 1, 2019. The Defendant is a private business and employer doing business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFFESIONAL LAW CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 777-7777 Fax: (916) 924-1829 Email: jwatson@justice4you.com PRO HARVESTING: Vasquez Seeks Proper Wages for Farm Labor Help -------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA VASQUEZ and JUAN RODRIGUEZ, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PRO HARVESTING, INC., a California corporation; BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. 19CECG03614 (Cal. Super., Oct. 4, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum wage, failed to pay overtime wage, and failed to provide meal period and rest period in violation of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The Plaintiffs have worked for Defendant Pro Harvesting, Inc. as a non-exempt seasonal farm labor employees. Pro Harvesting assigned Plaintiffs to work in agriculture fields owned by Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc., where Plaintiffs harvested fruits such as lemons, oranges, grapefruit, and mandarins. The Plaintiffs were compensated on a piece-rate basis, whereby they were paid a predetermined amount per bin of produce they filled. The Defendants have not boarded or lodged Plaintiffs during their employment. The Defendants have failed to maintain accurate records of Plaintiffs' actual hours worked. Defendants utilize no timeclock or timecard system for employees, and do not provide employees with any opportunity to verify or affirm their hours worked. As a result, the Defendants have failed to maintain accurate records, and Plaintiffs and other non-exempt employees were not credited with the correct number of hours worked, leading to unpaid minimum and overtime wages, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Matthew K. Moen, Esq. Brittaney D. de la Torre, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com mmoen@haineslawgroup.com bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Faces Mantha Suit Over Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Mantha, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-12235 (D. Mass., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The TCPA is a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. Quotewizard.com sent automated text message calls to cellular telephone numbers, including the Plaintiff, which is prohibited by the TCPA. The calls were also made to some individuals despite their presence on the National Do Not Call Registry, such as the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff says he never consented to receive the calls, which were placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons, who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendant. Joseph Mantha is a Massachusetts resident located in this District. The Defendant sells its services to insurance agents, and provides those agents with potential customers and new business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq. Jeremy Cohen, Esq. CW LAW GROUP, P.C. 188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01701 Email: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 738-7080 Email: ted@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Phone: (508) 655-1415 Email: mmccue@massattorneys.com RED WING: Illegally Prints Debit/Credit Card Nos., Southam Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES LUCAS SOUTHAM, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. RED WING SHOE COMPANY, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Defendant, Case No. 97994376 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Oct. 28, 2019), arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires persons that accept debit cards or credit cards for the transaction of business to truncate certain card number information on printed receipts provided to consumers. Despite the clear language of the statute, the Defendant knowingly or recklessly failed to comply with FCRA by printing 10 digits of its customers' credit card and/or debit card numbers on transaction receipts, the Plaintiff alleges. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class who conducted business with the Defendant during the time frame relevant to this action have suffered a violation of their substantive rights, an invasion of their privacy, breach of their confidence in the safe handling of their account information, exposure to an elevated risk of identity theft, and were unfairly burdened with the need to keep or destroy the receipt, to prevent further disclosure of their account information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was and is a citizen of the state of Florida. The Defendant is a well-known retailer of men's and women's footwear that owns and operates more than retail 100 stores located throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Phone: 954-589-0588 Fax: 954-337-0666 Email: scott@scottdowens.com - and - Bret L. Lusskin, Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, P.A. 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (954) 454-5841 Facsimile: (954) 454-5844 Email: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com - and - Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312.726.1092 Facsimile: 312.726.1093 Email: keith@keoghlaw.com SAM HOUSTON: Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted in Berry Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case IN RE SAM HOUSTON ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Case No. 09-19-00285-CV, (Tex. App.), the Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont, issued an Memorandum Opinion conditionally granting Defendant's Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Joe D. Berry, individually, on behalf of the surviving heirs and children of Lester B. Berry, as next friend of Kevin M. Berry, and as administrator of the Estate of Lester B. Berry, filed a lawsuit against Relator Sam Houston Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SHEC), alleging that SHEC shut off power to the home of Lester B. Berry without proper notice, causing horrendous suffering to and ultimately the awful death of Lester Berry. According to Berry, Lester was disabled and required an oxygen concentrator around the clock, and to work properly the oxygen concentrator needed a constant supply of electricity. Berry asserted causes of action for negligence, gross negligence, survival, and wrongful death. In his second amended petition, Berry purported to assert a class action "as representative of all others similarly situated," and he added individual defendants, who he alleged were current officers, directors, advisory directors, or advisory directors-at-large of SHEC. Berry pleaded, among other things, that SHEC had breached its fiduciary duties by failing to return margins periodically to its members as required by statute, and that rather than operating as a nonprofit entity, SHEC was confiscating each member's equity. Additionally, Berry asserted that SHEC had failed to retire capital credits. SHEC and the individual defendants moved to compel arbitration and to stay the class action claims pending arbitration. The trial court signed an order denying the motion, and the defendants appealed. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order and remanded the cause for entry of an order compelling arbitration and staying further proceedings as to the class action claims pending arbitration. The trial judge signed an order severing the class action from the wrongful death and survival claims. Berry then filed a motion in the wrongful death and survival portion of the lawsuit to compel the depositions of the members of SHEC's Board of Directors. In the motion, Berry asserted that he had a right to take the depositions because the Board grants an applicant membership into SHEC and the Board would have knowledge of Lester's membership. SHEC responded to the motion to compel depositions and argued that the plaintiffs were effectively ignoring the court ordered severance of the class action claims from the current survival and wrongful death actions. SHEC alleged that the depositions were unrelated to the pending lawsuit and constituted an abuse of process. Additionally, SHEC asserted that the plaintiffs had not explained the relevance of the Board members' depositions and that the depositions were impermissible under the apex doctrine. Berry responded and asserted that he has a right to take the depositions of the Board members because it is permitted by the rules, despite the Board of Directors' status as a nonparty in the case. In addition, Berry asserted that the requested depositions were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. SHEC then filed an application for writ of mandamus, in which it asks the Appellate Court to compel the trial court to vacate its order compelling the depositions of its Board of Directors and to grant its motion for protection from the depositions. The Appellate Court agrees with SHEC that the trial court abused its discretion by compelling the depositions of SHEC Board members when Berry did not show that the Board members had unique or personal knowledge about Berry's alleged wrongful death cause of action. In addition, potential knowledge of capital credits, which Berry advanced as one of the subjects of the depositions, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in the underlying wrongful death cause of action, the Appellate Court holds. Accordingly, the Appellate Court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus and ordered the trial court to vacate its orders compelling the depositions of the members of SHEC's Board of Directors and orders denying the motions for protection against the apex depositions. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to do so. A full-text copy of the Texas Court of Appeals' October 3, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y28ujhz7 from Leagle.com Frederick L. McGuire , for Joe D. Berry, Real party in interest. Mark Davis , Theresa Wanat , L. Bradley Hancock , for Sam Houston Electric Cooperative, Inc., Relator. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Sherman Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Randall Sherman filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Randall Sherman v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-08609-AB-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The nature of suit is stated as other labor litigation. The appellate case is captioned as Randall Sherman v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc., Case No. 19-56183, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by November 7, 2019; -- Transcript is due on December 9, 2019; -- Appellant Randall Sherman's opening brief is due on January 16, 2020; -- Appellee Schneider National Carriers, Inc.'s answering brief is due on February 18, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant RANDALL SHERMAN, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, is represented by: David Mara, Esq. Tony Roberts, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM PC 2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 E-mail: dmara@maralawfirm.com troberts@maralawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., is represented by: Sabrina Alexis Beldner, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Matthew Kane, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 956-3419 E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com mkane@mcguirewoods.com - and - Sylvia Kim, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 844-9944 E-mail: skim@mcguirewoods.com SEMGROUP CORP: Faces Lawrence Suit Over Energy Transfer Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- PETER LAWRENCE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SEMGROUP CORPORATION, THOMAS R. MCDANIEL, CARLIN G. CONNER, JAMES H. LYTAL, SARAH M. BARPOULIS, KARL F. KURZ, WILLIAM J. MCADAM and RONALD A. BALLSCHMIEDE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02035-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 28, 2019), is brought on behalf of the public holders of the common stock of SemGroup for the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between SemGroup and Energy Transfer LP. On September 15, 2019, the Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive a combination of $6.80 in cash and 0.7275 units of Energy Transfer common units for each share of SemGroup stock they own. Upon completion of the merger, SemGroup shareholders will own approximately 2.2% and Energy Transfer unitholders will own approximately 97.8% of the common units outstanding. On October 3, 2019, in order to convince SemGroup shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, the Plaintiff alleges. The materially incomplete and misleading S-4 violates both Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9, each of which constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the S-4, the Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff asserts. In particular, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by the Defendants in recommending that SemGroup shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by SemGroup's financial advisor, Jefferies LLC ("Jefferies") in support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff contends. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the material information is disclosed to SemGroup shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. The Plaintiff is a holder of SemGroup common stock. SemGroup provides gathering, transportation, storage, distribution, marketing and other midstream services primarily to producers, refiners of petroleum products and other market participants located in the Gulf Coast, Midwest, and Rocky Mountain regions of the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 482-3182 Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com SEPHORA USA INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sephora USA, Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sephora USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09819 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sephora is a Paris–based French multinational chain of personal care and beauty stores founded in Limoges in 1969. Featuring nearly 300 brands, along with its own private label, Sephora offers beauty products including cosmetics, skincare, body, fragrance, nail color, beauty tools, and haircare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Franchi Sues Over Decline of IPO Price ----------------------------------------------------------- Adam Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC., DAVID KATZMAN, KYLE WAILES, STEVEN KATZMAN, JORDAN KATZMAN, ALEXANDER FENKELL, RICHARD SCHNALL, SUSAN GREENSPON RAMMELT, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., BOFA SECURITIES, INC., JEFFERIES LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., and LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09794 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 29, 2019), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired SmileDirectClub Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connections with the Company's September 2019 initial public offering. The Plaintiff pursues claims against Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933. On September 13, 2019, the Company filed the prospectus on Form 434B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the IPO's Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold approximately 58.5 million shares of Class A common stock at a price of $23.00 per share. On September 24, 2019, a class action complaint was filed by dentists, orthodontists, and consumers against SmileDirectClub, alleging false advertising, fraud, negligence, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The complaint disputed the accuracy of several statements in the Registration Statement and highlighted that the Company is subject to litigation for operating as a dentist without proper licensing in several states, as well as other litigation. On the news, the Company's share price fell $1.47, or nearly 9%, to close at $15.68 per share on September 24, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. The price stock continued to decline over the next two trading sessions by $2.74, or over 17%, to close at $12.94 per share on September 26, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company's stock would close on October 21, 2019 at $9.13 per share, a 60% decline from the $23 per share IPO price. The Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that administrative personnel, rather than licensed doctors, provided treatment of the Company's customers and monitored their progress; (2) that, as a result, the Company was subject to regulatory scrutiny for the unlicensed practice of dentistry; (4) that the efficacy of the Company's treatment was overstated; (5) that the Company had concealed these deceptive marketing practices prior to the IPO; and (6) that as a result, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful act and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have differed significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired SmileDirectClub securities at artificially inflated prices in the IPO. SmileDirectClub purports to be the "first direct-to consumer medtech platform for transforming smiles" that manufactures, markets, and sells clear aligner treatments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wade B. Cowan, Esq. DAVIES HUMPHREYS & REESE, PLC 85 White Bridge Road, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37205 Phone: 615-256-8125 Facsimile: 615-242-7853 Email: wcowan@dhhrplc.com - and - Christopher L. Nelson, Esq. James M. Ficarp, Esq. THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. 22 Cassatt Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (610) 225-2677 Facsimile: (610) 408-8062 Email: cln@weiserlawfirm.com jmf@weiserlawfirm.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sonim Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: SONM) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Sonim's May 2019 initial public stock offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Sonim investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Sonim class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1687.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's XP8 was experiencing material software challenges; (2) these software issues adversely affected how the device's Qualcomm chipset, which supported Band 14 access, connected to AT&T's carrier network configuration; (3) the Company's XP5 and XP3 devices were experiencing material software defects that adversely affected their optimization with certain accessories; (4) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to delay the launch of new products; (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results would be materially and adversely impacted; and (6) as a result, defendants' statements about Sonim's business, operations, and prospects were materially 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. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 6, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1687.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: 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 Website: www.rosenlegal.com E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] STEKLEN & WALKER: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steklen & Walker CO., Inc. The case is styled as Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Steklen & Walker Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09831 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Steklen & Walker Co., Inc, doing business as Wine Library, provides alcohol beverage. The Company offers wine, spirits, and other alcoholic beverage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com TALIA'S RESTAURANT: Hamilton Seeks to Recover Wages, Tips --------------------------------------------------------- NIKOLA HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TALIA'S RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC d/b/a TALIA'S STEAKHOUSE, and EPHRAIM NAGAR, Case No. 1:19-cv-09311 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2019), seeks to recover under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law unpaid minimum wages and unlawfully misappropriated tips for the Defendants' food service worker. Talia's New York is a limited liability company. Ephraim Nagar is an owner and operator of Talia's. The Defendants own and operate Talia's Steakhouse, a restaurant located at 668 Amsterdam Ave., in New York City, where the Plaintiff worked as a server.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq. THE KLEIN LAW GROUP PC 39 Broadway, Suite 1530 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 344-9022 Facsimile: (212) 344-0301 E-mail: Darren@thekleinlawgroup.com TARGET CORPORATION: Delacruz Files Suit Under Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TARGET CORPORATION. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09851 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Target Corporation is the eighth-largest retailer in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com TENCENT MUSIC: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Nov. 25 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits has commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME). To determine your eligibility and get free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery assistance, please contact the firm. There will be no cost or obligation to you. Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME) Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 12, 2018 - August 26, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 25, 2019 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tencent-music-entertainment-group-loss-form?prid=3894&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Tencent Music Entertainment Group made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tencent Music's exclusive licensing arrangements with major record labels were anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] TESLA INC: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Wilson Wage and Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Carrie Hughes, Katia Segal and Brian Wilson filed an appeal from a Court ruling issued in their lawsuit entitled Brian Wilson, et al. v. Tesla, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-03763-JSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The District Court issued an Order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, the Class Action Reporter reported on Sept 23, 2019. The Plaintiffs have sought reconsideration of the District Court's order on attorneys' fees and costs and the class representative incentive award under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6). Plaintiffs Brian Wilson, Carrie Hughes, and Katia Segal filed this wage and hour class action against their employer, Tesla, Inc. and Tesla Motors, Inc. alleging that Tesla misclassified them as exempt employees and failed to provide them overtime, rest and meal breaks, wage statements, and final wages. The Plaintiffs then filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The Court filed its order granting final approval of the class action settlement and granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive awards for the class representatives. The appellate case is captioned as Brian Wilson, et al. v. Tesla, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-16998, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by November 8, 2019; -- Transcript is due on December 9, 2019; -- Appellants Carrie Hughes, Katia Segal and Brian Wilson's opening brief is due on January 17, 2020; -- Appellees Tesla Motors, Inc. and Tesla, Inc.'s answering brief is due on February 18, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIAN WILSON, CARRIE HUGHES and KATIA SEGAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alisa Ann Martin, Esq. AMARTIN LAW 600 West Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 308-6880 E-mail: alisa@amartinlaw.com Defendants-Appellees TESLA, INC., a corporation, DBA Tesla Motors, Inc., and TESLA MOTORS, INC., a corporation, are represented by: Jack Steven Sholkoff, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 E-mail: jack.sholkoff@ogletreedeakins.com THESY LLC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thesy, LLC. The case is styled as Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thesy, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09827 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thesy, LLC or Element Vape is a progressive online retail establishment serving the vaping and e-cigarette community with vape mods, pod systems, starter kits, and premium vape juice.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic St., Suite 5 Hakensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com TIM HORTON'S: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tim Horton's USA Inc. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Tim Horton's USA Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09863 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tim Hortons USA Inc., doing business as Restaurant Brands International Inc., owns and operates restaurant franchisees. The Company offers coffee, baked goods, and homestyle lunches.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com TRADER JOE'S: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trader Joe's Company. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Trader Joe's Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09865 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Trader Joe's is an American chain of grocery stores headquartered in Monrovia, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com TUTELIAN & CO: Jimenez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks --------------------------------------------------------------- Javier Jimenez on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tutelian & Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19CECG03572 (Cal. Super., October 3, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders. Defendant operates a shopping center in Fresno where Jimenez worked as a non-exempt cleaner. He routinely worked in excess of 8 hours per work day and/or more than 40 hours per work week but did not receive overtime compensation, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Brown, Esq. STAINSBURY BROWN LAW Venice, CA 9029 Tel: (310) 420-0158 Fax: (310) 410-8400 Email: dbrown@stansburybrownlaw.com ULTA BEAUTY: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ulta Beauty, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ulta Beauty, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09845 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ulta Beauty Inc., formerly known as Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc., is an American chain of beauty stores in the United States, headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com UNILEVER: Culver Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Mustard Products ------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS CULVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-09263 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2019), is a consumer protection and false advertising class action lawsuit brought against the Defendant based on its deceptive business practices with respect to the sale of its "Maille" brand mustard products that, even though appear to be made in France, are not from France. The Plaintiff alleges that Unilever has systematically marketed and sold the "Maille" brand mustard Products with labeling, packaging, and advertising that indicate the Products are made in France, such that any United States consumer who purchased the Products, or who purchases the Products today or in the future, is exposed to the Defendant's uniform representations indicating that the Products are made in France. Each of the Product labels bear references to France and makes use of the French language. For example, the label of Maille Old Style Mustard, which is actually made in Canada, bears the following representations: "Paris," a Paris emblem, "Depuis 1747," and "Que Maille." Based on these representations, consumers reasonably believe the Products are made in France. The Products' labeling, packaging, and marketing led the Plaintiff and the Class members to reasonably believe they were purchasing mustard that was made in France. In reality, the Products are not made in France, but instead are made in Canada. Thus, Defendant misleads, deceives, and confuses reasonable consumers, including the Plaintiff and the Class members, by portraying the Products as being made in France, when in fact they are made in Canada. The Defendant's conduct harms consumers by inducing them to purchase the Products at a premium price on the false premise that the Products are made in France (as they are in fact made in Canada), when the consumers would not have otherwise purchased the Products, or would have paid substantially less for them had they known the truth, says the complaint. The Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed Class stop Unilever's unlawful practices, seeking injunctive and monetary relief and such additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Plaintiff purchased the Maille Old Style Mustard Product and the Maille Traditional Dijon Originale Mustard Product in 2018 and 2019. Unilever United States, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com jnassir@faruqilaw.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com - and - George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: ggranade@reesellp.com UNILEVER: Stewart Files Fraud Class Suit ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unilever United States, Inc. and Conopco, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Bryce Stewart III individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Unilever United States, Inc., Conopco, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05993 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Unilever United States, Inc. manufactures personal care products. The Company offers, laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes. as well as provides ice creams, oils, mayonnaise, spreads, sauces, tea. Unilever United States serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D Arisohn, Esq. Bursor & Fisher PA 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: jarisohn@bursor.com VIEWRAY INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of Nov. 12 Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of ViewRay, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRAY) common stock between March 15, 2019 and August 8, 2019 (the "Class Period") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The case is captioned Corwin v. ViewRay, Inc., No. 19-cv-2115, and is assigned to Judge James S. Gwin. The ViewRay class action lawsuit charges ViewRay and three of its executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead plaintiff motions for the ViewRay class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than November 12, 2019. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased ViewRay common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the ViewRay class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the ViewRay class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the ViewRay class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the ViewRay class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the ViewRay class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the ViewRay class action lawsuit, please visit our website by clicking here or contact counsel Brian E. Cochran or Mary K. Blasy at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com or mblasy@rgrdlaw.com. ViewRay specializes in the development of MRI-guided radiation therapy technology for the treatment of cancer. The ViewRay class action lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that failed to disclose adverse facts concerning ViewRay's business, operations, and financial results. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose: (a) that demand for ViewRay systems had declined due in part to changes being made to Medicare reimbursement approaches first announced in November 2019 that could make purchases of new ViewRay systems less profitable for customers; (b) that ViewRay's reported backlog was overstated due to the inclusion of orders with insufficient surety as to permit for their inclusion in reported backlog; and (c) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about ViewRay's business metrics and financial prospects during the Class Period were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On August 8, 2019, after the close of trading, ViewRay disclosed operational issues and slashed its previously issued full fiscal year 2019 financial guidance. In response to this news, the price of ViewRay common stock declined by more than 50% to close at $3.10 per share on August 9, 2019. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Contact: Brian E. Cochran, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Tel: 800-449-4900 https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw Email: mblasy@rgrdlaw.com, bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN] VIEWRAY INC: Rosen Reminds Investors of Nov. 12 Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of ViewRay, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRAY) from March 15, 2019 through August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important November 12, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for ViewRay investors under the federal securities laws. To join the ViewRay class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1676.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) demand for ViewRay systems had declined due in part to changes being made to Medicare reimbursement approaches first announced in November 2018 that could make purchases of new ViewRay systems less profitable for customers; (2) ViewRay's reported backlog was overstated due to the inclusion of orders with insufficient surety as to permit for their inclusion in reported backlog; and (3) as a result, ViewRay's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 12, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1676.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: 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 Website: www.rosenlegal.com E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] VILLA PARK, IL: Ferrill Wants Parking Tickets Deemed Invalid ------------------------------------------------------------ SCOTT FERRILL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VILLAGE OF VILLA PARK, ILLINOIS, an Illinois municipality, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06809 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 15, 2019), seeks a declaration that the Plaintiff's and class members' parking tickets are invalid and unenforceable, damages in connection with Villa Park's deprivation of their constitutional rights, and a refund of any monies they paid to Villa Park in connection with their Tickets. The Plaintiff alleges that Villa Park continues to engage in the tire chalking practices. He also seeks to enjoin Villa Park from engaging in tire chalking and issuing any further Tickets that are based on evidence obtained from tire chalking. Villa Park's municipal code establishes time limits, which restrict the length of time that vehicles may be parked on certain streets and in particular parking lots. For example, pursuant to Section 14-209 of the Code, "no person shall park a motor vehicle for in excess of 30 minutes at any of the following locations:" (1) "Oakland Avenue, west side, from St. Charles Road southward a distance of 258.3 feet between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, legal holidays excepted" and (2) "Villa Avenue, west side, from Wildwood Avenue to Central Boulevard from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m." To determine whether a particular vehicle has been parked in excess of an applicable Time Limit, Villa Park authorizes and commands its police officers and/or other agents tasked with enforcing parking restrictions (Enforcement Officers) to engage in the practice of "tire chalking." Tire chalking is "a common parking enforcement practice" whereby "parking enforcement officers use chalk to mark the tires of parked vehicles to track how long they have been parked. Parking enforcement officers return to the car after the posted time for parking has passed, and if the chalk marks are still there--a sign that the vehicle has not moved--the officer issues a citation." Villa Park, by and through its agents (i.e., its Enforcement Officers), has a common policy and practice of placing chalk marks on parked vehicles' tires, and then using those "chalk marks for the purpose of identifying vehicles that have been parked in the same location for a certain period of time. That information is then used by [Villa Park] to issue" tickets for alleged parking time limit violations. Mr. Ferrill contends that Villa Park's practice of tire chalking constitutes a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because Article 1, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution is coextensive with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Villa Park's practice of tire chalking constitutes a violation of Article 1, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution, he argues. When the government conducts a search as defined by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution, that search must be reasonable. Villa Park's use of tire chalking constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 6 of the Illinois, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff was a resident and citizen of the state of Illinois. The Defendant is an Illinois municipal corporation located in DuPage County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com VTS STAFFING: Robinson Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Employees ------------------------------------------------------------ JANELLE ROBINSON, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VTS STAFFING, INC., a CA Corporation, BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT CO., a CA Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2019-13591 ( Cal. Super., Oct. 15, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; to timely provide and/or authorize meal breaks and rest breaks; and to timely pay earned wages upon discharge incurring waiting time penalties. The case is an employment class action on behalf of over 100 hourly, non-exempt employees against their co-employers for violations of numerous wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff worked for VTS for four years until her separation on October 24, 2018. The Plaintiff and the proposed class earn at or near minimum wage. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. VTS is a staffing company. Bon Appetit is an on-site restaurant company offering full food-service management to corporations, universities, and museums throughout the California. VTS and Bon Appetit are co-employers of the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761 5484 Facsimile: (818) 561 3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Venturaa Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609 0807 Facsimile: (818) 609 0892 WALGREENS BOOTS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. The case is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09853 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is an American holding company headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois, that owns Walgreens, Boots, and a number of pharmaceutical manufacturing, wholesale, and distribution companies. It is the first global pharmacy-led, health and wellbeing enterprise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. The Marks Law Firm PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com WEGMAN FOODS: Class Action Claims Vanilla Ice Cream a 'Fraud' ------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Duncan, writing for The News & Observer, reports that a class-action lawsuit says Wegmans' vanilla ice cream is a fraud because it doesn't actually use real vanilla extract. The ice cream instead uses natural flavors to make it taste like vanilla, misleading customers, the lawsuit argues. The lawsuit includes side-by-side comparisons with other ice cream brands, showing pictures of the packaging and reciting ingredient lists as the plaintiffs accuse Wegmans of ripping off its ice cream-loving patrons. The natural flavors listed in Wegmans-brand vanilla ice cream are compared to the likes of Haagen Dazs and Publix, which include real vanilla, according to the lawsuit. Wegmans denied the claims to TV station WHAM. "We believe that the labeling of our ice cream fully complies with all regulations and industry standards, and is not misleading in any way." spokeswoman Jo Natale told the station. The grocery store chain has, in some markets, a cult-like following, as Bloomberg News describes it. But nonetheless, the attorneys argue that the store-brand ice cream is a fraud. "While 'food fraud' has no agreed-upon definition, its typologies encompass an ever-expanding, often overlapping range of techniques with one common goal: giving consumers less than what they bargained for," the lawsuit said. Attorneys for the plaintiffs filed the suit Oct. 4 in the Southern District of New York. The 41-page court filing asks a judge to certify the lawsuit as a class action. Beyond the dry legal arguments over injured parties and breaches of express warranty, the attorneys took pains to show they did their homework on the background and modern-day use of ice cream. "Ice cream is a year-round treat enjoyed by 96% of Americans," the lawsuit says. "Its popularity is attributed 'to the perfect combination of elements - sugar, fat, frozen water, and air - that make up the mouthwatering concoction.'" "Ice cream is defined by a minimum of 10 percent milkfat, weighing no less than 4.5 pounds to the gallon and containing less than 1.4 % egg yolk solids," the court filing says. The lawsuit includes this anecdote: "According to ice cream lore, Thomas Jefferson may have discovered vanilla ice cream when a bottle of vanilla extract accidentally spilled into the frozen milk and cream dessert he was preparing during the summer he wrote our Constitution." And in another paragraph, the lawyers explain in the suit: "The applications of vanilla ice cream include its centerpiece between chocolate wafers ('sandwich'), enrobed in chocolate on a stick (‘bar'), topping a warm slice of fresh-baked pie ('a la Mode'), drizzled with hot fudge and sprinkled with crushed nuts and topped by a maraschino cherry (‘sundae') or dunked in a cold frothy glass of root beer (‘float')." The plaintiffs want the court to make Wegmans label its ice cream properly, along with monetary damages that could total more than $5 million. Attorneys Spencer Sheehan, Esq. of Great Neck, New York, and Michael Reese, Esq. of New York City are representing named plaintiffs Quincy Steele and Jimmy Arriola in the lawsuit.[GN] WWF OPERATING: Hyde Hits Artificial Vanilla Flavor in Drink ----------------------------------------------------------- Janicia Hyde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WWF Operating Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05566 (E.D. N.Y., October 2, 2019), seeks restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, monetary and punitive damages and interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for attorneys and experts and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and violation of New York general business laws and various state consumer protection statutes. WWF Operating Company, LLC manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells soymilk beverages purporting to be characterized by vanilla under the "Silk" brand. Plaintiffs allege that their vanilla-flavored drinks contain vanilla flavor or vanilla extract despite its labelling indicating "natural flavor." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201 Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel: (516) 303-0552 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, New York 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com [*] Restaurants Back Law that Would Curb Class Suits by Servers --------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Stuart, writing for CT Post, reports that a hundred restaurant owners packed a legislative hearing room October 10 to hear about draft legislation that would limit the ability of servers and bartenders to bring class action lawsuits against them. The draft legislation would require the state Department of Labor to create new regulations and rules regarding how restaurants segregate the hours of service and non-service work, such as rolling silverware and filling salt shakers. More than a dozen class action lawsuits have been filed, mostly by one law firm against a number of restaurants for not appropriately keeping track of servers' hours based on Department of Labor guidance. Jessurun said for many years restaurants had been following the 80/20 rule the Department of Labor outlined on page 13 of its guidance to the industry. That guidance, which has been removed from the DOL's website, essentially said restaurants can pay their employees the lower tipped credit of $6.38 an hour for servers and $8.38 an hour for bartenders if the non-service duties "compromise 20 percent or less of the service persons total working time on a particular shift." "Restaurants across the state are being accused of not segregating time to tipped servers while performing non-service duties," Jessurun said. "While the regulatory and enforcement agency gave the industry advice to the contrary." Sal Luciano, head of the AFL-CIO, pointed to a poster of the disclaimer language attached to that guidance during a separate press conference. Labor opposes the draft legislation because while it would allow an individual server to bring a lawsuit it makes it harder for them to get a certification for a class action lawsuit. Also it makes it harder for an individual server to get attorneys' fees paid through the courts. "How can a server spend a few thousand dollars on attorney fees and then not get the attorneys' fees trying to recover $100 or $200?" Luciano asked. Rep. Michael Winkler, D-Vernon, said this type of "wage theft" has been going on forever, but the workers just figured out how to organize class actions. He said no attorney is going to take an individual wage case to recover a few hundred dollars because the contingency is not high enough. Ryan O'Donnell, Esq., the attorney for the Connecticut Restaurant Association, said the legislation doesn't prevent class actions, but makes them much harder to pursue, a safeguard to make sure "restaurant owners aren't crushed by a litigious process from the beginning." The current regulations are based on a law that's been on the books since the 1950s. That law requires restaurants to keep track of service and non-service work. The Labor Department supports the legislation. "We are in firm belief that determining the amount of minimum wage for workers in the restaurant industry can be fairly addressed by making revisions to existing regulations," Department of Labor Commissioner Kurt Westby told the legislature's Labor and Judiciary Committees October 10. Westby said they would consult with "interested stakeholders" before writing those regulations. Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, asked why the department is supporting legislation that doesn't impact how it operates internally regarding wage and hour complaints but will change how servers can pursue class action lawsuits against these restaurant owners. The lawsuits prompted the Connecticut Restaurant Association to lobby for the change. Both chambers of the General Assembly unanimously passed legislation that would have prohibited the class actions. It was vetoed by Gov. Ned Lamont. The draft legislation discussed at the public hearing October 10 was a compromise worked on by lawmakers and Lamont's administration. Stephen Lattanzio, Esq., an attorney at the labor department, told Winfield that the class actions and the court cases are not within the purview of the Connecticut Labor Department. Lattanzio said the department supports the change in legislation because it will get to a point where the internal enforcement policy of the agency mirrors what the regulation will actually say. Officials said of the 4,000 wage and hours claims made annually to the department, over the last year, 10 concerned segregation of wages with a restaurant. Rep. Robyn Porter, D-New Haven, said there would be a lot more claims if not for fear of retaliation. Several lawmakers asked how the labor department plans to include an unorganized group of workers like servers and bartenders in their regulatory process. Westby assured lawmakers they would be at the table. It's unclear when a special session would be scheduled to vote on the legislation. Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, pointed out the restaurant owners are being sued for more than the segregation of service-related and non-service work. "It seems like there's a little bit of a cottage industry out there," Kissel said. Chicago Sam's restaurant chain in Kissel's district just lost a lawsuit filed by a server, however, it wasn't lost on the issue of segregation of service and non-service related duties. The restaurant, according to summary judgment, failed to record on a weekly basis "the amount received in gratuities claimed as a credit for part of the minimum fair wage." Nor did it "obtain weekly a statement signed by the employee attesting that he has received in gratuities the amount claimed as credit for part of the minimum fair wage." Essentially, the court documents say the restaurant failed to have their servers sign for their checks and declare weekly how much was claimed in tipped wages even though the servers used their personal identification number to log in to the respective computer systems at each Chicago Sam's to declare all of their tips at the end of each and every shift. The issue of how servers receive their checks and vouch for their tips was not part of the discussion Oct. 10, 2019. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,461 Bendix Claims vs. Honeywell Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. had 6,461 unresolved asbestos-related claims at September 30, 2019, involving predecessor company Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. Of the 6,461 unresolved claims, 3,138 of which are for nonmalignant claims while the remaining 3,323 are for mesothelioma and other cancer claims. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/UobazG ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 118 Pending Talc Suits at June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- There were 118 individual personal injury cases pending as of June 30, 2019 against Avon Products, Inc. related to allegations that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were contaminated with asbestos, according to Natura & Co Holding S.A.'s Form 6-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the month of October, 2019. Avon Products states, "The Company has been named a defendant in numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were contaminated with asbestos. Many of these actions involve a number of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain asbestos. As of June 30, 2019, there were 118 individual cases pending against the Company. During the three months ended June 30, 2019, nine new cases were filed and nine cases were dismissed, settled, or otherwise resolved. The value of our settlements in this area thus far has not been material, either individually or in the aggregate. Additional similar cases arising out of the use of the Company's talc products are reasonably anticipated. "We believe that the claims asserted against us in these cases are without merit. We are defending vigorously against these claims and will continue to do so. To date, the Company has not proceeded to trial in any case filed against it and there have been no findings of liability enforceable against the Company. However, nationwide trial results in similar cases filed against other manufacturers of cosmetic talc products have ranged from outright dismissals to very large jury awards of both compensatory and punitive damages. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict any overall trends in the outcome of the cases pending against the Company, and we are only able to make a reasonable estimate for a small number of individual cases that have advanced to the later stages of legal proceedings. Any accruals currently recorded on the Company's balance sheet with respect to these individual cases are not material. Other than these accruals, we are at this time unable to estimate our reasonably possible or probable losses. However, any adverse outcomes, either in an individual case or in the aggregate, could be material. Future costs to litigate these cases, which we expense as incurred, are not known but may be significant, though some costs will be covered by insurance." A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at https://is.gd/luaPgl ASBESTOS UPDATE: BonDurant Claims vs. Gould Electronics Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Carl J. Barbier granted Defendant Gould Electronics Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff Terry L. Bondurant's claims against Defendant without prejudice. In its Motion to Dismiss, Gould asserts the Court lacks general jurisdiction over it because neither its principal place of business nor place of incorporation are in Louisiana. Further, Gould contends that the Court lacks specific jurisdiction over it because Plaintiff's alleged exposure to Gould's products only occurred in Texas. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Gould because it sold, distributed, and marketed its products in Louisiana and he was exposed to asbestos from Defendant's products while working in Louisiana. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests an opportunity for jurisdictional discovery before Gould is dismissed from the case. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction because he has not shown that his cause of action arises out of Gould's contacts with Louisiana. Rather, the evidence Plaintiff submitted supports Gould's contention that any exposure to asbestos he experienced from working with or around Gould products occurred in Texas, not Louisiana -- Plaintiff alleges he worked at two facilities in Louisiana but did not testify that he worked around Gould products at those sites, yet he did testify that he worked around Gould products at a third, unidentified site. Because Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to asbestos while working at two facilities in Louisiana and two facilities in Texas, it is reasonable to conclude that this third, unidentified site was in Texas, not Louisiana, as Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence to the contrary. The Court denied Plaintiff's request for further jurisdictional discovery. The Court said jurisdictional discovery is not required, as Plaintiff has failed to make a preliminary showing of jurisdiction. Plaintiff has had an opportunity for discovery and fails to allege with reasonable particularity the facts that additional discovery is likely to uncover that would support the exercise of jurisdiction over Gould, as his allegations and testimony tend to exclude the possibility that he was exposed to asbestos from Gould products in Louisiana. Terry L. Bondurant, Plaintiff, represented by Lindsey A. Cheek , Bridget B. Truxillo , Cheek Law Firm LLC & Jeanne Louise St. Romain, The Cheek Law Firm. Anco Insulation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Margaret M. Joffe -- mjoffe@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Douglas R. Elliott -- delliott@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC & Jamie Hebert Baglio -- jbaglio@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC. Eagle Inc. & McCarty Corporation, Defendants, represented by Susan Beth Kohn -- Suek@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, April Ann McQuillar -- Aprilm@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler -- Dkinler@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry -- jamesg@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Janice M. Culotta -- jculotta@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith and Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver Oubre -- louiso@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Lamons Gasket Company, Defendant, represented by Kenan Slade Rand, Jr. -- krand@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, Lauren B. Dietzen -- ldietzen@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, Meredith R. Durham -- mdurham@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP & Scott H. Mason -- smason@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot -- rsimmons@hmhlp.com -- Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr. , Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP & Richard J. Garvey, Jr. -- rgarvey@hmhlp.com -- Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP. General Electric Company & CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom, Inc. successor-by-merger with CBS Corporation, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendants, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III -- jhainkel@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin -- abowlin@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr. -- jbrown@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long -- klong@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan -- keagan@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Lacey Taylor McCoy -- LMcCoy@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin , Frilot L.L.C. Hercules, LLC, Individually and as successor-in-interest to Haveg Industries, Inc. successor-by-merger to Haveg Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeanette Seraile-Riggins , MGM The Law Firm, Adam D. Whitworth -- awhitworth@leakeandersson.com -- Leake & Andersson, LLP, Bradley Adam Hays -- ahays@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm, Brandie Mendoza Thibodeaux -- bthibodeaux@mgmlaw.com -- MG + M The Law Firm, Christopher O. Massenburg -- cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm, Glenn Lyle Maximilian Swetman , MG+M The Law Firm, Meghan B. Senter -- msenter@mgmlaw.com -- MG+M The Law Firm, Michael D. Goggans , MG+M The Law Firm & Vikram S. Bhatia -- vbhatia@mgmlaw.com -- MG+M The Law Firm. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by McGready Lewis Richeson -- mricheson@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, David M. Stein -- dstein@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Francis Xavier DeBlanc, III -- fdeblanc@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey & Kathleen Erin Jordan -- kjordan@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey. Eaton Corporation, Individually and as successor-in-interest to Culter-Hammer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeanette Seraile-Riggins , MGM The Law Firm, Bradley Adam Hays -- ahays@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm, Christopher O. Massenburg -- cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm, Meghan B. Senter -- msenter@mgmlaw.com -- MG+M The Law Firm & Michael D. Goggans , MG+M The Law Firm. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Individually and as successor-in-interest to Square D Company, Defendant, represented by Stacey Leigh Strain , Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC, Lauren B. Dietzen -- ldietzen@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, Meredith R. Durham -- mdurham@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP & Scott H. Mason -- smason@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP. Rockwell Automation, Inc., Individually and as successor-in-interest to Allen-Bradley Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Richard P. Sulzer -- rsulzer@sulzerandwilliams.com -- Sulzer & Williams, LLC & Robert Edward Williams, IV -- rwilliams@sulzerandwilliams.com -- Sulzer & Williams, LLC. Texaco Inc & Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Individually and as successor-in-interest to Cities Refining Corporation, Cities Services Oil Company, Citgo Petroleum Corporation and Oxy USA, Inc., Defendants, represented by Tim D. Gray -- tim.gray@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Chelsea Elizabeth Gaudin -- chelsea.gaudin@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, McCann Elizabeth LeFeve -- McCann.LeFeve@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Melissa Desormeaux Fuller -- Melissa.Fuller@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Michael H. Abraham -- michael.abraham@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Michelle Miller Roy , Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP. CanadianOxy Offshore Production Co., Defendant, represented by Jeffery D. Fruge , Spears & Gary, LLC, Claudia Hugill Gary , Spears & Gary, LLC & Kenneth Ray Spears , Spears & Gary, LLC. Certain Underwriters LLoyd's London, As the liability insurer of Cities Service Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Stephen Porter Hall -- stephen.hall@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP & Barbara Lee Arras -- barbara.arras@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP. Century Indemnity Company, as the liability insurer for Cities Service Oil Company and as successor to CCI Insurance Company, as successor to Insurance Company of North America and successor to Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, Defendant, represented by William Thomas McCall , Guillory & McCall, LLC & Drury B. Cunningham , Guillory & McCall, LLC. Lamorak Insurance Company, erroneously referred to as OneBeacon Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin DeMahy , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Travis Layne Simmons , Port of South Louisiana. Lamons Gasket Company, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Kenan Slade Rand, Jr. -- krand@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, Lauren B. Dietzen -- ldietzen@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, Meredith R. Durham -- mdurham@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP & Scott H. Mason -- smason@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. Ct. App. Remands Linsowe Case for New Trial ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Second District of the Court of Appeals of California affirmed the trial court's postjudgment orders granting the motion for a new trial and denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appealed case LAOSD Asbestos Cases. Sharron Linsowe et al., Plaintiffs, Respondents and Cross-Appellants, v. Hennessy Industries, Inc., Defendant, Appellant and Cross-Respondent. No. B276252, (Cal. Ct. App. 2nd). Plaintiffs Sharron Linsowe and her sons, Henry Linsowe, Jr., and Eric Linsowe, sued a number of defendants for the wrongful death of Henry Linsowe (father and husband). The complaint alleged Mr. Linsowe, a brake mechanic at Downey Ford, died of mesothelioma after years of asbestos exposure as a result of working with a brake shoe grinder manufactured by Ammco Tools, Inc. Hennessy Industries, Inc. was Ammco's corporate successor. In this case, the jury rendered a special verdict in favor of one plaintiff, awarding substantial economic and noneconomic damages. The trial court, however, signed a judgment in favor of defendant. Postjudgment, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but granted their motion for a new trial, finding the verdict inconsistent and against the law. The special verdict findings on all the negligence theories and the punitive damages questions were in Hennessy's favor. The jury determined Mr. Linsowe and a number of nonparties were not negligent; but that Downey Ford was, although its negligence was not a substantial factor in contributing to his death. The jury nonetheless apportioned fault between Hennessy and Downey Ford at 60 percent/40 percent. The trial court sustained the Linsowes' objections to the declarations, denied the motion for JNOV, and ordered a new trial on the ground that the jury returned an inconsistent verdict and the judgment was against the law. The trial court specifically found substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict. On appeal, Hennessy insists the special verdict is entirely consistent and asserts "the jury clearly, explicitly and unequivocally found for it on all five theories of recovery." Hennessy asks the Court to reinstate the jury's verdict. The Court agreed with the trial court that the proper remedy was a new trial. Where the special verdict is inconsistent and against the law, there is no way to tell which party prevailed and which inconsistent answers should be accepted. The inconsistencies in the special verdict that require a new trial preclude the Court from ordering a JNOV on the issue of liability. The Court maintains that the Linsowes are "no more entitled than Hennessy to have the favorable aspects of the verdict credited and the unfavorable ones disregarded." In addition, the Court explained that an order granting a new trial will be affirmed on appeal "unless the opposing party demonstrates that no reasonable finder of fact could have found for the movant on the trial court's theory." But Hennessy has not done so. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the postjudgment orders and remanded the case for a new trial. Gordon & Rees, James G. Scadden -- jscadden@grsm.com -- Don Willenburg -- dwillenburg@grsm.com -- and Robert A. Rich -- rrich@grsm.com -- for Defendant, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent Hennessy Industries. Heubeck Law, John C. Heubeck -- john@heubecklaw.com -- and Marc A. Lowe , for Plaintiffs, Respondents, and Cross-Appellants Sharron Linsowe and Henry Linsowe, Jr. ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Still Pending at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to lift stay is remains pending in the bankruptcy cases of Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019. The Company states, "On or about April 28, 2015, eight litigants who filed asbestos claims in California state court (hereinafter, "Petitioners") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy (hereinafter "life stay motion"). Under relevant provisions of the bankruptcy rules and on the filing of the D/C bankruptcy action, all pending litigation claims against D/C were stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy action. In their motion, Petitioners asked the bankruptcy court to lift the stay in the bankruptcy court to name D/C and/or its alternate entities as defendants in their respective California state court asbestos actions and to satisfy their claims against insurance policies that defend and indemnify D/C and/or their alternate entities. The Petitioner's motion to lift stay thus in part has as an objective ultimate recovery, if any, from, among other things, insurance policy proceeds that were allegedly assets of both the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estates. "Kaanapali, the EPA, and the Navy are claimants in the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy and the Fireman's Fund policies are allegedly among the assets of the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estate as well. For this and other reasons, Kaanapali, the EPA and the Navy opposed the motion to lift stay. "After briefing and argument, on May 14, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in In Re D/C Distribution, LLC, Bankruptcy Case No. 07-12776, issued an order lifting the stay. In the order, the court permitted the Petitioners to "proceed in the applicable nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law. Claimants are entitled to settle or enforce their claims only by collecting upon any available insurance Debtor's liability to them in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law. No recovery may be made directly against the property of Debtor, or property of the bankruptcy estate." Kaanapali, Firemen's Fund and the United States appealed the bankruptcy court order lifting the stay. "In March 2016, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court order finding that the bankruptcy court did not apply relevant law to the facts in the case to arrive at a reasoned decision. On appeal the district court noted that the law requires consideration of a number of factors when lifting a stay to permit certain claims to proceed, including consideration of the adequacy of remaining insurance to meet claims still subject to the stay. Among other things, the court noted that the bankruptcy court failed to explain why it was appropriate for the petitioners to liquidate their claims before the other claimants whose claims remained subject to the stay. The district court remanded the case for further proceedings. It is uncertain whether such further proceedings on the lift stay will take place. "The parties in the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies have reached out to each other to determine if there is any interest in pursuing a global settlement of the claims in the Oahu Sugar and D/C bankruptcies insofar as the Fireman's Fund insurance policies are concerned. If such discussions take place, they may take the form of a mediation or other format and involve some form of resolution of Kaanapali's interest in various of the Fireman's Fund insurance policies for Kaanapali's various and future insurance claims. Kaanapali may consider entering into such discussions, but there is no assurance that such discussions will take place or prove successful in resolving any of the claims in whole or in part." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/FzM25Z ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Colvin's Case Reversed On Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland issued an opinion reversing the judgment of the circuit court and remanding the case styled Carole Colvin, et al., v. Eaton Corporation, et al., No. 2103, September Term, 2016, (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) for further proceedings. Carole Colvin has appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that dismissed, with prejudice, her civil action against Eaton Corporation, PACCAR, Inc., and other defendants based upon what the court perceived to be a discovery violation. The Court finds that the circuit court's decision was not consistent with the rubric for the imposition of discovery sanctions set out in Maryland Rules -- which encourages parties to reach an agreement for the scheduling and completion of discovery. As a general matter, the first step in obtaining a judicial resolution of a discovery dispute is to seek a court order compelling discovery. However, in the absence of an order to compel discovery, a party may request for an immediate imposition of sanctions for certain types of discovery failures. The case was subject to numerous scheduling orders, and a series of depositions, interrogatories, and other discovery-related matters were conducted. Three Fact Witnesses, who worked with Mr. Colvin at the Safeway plant, were deposed during the initial discovery period. In their motion filed on Sept. 4, 2014, appellees set out the history of Jason Weiner, Esq.'s (Colvin's counsel) untimely and incomplete responses to their discovery requests. They sought dismissal of Ms. Colvin's action or, in the alternative, an order to compel discovery, to re-open discovery, sanctions, and related relief. Several months later, after a hearing, Judge John M. Glynn declined to dismiss Ms. Colvin's case but severed it from its trial group and continued the case. In addition, the court ordered the parties to develop a jointly acceptable discovery plan. They were unable to do so and, ultimately, Judge Glynn approved appellees' proposed discovery plan, reserved on the question of awarding costs to appellees, and informed Ms. Colvin's counsel that "you're going to comply with appellees' discovery plan." The Court concludes that Judge Glynn's order adopting the discovery plan, when viewed in the context of the substantive provisions of the plan itself, constituted, at most, an order compelling Ms. Colvin to produce herself and her experts for additional depositions within the time limits set out in the scheduling orders. The discovery plan, however, contained no deadlines for the completion of discovery but the circuit court periodically entered scheduling orders that did set out deadlines for the completion of various forms of discovery. Moreover, appellees' discovery plan did not require Ms. Colvin to produce the Fact Witnesses, or to canvass the Fact Witnesses to find out if they were willing to be re-deposed, or, indeed, to do anything whatsoever regarding the Fact Witnesses. Further, it is clear beyond cavil that appellees' discovery plan also did not require Ms. Colvin to subpoena the Fact Witnesses to compel their attendance at depositions to be conducted by appellees' counsel. The Court points out that if appellees desired that Ms. Colvin be required to produce the Fact Witnesses, they could have included such language in their discovery plan. The Court finds that the scheduling orders provided two separate dates regarding depositions of plaintiffs' witnesses. The first deadline for those witnesses Ms. Colvin was able to produce, and a second, later deadline for those witnesses Ms. Colvin was unable to produce. Such that, once the first deadline had passed, appellees were on notice that Ms. Colvin could not produce the Fact Witnesses, and they had until the later deadline to depose them, with or without a subpoena. However, appellees have overlooked their own role in the discovery process. Thus, when the circuit court later construed Judge Glynn's order as imposing such obligations on Ms. Colvin, it erred. Both the language of the discovery plan itself and the procedural context within which it was approved undercut the circuit court's ultimate conclusion that Judge Glynn's approval of the discovery plan had the effect of requiring Ms. Colvin to produce the Fact Witnesses for re-deposition. Because Ms. Colvin was under no such obligation, the circuit court erred when it dismissed her case with prejudice. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.5BB Bendix Liabilities at Sept.30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. recorded total liabilities of US$1,545 million at September 30, 2019, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor company Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "Bendix manufactured automotive brake linings that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. "It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize in the future. "Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of asserted (claims filed as of the financial statement date) and unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend such asbestos claims which will continue to be expensed by the Company as they are incurred. We have valued Bendix asserted and unasserted claims using average resolution values for the previous five years. We update the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix asserted and unasserted claims during the fourth quarter each year. "Honeywell reflects the inclusion of all years of epidemiological disease projection through 2059 when estimating the liability for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims. Such liability for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic and anticipated claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the previous five years. "Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of asserted and unasserted Bendix asbestos claims reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers, judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our insurers. "Reimbursements associated with the indemnification and reimbursement agreement with a Garrett subsidiary (the "Agreement") were US$114 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2019 and offset operating cash outflows incurred by the Company. As the Company records the accruals for matters covered by the indemnification and reimbursement agreement, a corresponding receivable from Garrett for 90 percent of such accrual is also recorded. This receivable amount was US$25 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2019. As of September 30, 2019, Other Current Assets and Other Assets includes US$164 million and US$932 million representing the short-term and long-term portion of the receivable amount due from Garrett under the indemnification and reimbursement agreement. "In our ongoing communications with Garrett with respect to the Agreement and Garrett's associated material weakness disclosure in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, Garrett has taken the position that (i) Honeywell has not satisfied all of its obligations under the Agreement, and (ii) the Agreement is unenforceable either in whole or in part. We strongly believe that Garrett's allegations have no merit, nor are they material to Honeywell. We believe we have fully complied with our obligations under the Agreement and that the Agreement is enforceable in its entirety. We intend to continue to have ongoing discussions with Garrett to try to resolve this matter." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/UobazG ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.4-Bil. Liabilities at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. recorded total liabilities of US$2,440 million related to asbestos matters at September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related personal injury actions related to North American Refractories Company ("NARCO"), which was sold in 1986, and Bendix Friction Materials ("Bendix") business, which was sold in 2014." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/UobazG ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $895MM NARCO Liabilities at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$895 million at September 30, 2019, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor company North American Refractories Company (NARCO), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The Company states, "Honeywell's predecessor, Allied Corporation owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. When the NARCO business was sold, Honeywell's predecessor entered into a cross-indemnity agreement with NARCO which included an obligation to indemnify the purchaser for asbestos claims. Such claims arise primarily from alleged occupational exposure to asbestos-containing refractory brick and mortar for high-temperature applications. NARCO ceased manufacturing these products in 1980, and the first asbestos claims were filed in the tort system against NARCO in 1983. Claims filings and related costs increased dramatically in the late 1990s through 2001, which led to NARCO filing for bankruptcy in January 2002. Once NARCO filed for bankruptcy, all then current and future NARCO asbestos claims were stayed against both NARCO and Honeywell pending the reorganization of NARCO. "Following the bankruptcy filing, in December 2002 Honeywell recorded a total NARCO asbestos liability of US$3.2 billion, which was comprised of three components: (i) the estimated liability to settle pre-bankruptcy petition NARCO claims and certain post-petition settlements (US$2.2 billion, referred to as "Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability"), (ii) the estimated liability related to then unasserted NARCO claims for the period 2004 through 2018 (US$950 million, referred to as "NARCO Trust Liability"), and (iii) other NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations totaling US$73 million. "As of September 30, 2019, our total NARCO asbestos liability of US$895 million reflects Pre-bankruptcy NARCO liability of US$152 million and NARCO Trust Liability of US$743 million. Through September 30, 2019, Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability has been reduced by approximately US$2 billion since first established in 2002, largely related to settlement payments. The remaining Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability principally represents estimated amounts owed pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures. The other NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations were paid in 2013 and no further liability is recorded. "As of September 30, 2019, Honeywell has not made any payments to the NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims as any Annual Contribution Claims which have been paid since the Trust became operational have been funded by cash dividends from HWI. "Honeywell continues to evaluate the appropriateness of the US$743 million NARCO Trust Liability. Despite becoming effective in 2013, the NARCO Trust has experienced delays in becoming fully operational. Violations of the Trust Distribution Procedures and the resulting disputes and challenges, a standstill pending dispute resolution, and limited claims payments, have all contributed to the lack of sufficient normalized data based on actual claims processing experience in the Trust since it became operational. As a result, we have not been able to further update the NARCO Trust Liability. The US$743 million NARCO Trust Liability continues to be appropriate because of the unresolved pending claims in the Trust, some portion of which will result in payouts in the future, and because new claims continue to be filed with the NARCO Trust. When sufficiently reliable claims data exists, we will update our estimate of the NARCO Trust Liability and it is possible that a material change may need to be recognized. "Our insurance receivable of US$298 million as of September 30, 2019, corresponding to the estimated liability for asserted and unasserted NARCO asbestos claims, reflects coverage which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is recoverable for asbestos claims. While the substantial majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/UobazG ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. App. Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss Leavitt ------------------------------------------------------------------- The First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed the order denying defendant Rogers Corporation's motion to dismiss filed in the case styled In Re New York City Asbestos Litigation. Russell Leavitt, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., et al., Defendants, Rogers Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, 9959, 190240/17, (N.Y. App. Div.). Although the record before the Court was not sufficient to warrant a finding of personal jurisdiction over defendant, plaintiffs made a "sufficient start" in demonstrating such jurisdiction, and accordingly, jurisdictional discovery is warranted with respect to Rogers. Additionally, Rogers failed to make a prima facie showing that its product could not have contributed to the causation of plaintiff's injury. The Court, having considered Rogers's remaining contentions, found them unavailing. Goldberg Segalla, LLP, New York ( Andrew J. Scholz -- ascholz@goldbergsegalla.com -- of counsel), for appellant. Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York ( Jason P. Weinstein of counsel), for respondents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Defends PI Suits at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- Parsons Corporation is still facing lawsuits alleging personal injuries as a result of contact with asbestos products at various project sites, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019. The Company states, "The Company is subject to certain lawsuits, claims and assessments that arise in the ordinary course of business. Additionally, the Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injuries as a result of contact with asbestos products at various project sites. Management believes that any significant costs relating to these claims will be reimbursed by applicable insurance and, although there can be no assurance that these matters will be resolved favorably, management believes that the ultimate resolution of any of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. A liability is recorded when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. When using a range of loss estimate, the Company records the liability using the low end of the range. The Company records a corresponding receivable for costs covered under its insurance policies. Management judgment is required to determine the outcome and the estimated amount of a loss related to such matters. Management believes that there are no claims or assessments outstanding which would materially affect the consolidated results of operations or the Company's financial position." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/V5CNLN ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Vazquez Case Stayed Pending Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ The First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York issued an order staying the trial in the case styled In Re: New York City Asbestos Litigation. Danielle Vazquez and Brittany Vazquez, as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Jose L. Vazquez, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. A.O. Smith Corporation, et al., Defendants, Burnham LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Index No. 190389/17, (N.Y. App. Div. 1st), pending hearing and determination of the appeals taken from the March 14, 2019, March 15, 2019 and May 6, 2019 orders of the New York County Supreme Court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: WCERS Voluntarily Drops SEC Charges vs. Honeywell ------------------------------------------------------------------ Honeywell International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that on August 26, 2019, Wayne County Employees' Retirement System (WCERS) voluntarily dismissed its complaint without prejudice, in light of its motion to be appointed as substitute lead plaintiff in the Kanefsky action. The Company states, "On September 13, 2018, following completion of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance's review of our prior accounting for liabilities for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims, the SEC Division of Enforcement advised that it had opened an investigation related to this matter. "On August 28, 2019, the SEC informed the Company that it had concluded its investigation and that it does not intend to recommend any enforcement action against Honeywell. "On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior accounting for Bendix asbestos claims. "On May 15, 2019, Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, another Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action asserting the same claims relating to substantially the same alleged conduct in the same jurisdiction. "On August 26, 2019, Wayne County Employees' Retirement System voluntarily dismissed its complaint without prejudice, in light of its motion to be appointed as substitute lead plaintiff in the Kanefsky action. "We believe neither complaint has any merit." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/UobazG ********* 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 ***