/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191106.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 6, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 222 Headlines 3M CO: Bair Hagger Suit Ongoing in Ontario, Canada 3M CO: Discovery Ongoing in Defective Earplugs-Related Class Suit 3M CO: Suit by Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Ongoing ADOMANI INC: Mollik Class Suit Proceeds to Preliminary Discovery AGENTRA LLC: Court Dismisses First Amended Pascal TCPA/CRLA Suit AIR METHODS: Gretzinger Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT Rates ALDER PROTECTION: Ennis et al. Seek to Certify Class of Sales Reps ALL-WAYS PACIFIC: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks ALTRIA GROUP: Schall Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims AMERICAN AIRLINES: Dist. Ct. Upholds Dismissal in Krakowski Suit APPLE INC: Zaluda Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Ruling in Artex Clients' Suit under Appeal AUSTRALIA: PFAS Class Action Expected to Start on April 1 BITFINEX: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Class Action BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Trial in Mishal & Berger Suit in Early 2021 BRISTOW GROUP: Kokareva Securities Fraud Class Suit Underway CENTRAL FIRE: Guevara Seeks Conditional Class Certification CHAMPION HOME: Removes Vizcarra Case to C.D. California CLOROX COMPANY: Class Cert.-Related Bids in Gregorio Suit Tossed CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Cunningham Sues Over Illegally Faxed Ads CORNERSTONE RESEARCH: Whitaker Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida CR GRAND: Wills Sues over Illegal Towing of Vehicle CUBESMART: Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement DIAMOND CBD: Intends to Vigorously Defend Florida Class Action DTE MIDSTREAM: Page Seeks Overtime Wages for Welding Inspectors DYCKMAN ELECTRONICS: Denied Alvarez Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay EQUIFAX INC: Appeal in Saskatchewan Cybersecurity Suit Ongoing EQUIFAX INC: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Class Suit Dismissed EQUIFAX INC: Fulton County, Ga. Data Breach Suits Remains Stayed EQUIFAX INC: Preliminary Objections Filed in Pa. Class Action ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in Beltz ESTATES LLC: Williams et al Allege Bid-Rigging Scheme EXP REALTY: Wright Seeks to Certify Three Classes Under TCPA FAMILY WU: Zhang Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Waiters FIRST SOLAR: Trial in Smilovits Suit to Begin January 2020 FUYAO GLASS: Workers' Class Action May Have Been Settled GENOMIC HEALTH: Faces Suits over Exact Sciences Merger Deal GLOBAL WIDGET: Faces False Labeling Class Action in Massachusetts GOGO INC: Pierrelouis Securities Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Putative Securities Suit in California HARD TACK: Shanahan Sues over Robocalls HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Still Defends Securities Suit in E.D. Pa. HOUSE OF RAEFORD: Torres Seeks Overtime Pay for Line Supervisors HOUSTON, TX: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Beckwith Suit JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Sued over Travel Insurance Deceptive Scheme JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss cART Antitrust Suit Pending JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss TRACLEER(R)-Related Suit Granted JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit over Baby Powder Products Pending in Ill. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Summary Judgment in Contact Lens Suit Pending JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO Sales Class Suit in Louisiana Ongoing JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Antitrust Class Suit Transferred to NJ JONES LANDLEVELING: Pate Seeks OT Wages for Construction Workers KRAFT: Judge Dismisses Capri Sun False Advertising Class Action LEBANON, PA: State Court Faces Gass et al. Suit LIBERTY MUTUAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Kemeny Suit Partly Granted LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Class Action Still Ongoing LOWE'S HOME: Court OKs “Hourly Managers” Certification MAGELLAN HEALTH: Deakin May Amend Complaint to Add Party & Claims MAPLE LEAF: Ct. to Hear Appeal in Mr. Sub Franchisees' Class Action MASSAGE ENVY: Lapa Administrative Bid Denied in Drobnis Class Suit MDL 2915: Ababseh Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated MDL 2915: Atachbarian Suit over Capital One Data Breach Moved MDL 2915: Janik Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated MDL 2915: Tsirigos Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated MDL 2915: Zimprich Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated MICHIGAN: 200 Prisoners to Get Certified Kosher Meals MIKE STINSON: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Decision in Gibbs Suit MIKE STINSON: Sequoia Appeals Ruling in Gibbs Suit to 4th Circuit MIRACLE AUTOSPORT: Hid Car Defects, Rumbarger Says NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Sitzer Antitrust Suit Dismissal Bids Denied NC MUTUAL: Carlton Fields Attorneys Discuss Class Action NEVADA: Summary Judgment in McKinley Civil Rights Suit Party Upheld NEW SHANGHAI: Weng Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff OMEL FLOWERS: Coronel to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Pay ORGANOVO HOLDINGS: Rianhard Says Proxy Statement Misleading OVERSTOCK.COM: Tsai Says Securities Statements Misleading PACE SUBURBAN: Nelson Moves to Certify Class of Drivers PIONEER CREDIT: Toney-Adkins Sues over Debt Collection Practices PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Suit Stalled Pending Deloitte Case Ruling QIAGEN NV: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims QUALITY MENTAL: Winters, et al. Seek OT Pay for Caretakers RAYTHEON COMPANY: Ford Securities Suit Challenges Merger With UTC RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Latifi Class Suit Against TDL Group Ongoing RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Suits over Non-Compete Policy Ongoing ROMI BAKERY: Robles Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA SERVICES MANGIA: Denied De los Santos Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay SHANGHAI ORIGINAL: Court Retains Decertification in Jin Class Suit SHREVEPORT, LA: Overcharged Residential Water Customers, Says Court SIOUX HONEY: Tran's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission SLEEP NUMBER: Tentative Settlement Reached in Fresno Class Suit SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Arkansas Class Suits over Royalties Resolved SPECTRUM SECURITY: Court Flips Memorandum 33 Class Decertification ST MARY PARISH: Boudreaux Moves to Certify Class of Black Kids STATE STREET: Still Defends Suit Over Invoicing Practices SUNOCO INC: Bid to Exclude "Ley" Testimony in Cline Suit Denied SUPERIOR REAL: Class of Laborers Certified in Rodriguez Suit SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Campbell, Neal & Mott TCPA Suits Underway SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Stichting Depositary APG Class Suit Ongoing TENNESSEE: Adams Moves for Certification of DOC Prisoners Class TIGER EYE: Class in Adkinson Labor Suit Conditionally Certified TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Appeals Court Tosses AG's Settlement Challenge TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Pederson Sues over Unwanted Text Messages UNILEVER MANUFACTURING: Mislabels Magnum Products, Dashnau Says UNITED COMMUNITY: Parshall Says Merger Documents Misleading UP FINTECH: Lopez Says Registration Statement Misleading URBAN GARDEN: Padilla Seeks OT & Minimum Wages for Landscapers US BANK: Denial of Leave to File Counterclaim in Cabrera Overturned VISALUS INC: Class Settlement in Harris Suit Gets Final Approval VIVINT SOLAR: December 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Li Suit Alleging Securities Law Violations WALLGREENS BOOTS: Court Narrows Claims in Illinois Securities Suit WALLGREENS BOOTS: Response to Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 21 XPO LOGISTICS: Awaits Court OK to Dismiss Labul Consolidated Suit XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement in Carter Suit Receives Final Approval XPO LOGISTICS: Suits vs. Intermodal Drayage Subsidiaries Ongoing YAHOO INC: July 20, 2020 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set [*] IMF Bentham Buys Dutch Rival to Boost Funding for Class Actions ********* 3M CO: Bair Hagger Suit Ongoing in Ontario, Canada -------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself against a putative class action related to the company's Bair Hugger(TM)patient warming system, pending before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In June 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system. The representative plaintiff seeks relief (including punitive damages) under Canadian law based on theories similar to those asserted in the MDL. No liability has been recorded for the Bair Hugger™ litigation because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and estimable at this time. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: Discovery Ongoing in Defective Earplugs-Related Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in the class litigation alleging sales of defective Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2 earplugs. Aearo Technologies sold Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2 earplugs starting in about 2003. 3M acquired Aearo Technologies in 2008 and sold these earplugs from 2008 through 2015, when the product was discontinued. In December 2018, a military veteran filed an individual lawsuit against 3M in the San Bernardino Superior Court in California alleging that he sustained personal injuries while serving in the military caused by 3M's Dual-Ended Combat Arms earplugs – Version 2. The plaintiff asserts claims of product liability and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. The plaintiff seeks various damages, including medical and related expenses, loss of income, and punitive damages. As of September 30, 2019, the Company is a named defendant in approximately 2,245 lawsuits (including 13 putative class actions) in various state and federal courts that purport to represent approximately 11,297 individual claimants making similar allegations. In April 2019, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted motions to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida to be managed in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. The court conducted a case management conference in June 2019 on a discovery plan and scheduling. Discovery is underway. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: Suit by Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Welfare Fund. In July 2019, Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Welfare Fund filed a putative securities class action against 3M Company, its former Chairman and CEO, current Chairman and CEO, and current CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In August 2019, an individual plaintiff filed a similar putative securities class action in the same district. Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding 3M's exposure to liability associated with PFAS, and bring claims for damages under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual defendants. The suit is in the early stages of litigation. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. ADOMANI INC: Mollik Class Suit Proceeds to Preliminary Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADOMANI, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the case entitled, M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, will proceed to preliminary discovery. On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside against the company, certain of its executive officers, and the two underwriters of the company's offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017. This complaint alleges that documents related to the company's offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained materially false and misleading statements and that all defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and that the company and the individual defendants violated Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection therewith. The plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all class members: (i) certification of a class under California substantive law and procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and interest in an amount to be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; (iv) awarding of rescission or rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at the discretion of the Court. On November 9, 2018, in response to a demurrer filed by defendant Network 1 Financial Securities, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, which was substantially similar to the original complaint but refined certain allegations regarding the alleged material omissions that form the basis of the complaint. Defendants demurred to the first amended complaint. The court heard defendants' demurrers to the first amended complaint on January 30, 2019. At this hearing the court granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 31, 2019. The second amended complaint attempts to substitute in two putative class plaintiffs. Defendants jointly demurred to the second amended complaint on March 4, 2019. On May 7, 2019, the Court held a hearing and tentatively issued a ruling indicating that the second amended complaint should be dismissed, without prejudice. A subsequent written order confirmed the dismissal, without prejudice. On June 29, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, seeking to address the issues raised in the court's oral ruling. Defendants filed a joint demurrer to the third amended complaint on July 29, 2019. The court heard defendants' joint demurrer on August 29, 2019. On October 1, 2019, the court issued a written order overruling defendants’ joint demurrer. The case will proceed to preliminary discovery. ADOMANI said, "We believe that the purported class action lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action." ADOMANI, Inc. provides zero-emission electric and hybrid drivetrain systems for integration in new and existing school buses and medium to heavy-duty commercial fleet vehicles. ADOMANI, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in Corona, California. AGENTRA LLC: Court Dismisses First Amended Pascal TCPA/CRLA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAWRENCE PASCAL, Plaintiff, v. AGENTRA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02418-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Agentra and Data Partnership Group, LP ("DPG")'s motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss Pascal's first amended complaint. In the putative class action, the Plaintiff challenges Defendants Agentra, DPG, and I Health and Life Insurance Services ("IHL")'s alleged practice of making unauthorized phone calls to telephones of consumers nationwide and playing artificial or prerecorded voice messages. Agentra is a Texas company that sells health insurance plans. DPG provides financing and/or administration services for Agentra's plans, and IHL is an authorized sales agent for Agentra and DPG's products and services. Defendant Doe is a company that performs robocalls, or artificial or prerecorded voice message telemarketing calls to cellular and residential phones. IHL hired Doe on behalf of Agentra and DPG to market their products and services. Doe placed robocalls on a mass scale to generate sales for IHL's health insurance products and services from Agentra and DPG without the recipients' consent. On April 4, 2019, the Plaintiff received a call on his cell phone from Doe at the number 970-713-2254. When he answered the call, he heard an artificial or prerecorded voice "advertising lower rates on health insurance" and instructing him to "press one" to speak to a representative. After he "pressed one," the Plaintiff was connected to a representative who hung up on him when he asked the name of the company calling. In order to identify the caller, the Plaintiff called 970-713-2254 and heard a message indicating that the company was selling health insurance. The Plaintiff then asked his attorney to investigate the call. His attorney called the number 970-713-2254 and spoke with a live representative who "solicited a health plan" and refused to disclose "the name of the company." The Plaintiff's attorney then purchased a health insurance policy from the representative, and immediately received an email identifying Defendants Agentra and IHL, copying the email address 'support@ilifeandhealth.com' stating 'Welcome to Agentra Healthcare Solutions' and assigning a member identification number. In a welcome letter, DPG indicated it would be providing financing and/or administration for billing purposes. The Plaintiff never consented to receive calls from any of the Defendants. He alleges that Agentra, IHL and DPG knowingly and actively accepted business that originated through the illegal telemarketing calls placed by John Doe 1. He brings two claims against the Defendants on behalf of himself and a class and subclass of individuals: 1) violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"); and 2) violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CRLA"). Defendants Agentra and DPG now move to dismiss the TCPA claim, arguing that the FAC does not allege that either of them made the calls in question and does not plausibly allege their liability for the calls under a vicarious liability theory. In response, the Plaintiff concedes that Agentra and DPG did not make the calls in question and so are not directly liable under the TCPA. Instead, he contends that Agentra and DPG are vicariously liable for the calls. Magistrate Judge Ryu finds that the FAC does not sufficiently allege the existence of an agency relationship between Agentra and/or DPG on the one hand and Doe, the purported caller, on the other. Nor does the operative complaint allege facts supporting an inference that Doe had "actual authority" to make the robocalls on their behalf. The only allegations in the FAC connecting Agentra or DPG with Doe are that IHL, as Agentra and DPG's authorized sales agent, hired Doe to market Agentra and DPG's products and services by calling thousands of phones at a time using an artificial or prerecorded voice message. The FAC also contains the conclusory allegation that Agentra, IHL, and DPG knowingly and actively accepted business that originated through the illegal telemarketing calls placed by John Doe 1. These allegations are insufficient to support a theory of agency liability based on actual authority. The FAC does not plead sufficient facts to support an apparent authority theory that Agentra and/or DPG is vicariously liable for the allegedly illegal telemarketing calls. FAC further fails to sufficiently allege an agency relationship between Agentra and/or DPG on the one hand and Doe, the purported caller, on the other. It also fails to allege facts that support the affirmance by Agentra and/or DPG of a prior act done by Doe. Therefore, it does not state a ratification theory of agency. The Magistrate Judge concludes that the FAC does not sufficiently allege facts giving rise to a plausible inference that Agentra and/or DPG "made" the calls under the meaning of the TCPA. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's section 227(b) claims are dismissed without prejudice. Finally, as to the CRLA claim, while it is improper to raise arguments for the first time on reply, the Plaintiff does not allege that Agentra and/or DPG made the calls in question. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's vicarious liability theory applies equally to the CLRA claim. For the same reasons discussed, the Magistrate Judge concludes that the FAC does not sufficiently state a vicarious liability theory as to Agentra and DPG. Accordingly, the CLRA claim is dismissed with leave to amend. For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Ryu granted with leave to amend Agentra and DPG's motion to dismiss the TCPA and CRLA claims. Any amended complaint must be filed within 14 days of the date of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/Tm33aQ from Leagle.com. Lawrence Pascal, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Louis Javitch --mark@javitchlawoffice.com. Agentra, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, Defendant, represented by William Scott Richmond -- brichmond@pcrfirm.com -- Platt Cheema Richmond PLLC, pro hac vice, Laura Elizabeth Brandt -- LBRANDT@PCRFIRM.COM -- Platt Cheema Richmond PLLC, pro hac vice & Megan A. Shapiro -- megan@radshap.com -- Radoslovich Krogh, PC. Data Partnership Group, LP, a Georgia limited partnership, Defendant, represented by William Scott Richmond, Platt Cheema Richmond PLLC, pro hac vice & Laura Elizabeth Brandt, Platt Cheema Richmond PLLC, pro hac vice. I Health and Life Insurance Services, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Emerzian -- david.emerzian@mccormickbarstow.com -- McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth, LLP & Timothy John Buchanan -- Tim.Buchanan@mccormickbarstow.com -- McCormick Barstow et al. AIR METHODS: Gretzinger Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT Rates --------------------------------------------------------------- John Breslin, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that an air ambulance service stands accused of denying their nurses and paramedics rightful compensation by failing to pay proper overtime rates. A couple, including one who still works for the company, allege Air Methods Corporation, which has locations across Illinois and the country, had its employees sign an agreement where they were not paid despite being on base and on call. Michael Gretzinger, a flight paramedic who still works for the company, and his wife Angela, a nurse, filed suit in Madison County Circuit Court and have asked for the action to be certified as a class, or collective, on behalf of themselves and all other employees "similarly situated." [GN] ALDER PROTECTION: Ennis et al. Seek to Certify Class of Sales Reps ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as SHADRACH ENNIS, SHAWN HARDING, NICOLAAS VANLEEUWEN, and TERRANCE JESCLARD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALDER PROTECTION HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ADAM SCHANZ, an individual; ADAM CHRISTIAN, an individual; KYLE DEMORDAUNT, an individual; DANE MCCARTNEY, an individual; and DOES I-X, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00512-CW-DBP (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Cour for an order conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act class and authorizing Plaintiffs to send the proposed notice and consent form to all putative class members consisting of: "all persons who are currently or were previously employed by Alder as a Sales Representative at any time within the applicable three-year statutory period, excluding officers and directors." The Plaintiffs brought this action under the FLSA on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated Sales Representatives who are currently or were previously employed by Alder. The FLSA mandates that non-exempt employees are to receive at least minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime compensation amounting to one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. The Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint, among other claims, that Alder failed to pay the legally-mandated minimum wage and overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs through certain policies and practices that were applied equally to the Named Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated current and former Alder employees throughout the United States.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Shaunda L. McNeill, Esq. Matthew A. Steward, Esq. Victoria B. Finlinson, Esq. CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS, PC One Utah Center, Thirteenth Floor 201 South Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: 801 433 2413 Facsimile: 801 521 6280 E-mail: vbf@clydesnow.com mas@clydesnow.com slm@clydesnow.com ALL-WAYS PACIFIC: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks --------------------------------------------------------------- Evelyn Diaz on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. All-Ways Pacific LLC, Resource Employment Solutions, LLC, Allways Trucking Freight Brokerage LLC, Trion Solutions I, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV35808,(Cal. Super., October 7, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, 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 logistics company where Diaz worked as a non-exempt worker. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. Vanessa M. Rodriguez, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com ALTRIA GROUP: Schall Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Oct. 14 disclosed that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Altria Group, Inc. ("Altria" or "the Company") (NYSE:MO) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. The Financial Times reported on September 24, 2019, that Philip Morris International called off talks of $200 billion merger with Altria due to scrutiny of the vaping industry and the Company's 35% stake in market leader Juul Labs. Juul announced on the same day it was the subject of another federal investigation. Juul announced its CEO would step down and the firm would stop all advertising in the United States on September 25, 2019. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 www.schallfirm.com info@schallfirm.com [GN] AMERICAN AIRLINES: Dist. Ct. Upholds Dismissal in Krakowski Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of claims in the appellate case styled as In re: AMR CORPORATION, et al., JOHN KRAKOWSKI, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-cv-06187 (LAK), (S.D.N.Y.). The bankruptcy appeal arises from a dispute between three airline pilots (TWA pilots), their labor union Allied Pilots Association (APA), and their current employer American Airlines (AA). The TWA pilots, who worked for Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA) until it merged with AA, allege on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals that APA breached its duty of fair representation throughout an arbitration process involving AA and that APA colluded in this conduct. In 2001, TWA sold many of its assets to AA. At the time of the sale, TWA employed about 1,300 pilots. APA is a union authorized to collectively bargain on behalf of AA pilots, a group that includes, following the sale, former TWA pilots. At the time of the TWA sale, APA and AA added to their existing CBA an agreement called "Supplement CC," which governed the integration of the TWA pilots into AA's workforce. Supplement CC specified that, for the purpose of AA's "seniority list," a ranking of pilots by years of experience that has significant implications for pay and scheduling preferences, the pilots would not receive credit for the full number of years they served at TWA. The pilots would, however, receive the benefit of a "protective fence" around the St. Louis base. In 2011, however, AA and its corporate parent, AMR, filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York. In February 2012, AA began the process of abrogating the CBS with its pilots. Dissatisfied with the arbitration process, the TWA pilots filed a compliant against APA and AA in the Eastern District of Missouri in 2012. The case was transferred to the SDNY bankruptcy court in 2013. In 2015, the New York bankruptcy court dismissed the TWA Pilots' Modified Supplemental Class Action Complaint for Damages and Declaratory Relief ("MSC") in part. Drawing from the MSC's own organization, the bankruptcy court explained that the single breach count relied on ten alleged breaches. Treating these as effectively separate claims, the bankruptcy court dismissed the claims that APA: 1. Failed to bargain on behalf of the TWA pilots over the abrogation of Supplement CC under the CBA; 2. Agreed with AA to abrogate Supplement CC without securing equivalent job protections; 3. Falsely represented to the bankruptcy court that the LOA 12-05 arbitration's purpose was to replicate Supplement CC's protections; 4. Precluded the panel from addressing the seniority list and failed to require that the panel replicate Supplement CC's protections. However, the bankruptcy court allowed the TWA pilots to proceed with their theories that APA: 5. Selected the arbitrators without input from the TWA pilots; 6. Selected the arbitration participants without such input; 7. Selected the lawyers without such input; 8. Hired Kennedy to represent the AA pilots despite his alleged conflicts; 9. Pursued through the AA pilots committee a position adverse to the TWA pilots; 10. Objected to the TWA pilots committee's procedural proposals. Following discovery, the bankruptcy court found on summary judgment for the defendants on all six remaining claims. The TWA pilots timely appealed. On review, the District Court is not persuaded of the TWA pilots' argument that the bankruptcy court failed to construe the complaint as a whole by analyzing separately the ten components of the single breach count. The bankruptcy court in fact drew its organization from the MSC itself, the District Court holds. The District Court finds that the bankruptcy court correctly dismissed the first four claims. The District Court also finds that the bankruptcy court correctly entered summary judgment for APA on the remaining six claims. Claims Five, Six, Seven and Eight turn on APA's alleged role in setting up the arbitration process. "None is meritorious," the District Court opines. Claims Nine and Ten turn on APA's alleged conduct during the arbitration. There is no merit to Claim Nine and the TWA pilots have failed to show causation, the District Court holds. As to Claim Ten, the TWA pilots have abandoned the claim by not pursuing it in their appellate brief. In any event, the undisputed facts would preclude a finding of causation, the District Court adds. Lastly, the District Court holds that the bankruptcy correctly entered summary judgment for AA on the Collusion Claim. The collusion claim against AA hinges on the existence of a breach of duty by APA. As there was no breach, there was no collusion to commit a breach, the District Court finds. Accordingly, the District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/T0SMzT from Leagle.com John Krakowski, Kevin Horner & M. Alicia Sikes, Appellants, represented by Allen Press , Jacobson Press P.C., 168 North Meramec Avenue Suite 150, Clayton, MO 63105, pro hac vice. Allied Pilots Association, Appellee, represented by Steven K. Hoffman , James & Hoffman, P.C., 1130 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 950, Washington, District of Columbia 20036, pro hac vice. American Airlines, Inc., Appellee, represented by Mark Wayne - Robertsonmrobertson@omm.com - O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Robert A. Siegel - rsiegel@omm.com - O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, pro hac vice & Sloane Ackerman - sackerman@omm.com - O'Melveny & Myers LLP. APPLE INC: Zaluda Sues over Collection of Biometric Data -------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH ZALUDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH11771 (Ill. Cir., Oct. 10, 2019), seeks to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, capture, use, and storage of Plaintiffs biometric data from approximately September 19, 2014 to the present in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Siri is an artificial intelligence-driven software program developed by Apple that allows individuals to, inter alia, use their voice to retrieve information from the internet, interact with internet-connected devices, place calls, send texts, and schedule reminders. Apple preloads Siri on devices it designs and manufactures, including Apple's iPhone smartphones, iPad tablets, Apple Watches, AirPod headphones, HomePod smart speakers, MacBook laptops, and iMac computers. Before an individual can use a Siri Device, Siri asks the user to repeat a set of five phrases. Siri records the individual as she or he utters the phrases and analyzes the unique features of the speaker's voice. Apple calls this process "User Enrollment." Siri also records and analyzes the user's first forty requests in the same way and stores the resulting data. Apple refers to this dataset as a "User Profile." These User Profiles are voiceprints. The BIPA regulates the collection, capture, retention, and dissemination of biometric identifiers and biometric information by private entities such as Apple. Pursuant to BIPA, biometric identifiers specifically include voiceprints. Biometric information is defined by BIPA as information based on an individual's biometric identifier used to identify an individual. Apple collects, captures, stores and disseminates voiceprints of each individual who uses Siri. Apple does not inform Siri users prior to or after User Enrollment that it will capture, collect, store, and/or disseminate their voiceprints, and does not obtain Siri user consent to such capture, collection and storage of their voiceprints, as BIPA requires, the lawsuit says. Apple is a technology company that designs and manufactures internet technology devices used by consumers worldwide. Apple designs and manufactures smartphones (iPhone), tablet computers (iPads), wearable technology (Apple Watch), laptop computers(MacBook), desktop computers (iMac), and more. Apple also designs and develops software, including operating systems and other programs for each of its devices.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Daniel M. Feeney, Esq. Zachary J. Freeman, Esq. MILLER SHAKMAN LEVINE & FELDMAN LLP 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone. (312) 263-3700 Facsimile. (312) 263-3270 E-mail: dfeeney@millershakman.com zfreeman@millershakman.com - and - David S. Golub, Esq. Steven L. Bloch, Esq. Ian W. Sloss, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP 184 Atlantic Street Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 Facsimile: (203) 325-3769 E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com sbloch@sgtlaw.com isloss@sgtlaw.com ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Ruling in Artex Clients' Suit under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the micro-captive clients of Artex Risk Solutions, Inc. or Tribeca Strategic Advisors filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 7, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against the company, its subsidiary Artex Risk Solutions, Inc. ("Artex") and other defendants including Tribeca, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The named plaintiffs are micro-captive clients of Artex or Tribeca and their related entities and owners who had IRC Section 831(b) tax benefits disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The complaint attempts to state various causes of action and alleges that the defendants defrauded the plaintiffs by marketing and managing micro-captives with the knowledge that the captives did not constitute bona fide insurance and thus would not qualify for tax benefits. The named plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of all persons who were assessed back taxes, penalties or interest by the IRS as a result of their ownership of or involvement in an IRS Section 831(b) micro-captive formed or managed by Artex or Tribeca during the time period January 1, 2005 to the present. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought by the named plaintiffs or the putative class. On August 5, 2019, the trial court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Arthur J. Gallagher said, "We will continue to defend against the lawsuit vigorously. Litigation is inherently uncertain, however, and it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter and the financial impact to us, nor are we able to reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss in connection with this lawsuit." Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., together with its subsidiaries, provides insurance brokerage, consulting, and third party claims settlement and administration services to entities in the United States and internationally. The company offers its services through a network of correspondent insurance brokers and consultants. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Rolling Meadows, Illinois. AUSTRALIA: PFAS Class Action Expected to Start on April 1 --------------------------------------------------------- Roxanne Fitzgerald, writing for Katherine Times, reports that the question of whether a dangerous chemical leak from the Tindal RAAF Base has had an impact on property values in Katherine will be stirred up again at a community meeting. Hundreds of Katherine residents are part of a class action against the Department of Defence for PFAS contamination of the town. At the heart of the claim is property values have fallen dramatically and business has been negatively impacted. Leading the class action, Shine Lawyers was set to be in Katherine on Oct. 16 to discuss the progress of the case, which is expected to start on April 1 in Sydney. Shine Lawyers plans to discuss the selection of their expert witnesses, which have assessed the impact of PFAS contamination on property values in Katherine--these experts are crucial to the case. Katherine Town Council, a late signup to the class action, is believed to have received the latest Valuer General's advice on the town's property values. Rates bills have already been sent out for this year based on pre-PFAS values but these are the new values which the next three years' rates will be based on. There is some concern these new values are based on a very limited number of sales, which again, most believe is a result of the PFAS issue. That new valuation is expected to be mailed out some time this month and residents have 30 days to object. While repeatedly admitting fault in allowing dangerous chemicals to leak from the Tindal RAAF Base, the Defence Department is contesting the claim that PFAS contamination caused property values in each area to drop. Defence is said to have put aside $53 million of taxpayers' money to fight the case. There is also a strong possibility the court will briefly come to Katherine next year to view the town's proximity to the Tindal RAAF Base. The meeting was set to be held at Knotts Crossing. [GN] BITFINEX: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Veronica Reynolds, Esq., of BakerHostetler, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a class action lawsuit filed on Oct. 6, 2019, against Bitfinex and its sister company, Tether, made waves in cryptocurrency headlines. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants manipulated cryptocurrency markets by issuing USDT, a stablecoin that Tether claims is backed 1:1 by US dollars, in amounts that exceeded Tether's fiat reserves. The lawsuit further alleges that Tether purposefully issued unbacked USDT and the defendants used the USDT to flood the Bitfinex exchange and purchase other cryptocurrencies, thereby artificially inflating demand for cryptocurrencies and creating the "largest bubble in human history." The suit claims that as much as half of the growth of the cryptocurrency market between 2017 and 2018 was driven by Bitfinex's and Tether's "manipulative scheme," and cites economists and numerous studies. The complaint alleges damages of more than $1.4 trillion related to the crimes of Bank Fraud, Money Laundering, Wire Fraud and more. Also, prosecutors in the United States indicted Ho Jun Jia, who stands accused of Wire Fraud, Access Device Fraud, and Identity Theft for allegedly stealing the identities of multiple parties to gain unauthorized access to cloud computing services, which the defendant then used to run a large-scale cryptocurrency mining operation. At one point, one of the fraudulent accounts constituted a cloud provider's "largest consumer of data usage by volume." Ho allegedly racked up in total more than $5 million in unpaid cloud computing services. Ho allegedly executed the scheme by creating false emails and web domains and obtaining personally identifiable information, all used to execute a sophisticated social engineering campaign that gave him access to retail cloud provider accounts. In San Antonio, Texas, a federal judge sentenced 30-year-old Alaa Mohammed Allawi to 30 years in prison for using cryptocurrencies to sell narcotics, including fentanyl, on the dark web. Allawi was ordered to pay a $14.32 million judgment based on the profits he generated by operating the criminal enterprise, as well as forfeit property worth around $28,000, multiple firearms, over $21,000 in cryptocurrency and his rights to a coffee and tea franchise. On Oct. 2, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a final judgment against PlexCoin proprietors Dominic Lacroix and Sabrina Paradis-Royer, who were ordered to pay nearly $7 million for selling unregistered securities to the public during an unlawful Initial Coin Offering (ICO). The ICO lured investors by disseminating false and misleading information about the size of the company's operations, how the money raised would be used, and the amount of funds that were raised. The money judgment reflects a disgorgement of monies received by the parties, as well as civil penalties. And finally, yet another asset-backed token issuance has come under regulatory scrutiny. Karatbars, a German company that previously sold gold products online, raised $100 million in 2018 through an ICO selling KaratGold Coins (KBCs), a cryptocurrency supposedly backed by gold. There has been no independent verification that the tokens are, indeed, backed by gold. The company announced plans to launch a second ICO in December 2019, this time for the launch of a coin connected to a "cryptocurrency bank" in Miami. This put the company on the radar of the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, which is currently investigating Karatbars. [GN] BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Trial in Mishal & Berger Suit in Early 2021 --------------------------------------------------------------- Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action suit initiated by Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger will be set for trial in early 2021. On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on behalf of themselves and the purported class, Plaintiffs) initiated a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the Court) against the following defendants: the Company, Boardwalk GP, LP (Boardwalk GP), Boardwalk GP, LLC and Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp. (BPHC) (together, Defendants), regarding the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its right to purchase the issued and outstanding common units of the Company not already owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates (Purchase Right). On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to the approval of the Court (the Proposed Settlement). Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed, and related claims against the Defendants would be released by the Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general partner of Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise its Purchase Right for a cash purchase price, as determined by the Company's Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, as amended (the Limited Partnership Agreement), and gave notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement. On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase of the Company's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right. On September 28, 2018, the Court denied approval of the Proposed Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class action complaint was filed in this proceeding. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard by the Court in July 2019. In October 2019, the Court ruled on the motion and granted a partial dismissal, with certain aspects of the case proceeding to trial. The case will be set for trial in early 2021. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids and other hydrocarbons (NGLs) pipeline and storage systems in the United States. The company operates natural gas pipeline systems in the Gulf Coast region, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, as well as the Midwestern states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; and NGLs pipelines and storage facilities in Louisiana and Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp. BRISTOW GROUP: Kokareva Securities Fraud Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Bristow Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the case, Kokareva v. Bristow Group Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-0509, remains pending in Texas district court. Two purported class action complaints, Kokareva v. Bristow Group Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-0509 and Lilienfield v. Bristow Group Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-1064, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Southern District of Texas Court") on February 14, 2019 and March 21, 2019, respectively. The complaints, which also name Jonathan E. Baliff and L. Don Miller as defendants, allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the Company's disclosures and alleged failure to make timely disclosure of inadequate monitoring control processes related to non-financial covenants within certain of its secured financing and lease agreements. On May 17, 2019, the Southern District of Texas Court appointed BRS Investor Group as Lead Plaintiff and consolidated both actions under Kokareva v. Bristow Group Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-0509. When the Company filed the Chapter 11 Cases on May 11, 2019, the litigation against the Company was automatically stayed. The case was not automatically stayed against the individual defendants, but the parties agreed to a briefing schedule and submitted a scheduling stipulation to the Southern District of Texas Court on July 22, 2019. The Court entered a scheduling order on September 5, 2019, and the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint was due on November 5, 2019. After the plaintiffs file their Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the defendants will have until January 6, 2020 to file responsive pleadings, including a motion to dismiss. The defendants believe that the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them. Bristow Group Inc. provides industrial aviation services to the offshore energy companies in Europe Caspian, Africa, the Americas, and the Asia Pacific. The company was formerly known as Offshore Logistics Inc. and changed its name to Bristow Group Inc. in February 2006. Bristow Group Inc. was founded in 1955 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. On May 11, 2019, Bristow Group Inc. along with its affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. CENTRAL FIRE: Guevara Seeks Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as EDILBERTO ANTONIO GUEVARA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01331-XR (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional certification and approving a Court-supervised notice to: "all individuals who -- at any time beginning three years before the date this lawsuit was filed -- were compensated on an hourly-rate basis by Central Fire Protection, Inc. for performing manual labor on fire protection systems on the premises of properties owned and/or managed by Central Fire's residential and commercial clients." The Plaintiff alleged that he and Class Members regularly worked more than 40 hours per week and that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members the required time-and-one-half their regular rates of pay as overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 during each workweek.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Colleen Mulholland, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER 8301 Broadway Street, Ste. 309 San Antonio, TX 78209 Telephone: (210) 308-6222 Facsimile: (210) 308-6223 E-mail: cmulholland@equaljusticecenter.org - and - Anna Bocchini, Esq. 510 S. Congress Ave., Ste. 206 Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (512) 474-0007 Facsimile: (512) 474-0008 E-mail: abocchini@equaljusticecenter.org CHAMPION HOME: Removes Vizcarra Case to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- Champion Home Builders, Inc. removes case captioned as CHRISTIAN VIZCARRA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHAMPION HOME BUILDERS, INC., formerly known as SKYLINE HOMES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RIC1904594 (Filed Sept. 6, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 10, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01946 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants failed to pay minimum wages; failed to pay wages and overtime; failed to provide meal-period and rest-break under the California Labor Code. Champion Home Builders, Inc. is doing business in off-site residential and commercial construction.[BN] Attorneys for the Defendant are: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Julia A. Luster, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletree.com julia.luster@ogletree.com - and - Rabia Z. Reed Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 E-mail: rabia.reed@ogletree.com CLOROX COMPANY: Class Cert.-Related Bids in Gregorio Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton administratively terminates certain motions regarding class certification filed in the lawsuit titled JOSEPH GREGORIO, et al. v. THE CLOROX COMPANY, Case No. 4:17-cv-03824-PJH (N.D. Cal.). According to the Order, the Court has reviewed the parties' stipulation to vacate "until further notice" the October 30, 2019 hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Defendant's motions to strike. While the Court is amenable to vacating the hearing to permit the parties to attempt to resolve this matter, the Court does not permit motions to languish on its docket, Judge Hamilton notes. Accordingly, the Court administratively terminates the motions at docket numbers 104, 125, 133, 134, 135, 140, and 145. These motions may be re-noticed for hearing, if necessary, on an available date on the Court's calendar, Judge Hamilton rules.[CC] CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Cunningham Sues Over Illegally Faxed Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ Craig Cunningham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Consolidated World Travel, Inc., Ultimate Vacation Group, LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 19-cv-81372 (S.D. Fla., October 7, 2019), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendants operate a cruise lines who faxed Cunningham their offers in an attempt to promote its services using an automatic telephone dialing system. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Wellikoff, Esq. ADLER WELLIKOFF PLLC 1300 N. Federal Highway, Suite 107 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 508-9591 Email: swellikoff@adwellgroup.com CORNERSTONE RESEARCH: Whitaker Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as David Whitaker DAVID WHITAKER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Cornerstone Research and Arnold I Barnett, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-mc-91454, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 18, 2019. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-mc-24309-FAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno. Cornerstone Research is a litigation consulting firm based in the United States and the United Kingdom. It provides economic and financial analysis and expert testimony to attorneys, corporations and government agencies involved in complex litigation and regulatory proceedings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan R. Voegele, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER 26 South Main Street Hanover, NH 03755 Telephone: (603) 643-9090 Facsimile: (603) 643-9010 E-mail: jvoegele@bsfllp.com CR GRAND: Wills Sues over Illegal Towing of Vehicle --------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CR GRAND RESERVE LLC, and LIBERTY RECOVERY, d/b/a AUTOMOTIVE TOWING No. 4, the Defendants, Case No. 97541731 (Fla. 13th Jud'l Cir., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks to recover actual damages, statutory damages, plus pre-judgment interest, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, due to the Defendants' willful failure to abide by F.S. section 715.07 and the Hillsborough County Code of Ordinances. CR Grand owned, maintained and operated a residential complex known as Grand Reserve, located at or near 16616 Palm Royal Dr., Tampa, Florida 33647. Automotive Towing is a towing company that, as part of its business model, removes and/or attempts to remove vehicles from private property without the vehicle owner's consent in order to derive profit therefrom. Prior to July 10, 2019, the Grand Reserve entered into a towing agreement with Automotive Towing authorizing it to remove vehicles from the Property. On July 10, 2019, Wills had his Vehicle parked at the Subject Property. Automotive Towing non-consensually towed the Subject Vehicle to its storage facility. On August 2, 2019, Wills appeared at Automotive Towing's tow yard to retrieve the Subject Vehicle. Wills was presented with a copy of the receipt from Automotive Towing that stated a total of $400 for the release of the Subject Vehicle dated July 12, 2019. Wills was not presented, handed or given an updated receipt showing any additional fees. Nevertheless, Wills was told at Automotive Towing's counter that the fee to retrieve his vehicle was $800. Left with no other option to retrieve the Subject Vehicle, Wills paid the fee to Automotive Towing. Upon paying the towing fee of $800.00, Wills regained possession of the Subject Vehicle. Prior to the non-consensual tow of the Subject Vehicle, Grand Reserve failed to display a Tow Away sign within 5 feet from the public right-of-way line at the Subject Property, in violation of F.S. section 715.07(2)(a)(5). Further, Florida Statutes section 715.07(2)(a)(1.a) specifies in pertinent part, that the owner or lessee of real property, may cause any vehicle without liability for the costs of removal, transportation, or storage or damages caused by such removal, transportation, or storage, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Felipe B. Fulgencio, Esq. Courtney A. Umberger, Esq. Iasia B. Ward, Esq. FULGENCIO LAW, PLLC 105 S. Edison Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: 813 463.0123 Facsimile: 813 670.1288 E-mail: Felipe@FulgencioLaw.com CU@FulgencioLaw.com IWard@FulgencioLaw.com CUBESMART: Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement ---------------------------------------------------- CubeSmart said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a court has granted final approval to the settlement of a class action lawsuit. On January 11, 2019, a settlement agreement was entered into for a class action alleging violation of a state specific deceptive and unfair trade practices act. During the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company recorded a $1.8 million charge related to this legal action, which is included in General and administrative on the Company's consolidated statements of operations. On August 2, 2019, the court granted final approval of the settlement for the class action. CubeSmart is a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust. The Company's self-storage properties are designed to offer affordable, easily accessible and secure storage space for residential and commercial customers. According to the 2019 Self-Storage Almanac, CubeSmart is one of the top three owners and operators of self-storage properties in the United States. DIAMOND CBD: Intends to Vigorously Defend Florida Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Kristine Gill, writing for Miami New Times, reports that experts say a recent class-action lawsuit filed in Florida signals a growing need for more stringent regulation and enforcement of the hemp and CBD industries in the state. The suit alleges the Fort Lauderdale company Diamond CBD and the Denver-based First Capital Venture Co. misrepresented the amount of CBD in their products. The lawsuit, filed September 27 by Miamian Kathryn Potter, says Potter purchased $119.97 worth of CBD gummies from Diamond CBD's website, which purported that each product contained anywhere from 150 mg to 550 mg of CBD, short for "cannabidiol." The suit claims the actual amount in at least one of those products was far less, although it does not explain how the actual amount was determined. "[T]he CBD industry has quickly become a billion-dollar-plus industry," the lawsuit states. "Unfortunately, as is often the case with emerging industries subject to minimal regulation, the CBD market is ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous businesses, and it has been compared to the 'Wild West.'" Potter's attorneys declined to comment on the pending litigation when reached by New Times. Diamond CBD, First Capital Venture, and their parent company, PotNetwork Holdings, did not respond to messages seeking comment. Erin Smith Aebel, a Tampa-based health lawyer, often represents companies looking to enter the growing CBD and hemp industries. She says recent regulation at the state and federal levels has the industry in flux — and the class-action lawsuit shows much more work needs to be done. "It's kind of a big fad right now, but, eventually, I think it's going to be regulated and it's going to calm down," Aebel says. "But, yes, if you're in the business of selling this stuff, you need to be very careful about the accuracy of your claims." In December 2018, the federal government made it legal to grow and sell hemp under the Agriculture Improvement Act, better known as the Farm Bill. The bill requires that CBD products contain less than 0.3 percent THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary intoxicant in marijuana). In response, Florida set about to enact its own set of regulations, which Aebel expects to be approved by the end of the year. These regulations would require that all CBD and hemp products sold in the state have a scannable barcode linking consumers to a certificate of analysis by an independent laboratory that has tested the products' hemp extract levels. But while regulations are in the works to enforce the amount of CBD in these products, Aebel says regulation only indirectly holds companies accountable for containing a specific amount of CBD promised to consumers within that range. Further, Aebel says CBD companies offering infused food products could find themselves facing sanctions from the Food and Drug Administration. "The FDA does not want any of these products making any kind of healthcare-related claims unless they've actually been tested," she says. "The efficacy of the products, how they're advertised and labeled, and what they're used for is also being looked at very closely by the FDA right now." A Naples food lab, for instance, was the subject of a recent letter from the FDA demanding compliance. September 18, the FDA issued a warning letter to Alternative Laboratories, which had listed its Green Roads CBD oil as a dietary supplement. The FDA warned that the product does not meet the definition of a dietary supplement and said the company could face seizure of its supply unless the packages are corrected. (Alternative Laboratories did not respond to a request for comment from New Times.) Even if the recent class action does not spark major change, Tara Tedrow, a Central Florida attorney specializing in cannabis regulations, says the suit proves uncharted territory on the subject remains. "The complexities of labeling requirements for hemp CBD products involve not only Florida but federal regulations," Tedrow says. "This lawsuit may not be a catalyst for specific regulatory changes in Florida's new hemp rules, but it certainly underscores the necessity for hemp companies to understand applicable state and federal laws pertaining to product labeling and advertising." On October 25, Diamond CBD provided the following statement to New Times: "As an innovator and pioneer in the cannabidiol industry, Diamond CBD consistently provides its customers with high quality hemp-based products that are tested by independent, third party laboratories. We vehemently deny the allegations in the complaint. We constantly strive for all our customers to be satisfied with our products and our company has an extensive, happy customer base. We are disappointed that someone sought to utilize the legal system for their purported, alleged dissatisfaction with our product and personal gain in the lawsuit against not only our company, but the industry as evident from multiple similarly timed actions. We will vigorously defend against the allegations in the lawsuit." [GN] DTE MIDSTREAM: Page Seeks Overtime Wages for Welding Inspectors --------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON PAGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DTE MIDSTREAM, LLC, AND DTE MIDSTREAM APPALACHIA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01345-LPL (W.D. Pa., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from DTE under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, Page and the other workers like him regularly worked for DTE in excess of 40 hours each week. These workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Page worked for DTE from October 2017 until February 2018 as a welding inspector, the lawsuit says. DTE has substantial pipeline and crude storage facilities throughout Western Pennsylvania including a large storage facility in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 352-1100 Facsimile: 713 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412)766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com DYCKMAN ELECTRONICS: Denied Alvarez Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jaime Garcia Alvarez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dyckman Electronics Center, Inc., Front Row Electronics LLC, Avraham Oz, Jackie Oz, Nuriel Guedalia and Angela Torres, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-09255 (S.D. N.Y., October 7, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control an electronics store, located at 151 Dyckman Street, New York where Alvarez was employed as a general helper and truck loader. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation and denied an accurate recordkeeping of his hours. [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 EQUIFAX INC: Appeal in Saskatchewan Cybersecurity Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court's order staying a case in Saskatchewan related to a 2017 cybersecurity incident is under appeal. Eight Canadian class actions, six of which are on behalf of a national class of approximately 19,000 Canadian consumers, have been filed against the company in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta. Each of the proposed Canadian class actions asserts a number of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and other related relief in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident. The plaintiffs in each case seek class certification/authorization on behalf of Canadian consumers whose personal information was allegedly impacted by the 2017 cybersecurity incident. In some cases, plaintiffs also seek class certification on behalf of a larger group of Canadian consumers who had contracts for subscription products with Equifax around the time of the incident or earlier and were not impacted by the incident. The company has opposed Plaintiff's class certification motion in the Ontario case, which is pending. The application for class authorization in the Quebec proceeding has been dismissed by the court. All remaining purported class actions are at preliminary stages, and one of the cases in Ontario as well as the Saskatchewan case have been stayed. The court's order staying the Saskatchewan case is on appeal. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the multi-district litigation court has entered a Consent Order in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico class action suit and the complaint has been dismissed with prejudice. In 2017, the company experienced a cybersecurity incident following a criminal attack on the company's systems that involved the theft of certain personally identifiable information of U.S., Canadian and U.K. consumers. Criminals exploited a software vulnerability in a U.S. website application to gain unauthorized access to the company's network. In March 2017, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security distributed a notice concerning the software vulnerability. The company undertook efforts to identify and remediate vulnerable systems; however, the vulnerability in the website application that was exploited was not identified by the company's security processes. The company discovered unusual network activity in late July 2017 and upon discovery promptly investigated the activity. Once the activity was identified as potential unauthorized access, the company acted to stop the intrusion and engaged a leading, independent cybersecurity firm to conduct a forensic investigation to determine the scope of the unauthorized access, including the specific information potentially impacted. Based on the company's forensic investigation, the unauthorized access occurred from mid-May through July 2017. Hundreds of class actions were filed against the company in federal and state courts relating to the 2017 cybersecurity incident. The plaintiffs in these cases, who purport to represent various classes of U.S. consumers and small businesses, generally claim to have been harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by Equifax in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident and assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and other related relief. In addition, certain class actions have been filed by financial institutions that allege their businesses have been placed at risk due to the 2017 cybersecurity incident and generally assert common law claims, such as claims for negligence, as well as, in some cases, statutory claims. The financial institution class actions seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief and other related relief. Furthermore, a lawsuit has been filed against the company by the City of Chicago with respect to the 2017 cybersecurity incident alleging violations of state laws and local ordinances governing protection of personal data, consumer fraud, breach notice requirements and business practices and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and the imposition of fines the aggregate amount of which the complaint does not specifically quantify. Three Indian Tribes filed suits in federal court asserting putative class actions relating to the 2017 cybersecurity incident brought on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated federally recognized Indian Tribes and Nations. Additionally, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed an action on its own behalf and on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico arising out of the 2017 cybersecurity incident. Beginning on December 6, 2017 and pursuant to multiple subsequent orders, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation and transfer for pre-trial proceedings with respect to the U.S. cases pending in federal court discussed above, including the City of Chicago action, the Indian Tribal suits, and the Puerto Rico action, to the Northern District of Georgia as the single U.S. District Court for centralized pre-trial proceedings (the "MDL Court"). Based on these orders, consolidated proceedings with respect to U.S. consumer, small business and financial institution federal class actions and other lawsuits related to the 2017 cybersecurity incident have been conducted in the MDL Court. The MDL Court has established separate tracks for the consumer and financial institution class action cases and appointed lead counsel on behalf of plaintiffs in both tracks. The company refers to the consumer class action cases, captioned In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2800 (Consumer Cases), as the "U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation." Certain plaintiffs with cases pending in the MDL consolidated proceedings, including the Indian Tribe plaintiffs and the City of Chicago, have sought the establishment of additional tracks and other related relief. The MDL Court denied the various requests for a separate track. The City of Chicago is seeking reconsideration of the MDL Court's decision. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaints filed by the U.S. consumer, small business and financial institution plaintiffs in their entirety. On January 28, 2019, the MDL Court dismissed the small businesses' consolidated class action complaint in its entirety. The MDL Court dismissed certain claims brought by the consumer and financial institution plaintiffs, while allowing other claims by those plaintiffs to proceed. Pursuant to case management orders issued by the MDL Court, consolidated pre-trial proceedings, including discovery between the parties, have been proceeding on the remaining claims of the U.S. consumer and financial institution plaintiffs. In addition, the financial institution plaintiffs have filed a motion to amend their class action complaint which is pending. As described above, in the third quarter of 2019, the Company entered into a settlement agreement that, upon approval by the MDL Court, will resolve and dismiss the claims asserted in the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation. Puerto Rico was part of the MSAG Group, and a Consent Order was entered by the MDL Court on July 25, 2019 and its Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Fulton County, Ga. Data Breach Suits Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the single and consolidated class action suit related to the 2017 cybersecurity incident pending before the Fulton County Business Court in Georgia is still stayed. Four putative class actions arising from the 2017 cybersecurity incident were filed against the company in Fulton County Superior Court and Fulton County State Court in Georgia based on similar allegations and theories as alleged in the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation and seek consumer class actions pending in the MDL Court and seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and other related relief on behalf of Georgia citizens. These cases have been transferred to a single judge in the Fulton County Business Court and three of the cases were consolidated into a single action. On July 27, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company's motion to stay the remaining single case, and on August 17, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company's motion to stay the consolidated case. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Preliminary Objections Filed in Pa. Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that preliminary objections filed in the class action suit pending before the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. On July 12, 2019, one of the initial named plaintiffs in the financial institutions track of the multi-district litigation filed a purported class action suit against the company in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania on behalf of financial institutions headquartered in Pennsylvania. The claims being asserted in this matter are substantially similar to those that were dismissed in the MDL proceeding for lack of standing. Equifax said, "We filed preliminary objections to the complaint on September 5, 2019." Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in Beltz --------------------------------------------------------------- Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing of their appeal. On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by members Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, and Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert C. Wilburn, by alleged policyholders of Exchange who are also the plaintiffs in the Sullivan lawsuit. The individuals named as defendants in the Beltz lawsuit were the then-current Directors of Indemnity. As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the same allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the Sullivan lawsuit. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all policyholders of Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of Exchange itself. Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party Defendant in the Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013. On February 10, 2014, the court entered an order granting Indemnity's motion to intervene and permitting Indemnity to join the Directors’ motion to dismiss; granting in part the Directors' motion to dismiss; referring the matter to the Department to decide any and all issues within its jurisdiction; denying all other relief sought in the Directors' motion as moot; and dismissing the case without prejudice. To avoid duplicative proceedings and expedite the Department's review, the Parties stipulated that only the Sullivan action would proceed before the Department and any final and non-appealable determinations made by the Department in the Sullivan action will be applied to the Beltz action. On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. On November 17, 2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on Indemnity's motion to dismiss the appeal and instructed the parties to address that motion, as well as the merits of Plaintiffs' appeal, in the parties' briefing. Briefing was completed on April 2, 2015. In light of the Department's April 29, 2015 decision in Sullivan, the Parties then jointly requested that the Beltz appeal be voluntarily dismissed as moot on June 5, 2015. The Third Circuit did not rule on the Parties' request for dismissal and instead held oral argument as scheduled on June 8, 2015. On July 16, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion and judgment dismissing the appeal. The Third Circuit found that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, because the District Court's February 10, 2014 order referring the matter to the Department was not a final, appealable order. On July 8, 2016, the Beltz plaintiffs filed a new action labeled as a "Verified Derivative And Class Action Complaint" in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The action is captioned Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan, and Anita Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company; Kaj Ahlmann; John T. Baily; Samuel P. Black, III; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Wilson C. Cooney; LuAnn Datesh; Patricia A. Goldman; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Samuel P. Katz; Gwendolyn King; Claude C. Lilly, III; Martin J. Lippert; George R. Lucore; Jeffrey A. Ludrof; Edmund J. Mehl; Henry N. Nassau; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Seth E. Schofield; Richard L. Stover; Jan R. Van Gorder; Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck; Harry H. Weil; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz II" lawsuit). The individual defendants are all present or former Directors of Indemnity (the "Directors"). The allegations of the Beltz II lawsuit arise from the same fundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltz litigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained Service Charges and Added Service Charges. The Beltz II lawsuit alleges that the retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges was improper because, for among other reasons, that retention constituted a breach of the Subscriber's Agreement and an Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing by Indemnity, breaches of fiduciary duty by Indemnity and the other defendants, conversion by Indemnity, and unjust enrichment by defendants Jonathan Hirt Hagen, Thomas B. Hagen, and Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck, at the expense of Exchange. The Beltz II lawsuit requests, among other things, that a judgment be entered against the Defendants certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring the conduct alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to, Defendants' retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges; enjoining Defendants from continuing to retain the Service Charges and Added Service Charges; and awarding compensatory and punitive damages and interest. On September 23, 2016, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On September 30, 2016, the Directors filed their own motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On July 17, 2017, the Court granted Indemnity's and the Directors' motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit, dismissing the case in its entirety. The Court ruled that "the Subscriber's Agreement does not govern the separate and additional charges at issue in the Complaint" and, therefore, dismissed the breach of contract claim against Indemnity for failure to state a claim. The Court also ruled that the remaining claims, including the claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Indemnity and the Directors, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation or fail to state legally cognizable claims. On August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On May 10, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Beltz II lawsuit. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a petition seeking rehearing of their appeal before the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit denied that petition on June 14, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United States. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policy issuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the Erie Insurance Exchange. Erie Indemnity Company was founded in 1925 and is based in Erie, Pennsylvania. ESTATES LLC: Williams et al Allege Bid-Rigging Scheme ----------------------------------------------------- BRIAN C. WILLIAMS, MARICOL YUNAIRA TINEO DE LEON, JAIRO VENSRIQUE LEON DA COSTA, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE ESTATES LLC, THE ESTATES (UT), LLC, THE ESTATES REAL CLASS ACTION ESTATE GROUP, LLC, TIMBRA OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, VERSA PROPERTIES, LLC, RED TREE HOLDINGS, LLC, MALDIVES, LLC, TONYA NEWELL, CAROLYN SOUTHER, DOES 1 – 100, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01076 (M.D.N.C., Oct. 18, 2019), wants to enjoin Defendants and their co-conspirators, including their directors, officers, employees, agents and all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, from selling any property purchased at a foreclosure sale in North Carolina, from bidding at any foreclosure sale in North Carolina, and from engaging in any other contract, combination, or conspiracy having a similar purpose or effect. The Estates is a membership organization (or group of membership organizations) that has engaged, and continues to engage, in a bid-rigging scheme in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated homeowners and property owners, lost their homes and properties through the Estates' illegal bidding practices or otherwise were deprived of proceeds in excess of the foreclosed debt because when properties are sold at foreclosure auctions, the proceeds are used to pay off the mortgage and other debt attached to the property, with any remaining proceeds paid to the homeowner. The Plaintiffs suffered serious harm, losing valuable equity in their homes if not their homes themselves, because of Defendants' anti-competitive behavior, which distorted the process in North Carolina foreclosure sales. Defendants unfairly and unjustly profited from their wrongdoing, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Maricol Yunaira Tineo De Leon and Jairo Vensrique Leon Da Costa, are: James C. White, Esq. J.C. WHITE LAW GROUP 100 Europa Drive, Suite 401 Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Telephone: (919) 246-4676 Facsimile: (919) 246-9113 E-mail: jwhite@jcwhitelaw.com - and - Dhamian A. Blue, Esq. Daniel T. Blue, Esq. BLUE LLP 205 Fayetteville Street, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-809 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com EXP REALTY: Wright Seeks to Certify Three Classes Under TCPA ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned BRUCE WRIGHT, JORGE VALDES, EDWIN DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXP REALTY, LLC, Case No. 6:18-cv-01851-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), Plaintiff Edwin Diaz seeks certification of three classes: 1. Prerecorded No Consent Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1) one or more eXp realtors called (2) using a prerecorded voice message transmitted using a Mojo Power Dialer or a Vulcan7 Power Dialer, and (3) for whom the lead source for the call is identified as either Mojo, Landvoice, or Vulcan7; 2. Autodialed No Consent Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1) one or more eXp realtors called (2) on the person's cellular telephone number, (3) using a Mojo Power Dialer or a Vulcan7 Power Dialer, and (4) for whom the lead source for the call is identified as either Mojo, Landvoice, or Vulcan7; and 3. Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1) one or more eXp realtors called two or more times in the aggregate (2) on the person's residential telephone number, (3) within any 12-month period (3) where the person's telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, (4) for substantially the same reason Defendant called Plaintiffs Valdes and Diaz, and (4) for whom the lead source for the call is identified as either Mojo, Landvoice, or Vulcan7. Mr. Diaz also asks the Court to appoint him as representative of the Classes; appoint Kaufman P.A. and Law Offices of Stefan Coleman P.A. as class counsel; and establish a deadline for submission of a proposed class notice and notice plan. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Diaz moves to certify classes with respect to three claims against Defendant eXp Realty for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, arising from (1) prerecorded voice calls, (2) autodialed calls, and (3) calls to telephone numbers registered on the National Do Not Call Registry made by eXp's realtors to leads lists purchased for the purpose of soliciting real estate listings.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com FAMILY WU: Zhang Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Waiters ----------------------------------------------------- NING ZHANG, RUOPENG CHE, YUZHOU WANG, YONGHONG GUO, XUESONG LIU, JIASHENG ZHANG, GUANGXIANG QU, LIANPENG ZOU and NIANCHUN ZHANG on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. FAMILY WU 1, LLC. d/b/a FIRST LAMB SHABU, LAO CHENG YI GUO, YIJING WANG and PENG WU, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05723 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2019), alleges that Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours worked, unpaid wages, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 hours for each workweek, and unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day they worked 10 or more hours, and failure to provide undisrupted and adequate meal breaks. The Plaintiffs were employed as a waiter and team leader by First Lamb Shabu, located at 136-72 Roosevelt Avenue, Flushing New York 11354. First Lamb Shabu is an eatery with contemporary Chinese decor, offering traditional hot pot options.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the proposed FLSA are: Carter R. Qi, Esq. HEIFERMAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38 th Avenue, Suite 10E Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 888-9545 Facsimile: (718) 690-3865 E-mail: Carter@Heifermanlaw.com FIRST SOLAR: Trial in Smilovits Suit to Begin January 2020 ---------------------------------------------------------- said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the trial in the case, Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., is slated to begin on January 7, 2020. On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative class. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend this action. On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme (collectively, the "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension Schemes' motion for class certification and certified a class comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on February 27, 2015. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015. On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants' motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Ninth Circuit"). First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November 18, 2015. On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the order granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the merits briefing schedule. On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied the Pension Schemes' motion. On January 31, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the Arizona District Court's order denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment. On March 16, 2018, First Solar filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit. On May 7, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied defendants' petition. On August 6, 2018, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, in the Arizona District Court, expert discovery was completed on February 5, 2019. On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition. Following the denial of the petition, the Arizona District Court ordered that the trial begin on January 7, 2020. First Solar said, "This lawsuit asserts claims that, if resolved against us, could give rise to substantial damages, and an unfavorable outcome or settlement may result in a significant monetary judgment or award against us or a significant monetary payment by us, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Even if this lawsuit is not resolved against us, the costs of defending the lawsuit and of any settlement may be significant. These costs would likely exceed the dollar limits of our insurance policies or may not be covered by our insurance policies. Given the uncertainties of trial, at this time we are not in a position to assess the likelihood of any potential loss or adverse effect on our financial condition or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. First Solar, Inc. provides photovoltaic (PV) solar energy solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates in two segments, Modules and Systems. The company was formerly known as First Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to First Solar, Inc. in 2006. First Solar, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. FUYAO GLASS: Workers' Class Action May Have Been Settled -------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Gnau, writing for WHIO, reports that a class action lawsuit by more than 600 current and former Fuyao Glass America workers involving the company's pay and scheduling practices may have been settled, the case's legal docket indicates. "This civil consent case came before the court for a telephone status conference with counsel on 10/8/2019," a recent docket entry in the federal lawsuit states. "Counsel advised the court that the case settled at mediation. A dismissal entry will issue by separate entry." A message seeking comment was sent to involved attorneys on Oct. 14. By August 2018, Fuyao, one of the Dayton area's fastest growing manufacturers, was being sued by 636 current and former workers to change the way the company schedules and pays employees. The case goes back to the original plaintiff, Julia Staggs, who filed the suit in June 2017 in Dayton's federal court. Staggs worked at Fuyao from September to December 2016, according to the suit. Staggs alleged that she worked overtime at Fuyao without being paid a time-and-a-half wages for that overtime work. She also claimed that she and others were not completely relieved of duties during what were supposed to be breaks from work. Plaintiffs' attorney Bob DeRose said that Fuyao automatically deducts from workers' payroll for lunch breaks -- whether or not employees actually take those breaks. Some employees work through lunch or they don't take the entire 30 minutes as an uninterrupted break from work, they claim. "They're not paying for all the hours worked," DeRose told the Dayton Daily News in 2018. "We are maintaining this is a company-wide policy." Fuyao has more than 2,300 workers in Moraine. [GN] GENOMIC HEALTH: Faces Suits over Exact Sciences Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- Genomic Health, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 28, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in five Exact Sciences merger-related suits. On July 28, 2019, Genomic Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Genomic Health" or the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Exact Sciences Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Exact Sciences"), and Spring Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Exact Sciences ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into Genomic Health, with Genomic Health surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Exact Sciences (the "Merger"). In connection with the Merger, Genomic Health filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive proxy statement of Genomic Health that also constitutes a prospectus of Exact Sciences, dated October 4, 2019 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), which Genomic Health commenced mailing to stockholders of Genomic Health on or about October 7, 2019. In connection with the Merger, five actions, including two putative class action lawsuits, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and two actions, including one putative class action lawsuit, were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The five lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California are captioned Wang v. Genomic Health, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-05556 (filed September 4, 2019), Seligman v. Genomic Health, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-05710 (filed September 11, 2019), Rice v. Genomic Health, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-05929 (filed September 23, 2019), Martak v. Genomic Health, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-06065 (filed September 25, 2019) and Litwin v. Genomic Health, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-06511 (filed October 10, 2019), and the two lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware are captioned Plumley v. Genomic Health, Inc., et al., 1:19-cv-01719 (filed September 12, 2019) and Shasheva v. Genomic Health, Inc., et al., 1:19-cv-01942 (filed October 14, 2019) (all seven lawsuits, collectively, the "Merger Litigation"). The complaints allege, among other things, claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act asserting that the preliminary or final proxy statement filed by Genomic Health in connection with the Merger is materially incomplete and misleading, and the Seligman complaint also alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty relating to the merger. The Seligman, Plumley and Rice actions seek to allege claims on behalf of a putative class of stockholders of Genomic Health. The complaints purport to seek to enjoin the planned special meeting of Genomic Health’s stockholders unless and until the allegedly missing material information is disclosed or, in the event the merger is consummated, to recover damages from the defendants. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Merger Litigation are without merit and that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable law. However, in order to avoid the risk of the Merger Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company has determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. A copy of the Supplemental Disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/2pBsQxy. Genomic Health, Inc. operates as a life science company focused on the development and commercialization of genomic-based clinical diagnostic tests for cancer. The Company offers diagnostic services and information on the likelihood of disease recurrence and response to certain types of therapy. GLOBAL WIDGET: Faces False Labeling Class Action in Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert J Guite, Esq. -- rguite@sheppardmullin.com -- and Abby Meyer, Esq. -- ameyer@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, in an article for Mondaq, report that in what may be the first of its kind, a putative class of Massachusetts consumers filed a false labeling class action complaint against Global Widget LLC, d/b/a Hemp Bombs ("Hemp Bombs") (Ahumada v. Global Widget LLC, D. Mass. Case No. 1:19-cv-12005), challenging the labeling of numerous Hemp Bombs products, including gummies, lollipops, capsules, syrup, vape and pet products. The lawsuit is primarily based on the allegations that Hemp Bombs makes numerous false and misleading claims on the product labels and on its website "to illustrate and convey to consumers, the level of potency associated with benefits that consumers can expect to receive through their consumption. Specifically, Defendant misrepresents that the CBD Products have specific amounts of CBD when, in fact, the Products do not contain the amount of CBD as advertised and are instead grossly under-dosed." The complaint also alleges that Hemp Bombs markets certain of its products as "pure" and "certified pure", allegedly because Hemp Bombs "knew that consumers would pay more for" products labeled as such. All of the claims alleged sound in warranty for delivering lesser doses of CBD than promised on the labels and/or marketing materials. The complaint seeks refunds, disgorgement of all of Hemp Bombs' profits for the sale of the products along with treble or punitive damages. Class action litigation regarding label claims has been an on-going trend in the food industry and has spread into the health, beauty and cosmetics spaces. Given that CBD products tend to overlap with these, companies in this space and their marketing personnel should be aware that this litigation could have some real staying power and engage with their supply chains accordingly. [GN] GOGO INC: Pierrelouis Securities Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ASHLEY PIERRELOUIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOGO, INC., MICHAEL J. SMALL, NORMAN SMAGLEY, BARRY ROWAN, and JOHN WADE, Defendants, Case No. 18 C 4473 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Jorge Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. Lead Plaintiffs Maria Zingas and Daniel Rogers, have filed an Amended Class Action Complaint For Violation of the Federal Securities Laws, asserting violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Commission. Gogo provides in-flight internet connectivity services to customers traveling by airplane. The individual Defendants are current and former Gogo executives. The lawsuit centers on the Defendants' public statements concerning the performance of Gogo's new 2Ku system. Gogo's service works by integrating hardware and software installed on airplanes with satellite and ground-based networks. To provide internet access, it relies for each flight on one of two systems -- the "air to ground" ("ATG") system or its new 2Ku antenna-and-satellite-based system, first deployed in 2016. The 2Ku system, an upgrade on Gogo's earlier "Ku-band" satellite system, relies on the Ku open-architecture satellite network, from which Gogo purchases capacity as needed, to deliver in-flight internet connectivity at up to twice the speed of its earlier Ku-band system, as well as significantly faster than the ATG systems. Gogo announced the 2Ku system in 2014 and began marketing it to airlines. By the end of 2016, 2Ku had been installed on 94 airplanes. By the end of 2017, it had been installed on approximately 550 airplanes. In November or December 2017, Delta Airlines, a major partner that accounted for 25% of Gogo's revenue in 2014, 2015, and 2016, placed calls to Gogo complaining that its 2Ku systems were not working and threatening to shut them down if they were not fixed. Gogo reacted promptly, and its employees worked overtime to address the problem. Gogo first attempted to change the antennas and install a part known as a deflector, a folded piece of rubber surrounding the antennas, to prevent the de-icing fluid from reaching the antennas. The deflectors did not fix the problem. Between Feb. 27, 2017, and Feb. 22, 2018, the Defendants made numerous statements to investors and analysts on conference calls, at conferences, and in documents filed with the SEC, in which, the Plaintiffs allege, the Defendants omitted to fully disclose that a defect in the 2Ku system or its installation was inhibiting its performance or concealed the defect's seriousness. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' omissions made the latter's statements materially misleading. On Feb. 22, 2018, in announcing Gogo's 2017 fourth quarter and year-end results, the Defendants acknowledged the de-icing fluid infiltration issue. When an analyst asked for more detail, Wade replied that the "reliability issues" were "actually really caused by the de-icing fluid, the fix to that was very easy to do, and they've deployed that on a number of aircraft and they're not seeing any further issues around that at that time. According to the Plaintiffs, the explanation failed to convey how costly the 2Ku repairs were and how likely they were to affect earnings figures in subsequent reporting periods. The Plaintiffs allege that it was only on May 4, 2018, that Gogo's new CEO, Oakleigh Thorne, disclosed the full truth about the 2Ku defect and the associated installation and repair issues. Based on Thorne's May 4, 2018 revelations, Gogo's shares fell $1.73 per share to close at $7.86 on May 7, 2018 (a drop of over 18%). The same day, after the market closed, Moody's downgraded Gogo's credit rating, and the share price fell an additional $2.80 per share to close at $5.06. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' omission to fully disclose the defect in the 2Ku system before May 4, 2018, had inflated Gogo's share price, and the news of the full extent of the de-icing fluid issue caused the share price to fall, to the detriment of the Plaintiffs and other investors, and in violation of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 of the SEC. Additionally, they claim that the individual Defendants are liable as "controlling persons" of Gogo under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Defendants, Gogo, Michael J. Small, Norman Smagley, Barry Rowan, and John Wade, move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim under Rule 8, Rule 9(b), and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). In support of their motion to dismiss, the Defendants argue that (1) the Plaintiff does not meet its burden to plead falsity and (2) the Plaintiff's complaint fails to raise a strong inference of scienter. Judge Alonso holds that without more "specific facts," to demonstrate when the 2Ku problems showed themselves to be of "a sufficient magnitude," the Plaintiffs' allegations do not support a reasonable belief that the Defendants' statements were false, misleading, or without a reasonable basis at the time they were made. Merely alleging that (a) Gogo could and did track service outages, (b) the Defendants had access to outage reports, and (c) at some time prior to May 4, 2018, during or after the "winter," the 2Ku system's availability plunged down to the mid 80s, without other details, does not provide sufficiently specific and particularized information about when the data revealed that the de-icing problem had caused a precipitous drop in availability, or when it became clear that costly remediation efforts were necessary. He concludes that the Plaintiffs have not made sufficiently particularized allegations to make plausible, rather than merely possible, that teh Defendants' statements were misleading when made. Judge Alonso also holds that even apart from the particularity requirement, the Plaintiffs' allegations do not support a strong inference of scienter that is cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent. Because the Plaintiffs have not alleged that, before or during the class period, the Defendants were presented with any specific information that demonstrated the scope and magnitude of the de-icing problem, the inference that the Defendants recklessly disregarded a serious problem in omitting to disclose it to investors is not "cogent and compelling" in light of opposing, nonfraudulent inferences. The Judge concludes that the case is one in which, even if fraud is one possible explanation for why the Defendants did not disclose the issue earlier, the fraudulent inference is not "cogent" because it could equally well have been due to any number of other things. For the reasons he set forth, Judge Alonso granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. He dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by Nov. 15, 2019. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/fV0Vmh from Leagle.com. Ashley Pierrelouis, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carl V. Malmstrom -- malmstrom@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC. Maria Zingas, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice, James Vincent DiTommaso, DiTommaso Law LLC, Patrick Doyle Austermuehle, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C., Peter Scott Lubin, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C. & Vincent Louis DiTommaso -- vdt@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Law LLC. Daniel Rogers, Plaintiff, represented by Casey E. Sadler -- CSADLER@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Adam M. Apton, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Elizabeth Camper Lyons, Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders, & Uhlenhop, Llc, John Scott Monical, Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop, Marielise Fraioli, Lawrence Kamin Saunders & Uhlenhop, LLC, Mitchell Benjamin Goldberg -- mgoldberg@lawrencekaminlaw.com -- Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop & Peter E. Cooper -- pcooper@lawrencekaminlaw.com -- Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop. Gogo Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Gordon May -- amay@nge.com -- Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, Brian H. Polovoy -- bpolovoy@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling Llp, pro hac vice, Jerome Steven Fortinsky -- jfortinsky@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling, Llp, pro hac vice & Jonathan Stuart Quinn -- jquinn@nge.com -- Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg. Michael J Small, Oakleigh Thorne, Norman Smagley, Barry Rowan & John Wade, Defendants, represented by Andrew Gordon May, Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, Brian H. Polovoy, Shearman & Sterling Llp, Jerome Steven Fortinsky, Shearman & Sterling, Llp & Jonathan Stuart Quinn, Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Putative Securities Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Granite Construction Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a putative securities class action suit in the Northern District of California. On August 13, 2019, a putative securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, James H. Roberts, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jigisha Desai, the company's Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons or entities that acquired the company's common stock between October 26, 2018 and August 1, 2019, and alleges claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint seeks damages based on allegations that in the Company's SEC filings the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Granite Construction said, "We are in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which we intend to defend vigorously. Granite Construction Incorporated is one of the largest diversified infrastructure companies in the United States, engaged in heavy-civil infrastructure projects including the construction of streets, roads, highways, mass transit facilities, airport infrastructure, bridges, trenchless and underground utilities, power-related facilities, water-related facilities, well drilling, utilities, tunnels, dams and other infrastructure-related projects, site preparation, mining services, and infrastructure services for residential development, energy development, commercial and industrial sites, and other facilities, as well as construction management professional services. The company had four reportable business segments: Transportation, Water, Specialty and Materials. The company is based in Watsonville, California. HARD TACK: Shanahan Sues over Robocalls --------------------------------------- TERRANCE SHANAHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. HARD TACK INC., a Delaware Corporation, DEALER RENEWAL SERVICES., an unknown Florida business entity, BUDCO BUSINESS TO BUSINESS INC., D/B/A BUDCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, a Michigan Corporation, ROYAL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, INC., a Florida Corporation, AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, a Florida corporation, Doe 1, an unknown business entity, and DOES 2-5, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00441-BCB-SMB (D. Neb., Oct. 9, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending prerecorded voice messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In the course of selling their services, Defendants and/or their agents placed thousands of automated calls to consumers' cell phones nationwide using an automatic telephone dialing system. Unfortunately, Defendants failed to obtain consent from Plaintiff and the Class before bombarding their cell phones with these illegal voice recordings, the lawsuit says. Defendants are companies that market, sell, finance and provide vehicle service contracts to consumers.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff are: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 480 S. Ellsworth Ave San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: 650-781-8000 Facsimile: 650-648-0705 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Still Defends Securities Suit in E.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------------------------- Healthcare Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a securities class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On March 22, 2019, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The initial complaint, which was filed by a plaintiff purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of our securities between April 11, 2017 and March 4, 2019, alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the matters related to the company's earnings per share (EPS) calculation practices. On September 17, 2019, the complaint was amended to, among other things, extend the Class Period to cover the period between April 8, 2014 and March 4, 2019, and to name additional individuals affiliated with the Company as defendants. The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of the plaintiff class. Healthcare Services said, "While the Company is vigorously defending against all litigation claims asserted, this litigation -- along with the ongoing SEC investigation -- could result in substantial costs to the Company and a diversion of the Company's management's attention and resources, which could harm its business. In addition, the uncertainty of the pending lawsuit or potential filing of additional lawsuits could lead to more volatility and a reduction in the Company's stock price. Given the early stage of the litigation, at this time the Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible losses or form a judgment that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote." Healthcare Services Group, Inc., incorporated on November 22, 1976, provides management, administrative and operating services to the housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility maintenance and dietary service departments of the healthcare industry, including nursing homes, retirement complexes, rehabilitation centers and hospitals located throughout the United States. The Company operates through two segments: housekeeping, laundry, linen and other services (Housekeeping), and dietary department services (Dietary). The company is based in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. HOUSE OF RAEFORD: Torres Seeks Overtime Pay for Line Supervisors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Torres, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc. a/k/a Columbia Farms, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02956-CMC (D.S.C., Oct. 17, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff was a Line Supervisor who worked for Defendant. He consistently worked but was not paid for overtime. The Defendant willfully and intentionally mischaracterized Plaintiff and many other similarly situated employees as exempt rather than non-exempt, the lawsuit says. The Defendant is a North Carolina-based corporation that specializes in poultry-related agribusiness, specifically the processing, packaging, and transport of live poultry for intrastate and interstate commerce.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff is: Janet Rhodes, Esq. BURNETTE SHUTT & McDANIEL, PA 912 Lady Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 1929 Columbia, SC 29202-1929 Telephone: (803) 904-7915 Facsimile: (803) 904-7910 E-mail: janetrhodes@burnetteshutt.law HOUSTON, TX: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Beckwith Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DEJENAY BECKWITH, on her Own Behalf and Others Similarly Situated; BEVERLY FLORES, on her Own Behalf and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF HOUSTON; MAYOR SYLVESTER TURNER; POLICE CHIEF ART ACEVEDO; HOUSTON FORENSIC SCIENCE CENTER; PETER STOUT; ANNISE PARKER; LEE P. BROWN; KATHY WHITMIRE; CHIEF CHARLES McCLELLAND; CHIEF CLARENCE BRADFORD; CHIEF SAM NUCHIA, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-20611 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment granting the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The case is a putative class action based on claims by Plaintiffs Beckwith and Beverly Flores that the City of Houston and individual city policy makers failed to test Sexual Assault Kits ("SAKs") following their sexual assaults by non-party perpetrators. The Plaintiffs filed suit against the following Defendants: the City of Houston, Texas; Dr. Peter Stout, the 2017-appointed CEO of the Houston Forensic Science Center; the former Mayors of the City of Houston, Annise Parker (2010-2016), Bill White (2004-2010), Lee P. Brown (1998-2004), and Bob Lanier (deceased) (1992-1998); and former Police Chiefs of the City of Houston, Charles McClelland (2010-2016), Harold Hurtt (2004-2009), Clarence Bradford (1997-2004), Sam Nuchia (1992-1997), and Lee P. Brown (1982-1990). Beckwith was sexually assaulted on April 2, 2011. She immediately notified the Houston Police Department ("HPD") and went to Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital where the hospital staff collected a SAK. An HPD police officer then transported Beckwith's SAK to HPD for testing. HPD did not contact her again until 2015, when HPD told her that it had a suspect in her sexual assault case. She phoned HPD several months later to talk about the sexual assault but HPD did not call back. HPD next contacted her in 2016 to tell her the suspect's name. Later that year, the Harris County District Attorney's Office notified her that her SAK had been tested and matched with HPD's suspect, David Lee Cooper. Cooper had a long history of sexually assaulting women, including a minor child, dating back to 1991. Cooper's previous sexual assault cases bear a similar fact pattern to Beckwith's assault. Had the City of Houston entered any of Cooper's victims' genetic evidence from the untested SAKs, Cooper would have been stopped before he had a chance to sexually assault Beckwith. HPD had her identifying information and should have informed her that her SAK had gone untested for many years. On Sept. 20, 2011, Flores was raped by a home intruder. Flores contacted HPD after the perpetrator fled. She insisted that charges be filed against the perpetrator and "a SAKS was done," although she does not provide the name of the facility that administered her SAK. Two weeks after the sexual assault, an HPD detective visited Flores and told her that her SAK would be processed within three months. Flores' perpetrator, Domeka Donta Turner, had committed a prior sexual assault on Sept. 9, 2011. In August 2014, a routine DNA database run showed that there was a match between Flores' SAK and Turner. Had Houston run the results of her test on the DNA database sooner, Turner would have been apprehended earlier and Flores would not have spent several years worried and concerned about the threat to herself and her children. The City of Houston never notified Flores prior to 2017 that her SAK had been delayed in testing or that any other Houston rape victim had their SAKs delayed in testing. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, with deliberate indifference, maintained a policy, practice and/or custom for the past 30 years of not submitting SAKs for testing, not reviewing test results, and failing to preserve evidence. They add that this policy has a discriminatory purpose and adverse impact on females. On Sept. 24, 2017, Beckwith filed her original putative class action complaint against the Defendants. On Dec. 20, 2017, Beckwith filed her first amended complaint, adding Flores as an additional named Plaintiff. In their second amended complaint, the Plaintiffs sued all the Defendants in their individual and official capacities for alleged violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. They further asserted alleged violations of substantive due process, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment "Takings" Clause, and negligence claims under state law. The Plaintiffs also brought claims for conspiracy to interfere with their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 and for negligently failing to prevent civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1986. The Plaintiffs seek damages for violation of civil rights under color of law, injunctive relief requiring Defendants to change the methods used to investigate sexual assault and for the award of attorney fees and costs. The Defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 1983 for alleged violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses and the Plaintiffs' state law negligence claims. It also granted the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' remaining claims asserting 42 U.S.C. Sections 1985 and 1986 claims along with alleged violations of substantive due process, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment "Takings" Clause. The appeal ensued. The Plaintiffs advance four theories for why the limitations period should not apply to them: (1) a more specific, five-year limitations period applies; (2) the limitations period was tolled for fraudulent concealment; (3) the limitations period was tolled under the discovery rule; and (4) the limitations period was tolled because the Defendants' conduct constituted a continuing tort. The Fifth Circuit holds that the two-year statute of limitations bars the Plaintiffs' state law negligence claims and their claims under Section 1983. First, it finds that the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 1983, like their state law negligence claims, are governed by a two-year statute of limitations. Second, it finds that the the doctrine of fraudulent concealment does not apply in the case. Third, it agrees with the district court that the Plaintiffs did not exercise diligence in their cases, and therefore, the discovery rule does not apply to toll the statute of limitations. Fourt, the Plaintiffs also can only show one instance of allegedly wrongful conduct that was not repeated against them and that occurred outside the limitations period. The Plaintiffs also contest the accrual date of their Section 1983 and negligence claims. Accrual of a Section 1983 claim is governed by federal law. The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint alleges that the Defendants should have tested their SAKs within 30 days of collection. The Fifth Circuit finds that Beckwith's SAK was collected on April 2, 2011. Flores' SAK was collected on Sept. 20, 2011. Therefore, Beckwith's claim would have accrued in May 2011 and Flores' in October 2011, regardless of when the Defendants notified them of the delay in testing. Because they brought their state law causes of action approximately six years later, on Sept. 24, 2017, the two-year statute of limitations bars the Plaintiffs' state law causes of action. The Plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants conspired to interfere with the Plaintiffs' civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 and negligently failed to prevent a known conspiracy to interfere with their civil rights in violation of Section 1986. The Fifth Circuit holds that because there is no federal statute of limitations for actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985, federal courts borrow the forum state's general personal injury limitations period. In a Section 1985 claim, the actionable civil injury to a plaintiff results from the overt acts of the defendants, not from the mere continuation of a conspiracy. Thus, any cause of action against the Defendants accrued as soon as the Plaintiffs knew or should have known of the overt acts involved in the alleged conspiracy. For the reasons already stated regarding the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 1983, the Plaintiffs' claims brought under Section 1985 are also dismissed. Finally, the Plaintiffs aver that the district court erred in its Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of their remaining claims for violations of substantive due process, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. They brought these claims separate and apart from their other constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. However, the Fifth Circuit holds that it must consider these claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 because a private right of action is needed to assert a constitutional claim. It has already held that the Section 1983 claims are subject to the applicable statute of limitations. Likewise, it holds that these claims are also subject to the applicable two-year statute of limitations and are therefore time-barred for all of the reasons already stated in its foregoing analysis. Accordingly, these remaining constitutional claims are dismissed. Based on the foregoing, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's Oct. 16, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/rbRyOE from Leagle.com. Collyn Ann Peddie, for Defendant-Appellee. Roy Joseph Rodney, Jr. -- rjr@rodneylaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Suzanne Reddell Chauvin -- Suzanne.Chauvin@houstontx.gov -- for Defendant-Appellee. Randall Lee Kallinen -- attorneykallinen@aol.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Charles Henry Peckham -- cpeckham@peckhampllc.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Deidra Norris Sullivan -- Deidra.Sullivan@houstontx.gov -- for Defendant-Appellee. JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Sued over Travel Insurance Deceptive Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ RANDY O'KANE, on behalf of herself and a class of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-09662 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks monetary damages that Plaintiff and consumers residing nationwide have suffered as a result of purchasing travel insurance through Defendant's website in violations of New York's General Business Law. Defendant engages in a deceptive scheme to induce its customers to purchase travel-insurance policies, while concealing its own financial interest in policy sales. Specifically, Defendant encourages its customers to protect their trip with travel insurance provided by Allianz Global Assistance, a third-party insurer that has partnered with JetBlue to offer travel insurance through JetBlue's website. JetBlue does not disclose, however, that despite lacking a license to broker insurance policies, it has a financial interest in the travel insurance and receives an illegal kickback from the insurer in exchange for brokering the insurance sale. These activities have harmed Plaintiff and the proposed class, as Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class have suffered an out-of-pocket loss through the payment of undisclosed and illegal commission kickbacks. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's website misled her into paying for the cost of that illegal kickback, and that Defendant is therefore liable for these damages, among other things, the lawsuit says. JetBlue Airways Corporation, stylized as jetBlue, is a major American low cost airline, and the sixth largest in the United States by passengers carried.[BN] Counsel for Randy O'Kane are: Melissa R. Emert, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45 th St.-5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 954-341-5561 Facsimile: 954-341-5531 E-mail: memert@ssbny.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-373-1671 Facsimile: 415-484-1294 E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com - and - Marc L. Godino, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-201-9150 Facsimile: 310-432-1495 E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com - and - Kevin Landau, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204 New York, New York 10038 Telephone: (212) 931-0704 E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com - and - Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: 612-333-8844 Facsimile: 612-339-6622 E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss cART Antitrust Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that defendants in the class action antitrust suit related to combination antiretroviral therapies (cART), have filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In May 2019, a class action antitrust complaint was filed against Janssen R&D Ireland (Janssen) and Johnson & Johnson. The complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws by agreeing to exclusivity provisions in its agreements with Gilead concerning the development and marketing of combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) to treat HIV. The complaint also alleges that Gilead entered into similar agreements with Bristol-Myers-Squibb and Japan Tobacco. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Northern California. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Those motions are pending. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss TRACLEER(R)-Related Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the Court granted Actelion's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action suit related to TRACLEER(R). In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc., and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of TRACLEER(R). TRACLEER(R) is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, which imposes restrictions on distribution of the product. In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In October 2019, the Court granted Actelion's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit over Baby Powder Products Pending in Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson is defending against a class action suit in Illinois over the health risks posed by its talcum-powder based products, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019. In May 2014, two purported class actions were filed in federal court, one in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI) alleging violations of state consumer fraud statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged health risks associated with talc contained in JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder and JOHNSON'S(R0 Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold by JJCI). Both cases seek injunctive relief and monetary damages; neither includes a claim for personal injuries. In October 2016, both cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the District Court of New Jersey as part of a newly created federal multi-district litigation. In July 2017, the district court granted Johnson & Johnson's and JJCI's motion to dismiss one of the cases. In September 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed this dismissal. In September 2017, the plaintiff in the second case voluntarily dismissed the complaint. In March 2018, the plaintiff in the second case refiled in Illinois State Court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Summary Judgment in Contact Lens Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that defendants' motions for summary judgment in the contact lens-related class action suit remain pending in federal district court in Florida. In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November 2015. In December 2018, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants filed two motions for interlocutory appeal of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Both motions were denied. Defendants' motions for summary judgment are pending in the Florida District Court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO Sales Class Suit in Louisiana Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana related to its improper marketing and promotion of XARELTO(R). In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants improperly marketed and promoted XARELTO(R) as safer and more effective than less expensive alternative medications while failing to fully disclose its risks. The complaint seeks damages. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Antitrust Class Suit Transferred to NJ ------------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the class action suit related to ZYTIGA(R) has been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In April 2019, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc. filed a class action complaint against Janssen Biotech, Inc, Janssen Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research & Development, LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Sherman Act and the antitrust and consumer protections laws of several states by pursuing patent litigation relating to ZYTIGA(R) in order to delay generic entry. The case has been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JONES LANDLEVELING: Pate Seeks OT Wages for Construction Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- TRACE PATE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. JONES LANDLEVELING, LLC, TERRY JONES and JOHN DUCKWORTH, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00280-DPM (E.D. Ark., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs and a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff minimum and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid employee for Defendants from May of 2018 until November of 2018, and then worked as an hourly-paid employee for Duckworth from March of 2019 until May of 2019. During the first tenure, Defendants directly hired Plaintiff to work at construction sites, paid him wages and benefits, controlled his work schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and employment conditions, and kept at least some records regarding his employment. During the second tenure, Duckworth directly hired Plaintiff to work at construction sites, paid him wages and benefits, controlled his work schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and employment conditions, and kept at least some records regarding his employment. During both tenures, the Plaintiff regularly worked thirteen hours a day, seven days a week with alternating weekends off, resulting in far more than 40 hours worked each workweek. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, the lawsuit says. The Defendants operate as "landlevelers" at construction sites to prepare the ground for building. Jones Landleveling, LLC is a limited liability company registered in Arkansas. Jones Landleveling's registered agent for service is Terry Jones at 1947 South Cypress Avenue, Piggott, Arkansas 72454. Duckworth and Jones co-owned and co-managed Jones Landleveling.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com KRAFT: Judge Dismisses Capri Sun False Advertising Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a federal judge agreed to dismiss a class action accusing Kraft of falsely advertising that its Capri Sun drinks were free of artificial preservatives. Judge Charles Kocoras of the U.S. District Court Northern Division of Illinois issued his ruling Oct. 10. Katrina Tarzian and Senia Hardwick sued Kraft Heinz Foods in March alleging the 10-packs of Capri Sun they purchased contained citric acid, a preservative they allege has been artificially produced since 1917 on an industrial scale more economical than the original, organic process of fresh fruit extraction. Their complaint alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act as well as violations of New York consumer protection laws. Kraft moved to dismiss the entire complaint on March 21. Although Kraft has one of its two headquarters in the state, the company argued that Illinois law does not apply to customers from other places. The plaintiffs alleged the deceptive claims came from headquarters and any ensuing profits returned to Illinois, but Kocoras said the plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements residents of other states must meet to sue under the Illinois consumer fraud law. "The misrepresentations alleged here were made on product labels during straightforward retail purchases across the nation," Kocoras wrote. "Kraft correctly points out that the complaint does not contain any allegations to support the plaintiffs' argument that profits or complaints that ensued from the alleged misrepresentation flowed back to Illinois." Kraft further agued that the plaintiffs cannot seek an injunction -- which they did under New York's General Business Law -- because they already know the drinks have citric acid and, therefore, are unlikely to experience the same alleged harm. Kocoras said courts in the Northern District of Illinois have allowed plaintiffs to pursue injunctions only if it is plausible that the same person again would buy the contested product. He further ruled that the complaint plainly alleges the plaintiffs wouldn't have bought the Capri Sun had they known about the citric acid, which underscores the unlikeliness of a repeat purchase. Kocoras also rejected the allegations that Kraft violated New York's fraud laws because the complaint lacked specificity. The plaintiffs said the Capri Sun they bought contained "industrially manufactured citric acid, and industrial citric acid is artificial because it is usually produced through the industrial fermentation process," Kocoras wrote, thus negating any advertising the drinks contain "no artificial preservatives." However, the plaintiffs only described the common manufacturing practice and concluded Kraft is deploying that process. "That is too great of an inferential leap," Kocoras ruled. "Plaintiffs need to draw a connection between the common industry practice and the actual practice used by Kraft. Even drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs' favor, the complaint fails to draw this nexus, and the court cannot draw it for plaintiffs." The plaintiffs have been represented by attorney C.K. Lee, of the Lee Litigation Group PLLC, of Chicago. Kraft has been defended by attorneys Kara L McCall -- kmccall@sidley.com -- and Daniel A. Spira -- dspira@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP, in Chicago. [GN] LEBANON, PA: State Court Faces Gass et al. Suit ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 52nd Judicial District, Lebanon County. The case is captioned as Andrew Koch, Melissa Gass, and Ashley Bennett, the Petitioners, vs. 52nd Judicial District, Lebanon County, the Respondent, Case No. 118-MM-2019 (Pa. Super., Oct. 8, 2019).[BN] Attorneys for the Petitioners are: Geri Romanello St. Joseph, Esq. Witold J. Walczak, Esq. Sara Jeannette Rose, Esq. Andrew Chapman Christy, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA P.O. Box 60173 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 592-1513 Attorneys for the Respondent are: Robert Joseph Krandel, Esq. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS Admin Ofc Of Pa Court 1515 Market St Ste 1414 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 560-6300 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Kemeny Suit Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MALCOLM KEMENY, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Docket No. 656267/2016, Motion Seq. Nos. 004, 005, 006 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Debra A. James of the New York County Supreme Court (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Third Cause of Action in Plaintiff's First Amended Verified Complaint; and (ii) withdrew without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The action stems from the non-payment of an arbitration award in the sum of $75,000, plus $250 for arbitration costs, issued in favor of the Plaintiff on Nov. 7, 2016. The arbitrator concluded that the Plaintiff's injuries to his left ankle met the serious injury threshold of Insurance Law Section 5102(d). The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant refused to pay the arbitration award because he and his wife would not agree to provide the Defendant with a release. He claims that the Defendant's conduct of demanding a release prior to paying an arbitration award, constitutes an illegal insurance practice and is against public policy which favors alternative dispute resolution over litigation. As a result of the Defendant's non-payment of the arbitration award, the Plaintiff commenced the action by filing a verified complaint on Dec. 1, 2016, seeking, inter alia, to confirm the arbitration award, pursuant to CPLR 7501. The Defendant's answer contained nine affirmative defenses. The Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his first and second causes of action on Dec. 23, 2016. On Feb. 22, 2017, prior to the actual submission of the Plaintiff's motion, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff $75,250, which constituted the full amount of the arbitration award, plus arbitration costs. By court order, the Plaintiff was permitted to amend his verified complaint to add a sixth cause of action for a declaratory judgment. The Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on his first cause of action which seeks a judgment in the sum of $75,000, plus $250 in arbitration costs, plus interest, legal fees and additional costs. As per his correspondence dated Nov. 5, 2018, the Plaintiff's summary judgment motion is deemed withdrawn. The Defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's first amended verified complaint on the grounds that 1) it paid the arbitration award and all no-fault benefits to which the Plaintiff is entitled; and 2) the remainder of the Plaintiff's claims including attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting the action, interest on interest, and punitive and consequential damages are without merit. Judge James finds that the Dfendant has established its right to contest the arbitration award. On the other hand, the Plaintiff has established its right to interest on the arbitration award. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant's conduct in requesting a release was frivolous. Therefore, that portion of the Defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's first cause of action for attorney's fees and additional costs will be granted. Likewise, as the Plaintiff made a colorable claim for relief in terms of payment of interest, the Defendant has not met its burden to show that the Plaintiff's conduct was frivolous. The Plaintiff's second cause of action demands judgment in the sum of $4,258.93, plus interest, costs and attorney's fees. The Defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action as moot. Based on the facts pleaded, the Judge finds that the payments for the Plaintiff's medical expenses, by which Liberty was purportedly enriched, were not made by the Plaintiff, but rather by his unidentified employee insurance carrier. Hence, that portion of the Plaintiff's request for costs and attorneys' fees is denied as without merit. The Plaintiff's third cause of action seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's third cause of action on the grounds that the Plaintiff has not set forth a viable cause of action for the relief requested. The Judge finds that since there is no basis for determining that the Defendant's conduct constituted a tort independent of its obligations under the insurance contract, the Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages is dismissed. Contrary to the Plaintiff's contentions, he does not have a claim for consequential damages beyond the limits of the policy. In his sixth cause of action, the Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the no-fault provisions of his motor vehicle insurance policy with defendant remain in full force and effect, and that he may continue to submit no-fault claims for related medical expenses pertaining to the underlying accident. The Defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the sixth cause of action on the grounds that no justiciable controversy exists in the case, and therefore, the Court is without jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment. The Judge finds that the Defendant concedes that the Plaintiff's motor vehicle insurance policy remains in full force and effect and that the Plaintiff may continue to submit no-fault claims to defendant for related medical expenses necessitated by the subject motor vehicle accident. Thus, that portion of the Defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's sixth cause of action is granted. Finally, that portion of the Defendant's cross motion seeking costs and disbursements from the Plaintiff is denied. In the Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff moves pursuant to CPLR 3025 for leave to file a second amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint seeks to add an eighth cause of action for class action certification pursuant to CPLR 901. The Plaintiff's proposed eighth cause of action ultimately seeks class certification to the extent of certifying a subclass to be represented on his cause of action for bad faith claims handling. The Judge holds that the Plaintiff's request to amend his complaint to include an eighth cause of action for class certification must be denied. As she stated, there is no compelling authority indicating that a separate, non-contractual claim exists for "bad faith claims handling" by the Defendant. The Plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 to amend his first amended verified complaint will be denied. In light of the her decision on the Plaintiff's motion, the Judge denied as moot the Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's third cause of action in the first amended complaint which seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs. Based on the foregoing, Judge James (i) denied the motion of the Defendant for costs and sanctions; (ii) withdrawn without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; (iii) granted the portion of the Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's first cause of action, pursuant to CPLR 7501, for an order confirming the arbitration award and awarding arbitration costs; (iv) denied the portion of the Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's first cause of action seeking interest on the arbitration award; (v) granted the portion of the Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's first amended complaint seeking additional costs and attorney's fee; (vi) granted the portion of Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's second cause of action is granted; (vii) granted the portion of the Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's third cause of action; (viii) granted the portion of the Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's sixth cause of action; (ix) denied the Plaintiff's motion for an order granting leave to serve a second amended verified complaint; (x) denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the first cause of action; and (xi) rendered academic the portion of the Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's third cause of action in the first amended complaint as set forth. The Plaintiff is entitled to a money judgment in the sum of $1,975.31 which represents interest owed by the Defendant on the arbitration award, from the date of the award (Nov. 7, 2016) to the date of attempted payment (Feb. 22, 2017). The Clerk is directed to enter a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Decision + Order is available at https://is.gd/oPupG4 from Leagle.com. LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Class Action Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------- LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a securities class action suit entitled, Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al. On August 20, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, referred to herein as the Securities Class Action, was initiated by purported stockholders of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its officers, entitled Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:18-cv-07285). On November 6, 2018 the case was transferred to the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:18-cv-12330). The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements or omissions concerning renewal rates for the Company's subscription contracts. The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to defend it vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and support solutions. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional locations in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. LOWE'S HOME: Court OKs “Hourly Managers” Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Statesville Division, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Motion for Collective Certification in the case captioned DANIEL DANFORD, HARRY HOUTMAN, Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC LOWE'S COMPANIES INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:19-CV-00041-KDB-DCK, (W.D.N.C.). Plaintiffs allege in their Amended Complaint that Defendants willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to compensate Hourly Managers for all hours worked. Plaintiffs also claim Lowe's violated the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and assert claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. All of these claims are asserted as class actions. Having considered the parties' arguments and the limited record before the Court, Judge Bell grants Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification with regards to the following defined class: All current and former hourly managers, including but not limited to: Department Managers; Overnight Managers; Product Service Department Managers; Installed Sales Department Managers; Loss Prevention Managers; Service Managers; Support Managers; Back-End Department Supervisors; Front-End Department Supervisors; Night-Ops Supervisors; and Sales Floor Department Supervisors(hereinafter collectively referred to as Hourly Managers), who work or have worked for Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (Lowe's) at any of their retail stores at any time on or after April 11, 2016 and have performed off-the-clock work in connection with opening or closing the store or in connection with receiving or responding to work related communications on one or more smartphone applications (including, but not limited to: WhatsApp and GroupMe) and was not paid for such work. The Court grants Plaintiffs' request for notification by U.S. Mail and e-mail to all Hourly Managers who worked at Lowe's on or after April 11, 2016 but denies Plaintiffs' request for text message notice, unless initial notice is undeliverable. The Court also denies Plaintiff's request to send a reminder notice by e-mail 30 days into the 60-day opt-in period. Lowe's is ordered to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel an electronic list of all Hourly Managers who worked at Lowe's on or after April 11, 2016 that includes members' full names, last known addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and dates and location of employment without delay. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yychn8ua from Leagle.com Daniel Danford, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin J. Stoops - kstoops@sommerspc.com - Sommers Schwartz, pro hac vice, Rod M. Johnston - rjohnston@sommerspc.com - Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice & James Jenkins Mills – jmills@bdppa.com - Burns Day & Presnell, PA. Lowe's Companies Inc & Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendants, represented by Benjamin Paul Fryer - benjaminfryer@mvalaw.com - Moore & Van Allen PLLC, Paul Javier Peralta - paulperalta@mvalaw.com - Rachael McMillan Coe - rachaelcoe@mvalaw.com - Moore & Van Allen & Scott M. Tyler - scotttyler@mvalaw.com - Moore & Van Allen, PLLC. MAGELLAN HEALTH: Deakin May Amend Complaint to Add Party & Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MAUREEN DEAKIN, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE, INC., MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES OF NEW MEXICO, INC., MERIT BEHAVIORAL CARE CORPORATION, & MAGELLAN HSRC, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-CV-00773-WJ-KK (D. N.M.), Judge William P. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Party and Claims. The case is a class action wherein the Plaintiff asserts that she, and other employees like her, were misclassified by the Defendants as exempt employees and thus not paid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The action, like many of those before it, combines the FLSA claims with similar claims under analogous state laws. Plaintiff Deakin has made a claim under New Mexico state law and proposed newly named Plaintiffs, Rachel Clerge, Cheryl Johnson, Lesly Mitchell, May Wojcik, and Dale Kessler ("Proposed Newly Named Plaintiffs"), seek to add claims under Massachusetts, Maryland, Missouri, New York, and Pennsylvania state laws, respectively. These Plaintiffs, while newly proposed as Named Plaintiffs, are not "new" to the litigation in the strictest sense of the word. The Proposed Newly Named Plaintiffs have each affirmatively opted-in and are thus already part of the litigation as members of the FLSA class. The issue, then, is whether the Court should grant leave to amend to allow these Plaintiffs to bring state claims on behalf of themselves and their state-specific classes and, if so, whether those claims would relate back to the filing of the original complaint. Judge Johnson concludes that the Plaintiff filed her Motion to Amend before the deadline to amend expired. The amendments relate to the same underlying facts as the original complaint, i.e., whether the Plaintiff and others like her were properly classified as exempt and thus not entitled to overtime wages. As such, the Plaintiff's motion was timely and relates back to the original complaint. The Defendants also will suffer no undue prejudice if amendment is allowed. Therefore, he granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Party and Claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/oiHnYS from Leagle.com. Maureen Deakin, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jack L. Siegel -- jack@siegellawgroup.biz â€“ Siegel Law Group PLLC, Travis Andrew Gasper, Lee & Braziel, LLP & J. Derek Braziel, Lee & Braziel LLP. Magellan Health, Inc., Magellan Healthcare, Inc., Magellan Health Services of New Mexico, Inc., Merit Behavioral Care Corporation & Magellan HSRC, Inc., Defendants, represented by Mark D. Temple -- mtemple@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Randy S. Bartell -- abartell@montand.com -- Montgomery & Andrews, P.A. & Paige T. Bennett -- pbennett@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, LLP, pro hac vice. MAPLE LEAF: Ct. to Hear Appeal in Mr. Sub Franchisees' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rafal Gerszak, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that Canada's top court was set to hear an appeal in Oct. in a class-action lawsuit by Mr. Sub franchisees seeking compensation from Maple Leaf Foods Inc. for loss of sales and reputational damage during the 2008 listeriosis crisis, a case lawyers say could significantly increase financial liability for manufacturers of almost any product. [GN] MASSAGE ENVY: Lapa Administrative Bid Denied in Drobnis Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied David Lapa's Administrative Motion in the case captioned BAERBEL McKINNEY-DROBNIS, JOSEPH B. PICCOLA, and CAMILLE BERLESE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-06450-MMC. (N.D. Cal.). The District Court preliminarily approved a class action settlement in the class action, which order sets forth the procedure for persons who fall within the class definition to submit a claim, to object to the settlement, and to exclude themselves from the settlement. In his Administrative Motion, Lapa requests to be excluded and to be afforded the right to appear at the final approval hearing to object to the settlement. The Court notes that such proposed procedure is precluded by the Court's June 7 Order, and Lapa fails to identify any cognizable basis for reconsideration of that order. Moreover, as Lapa acknowledges, he has already timely notified the settlement administrator of his request for exclusion and, consequently, he lacks standing to object to the settlement, the Court finds. Accordingly, the Court denied Lapa's administrative motion. The full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3ea87k7 from Leagle.com Baerbel McKinney-Drobnis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Joseph B. Piccola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Camille Berlese, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeffrey R. Krinsk - jrk@classactionlaw.com - Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP & Trenton Ross Kashima - trk@classactionlaw.com - Finkelstein Krink LLP. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Luanne Sacks - lsacks@srclaw.com - Sacks, Ricketts & Case, LLP, Cynthia A. Ricketts -cricketts@srclaw.com - Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Kahn Abrahm Scolnick -kscolnick@gibsondunn.com - Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Robert Brett Bader -rbader@srclaw.com - Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP & Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. - tboutrous@gibsondunn.com - Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. David Lapa, Interested Party, represented by Ishan Dave - Ishan@dereksmithlaw.com - Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC & Jack Fitzgerald - jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com - The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC. Kurt Oreshack, Objector, represented by Theodore Harold Frank - tfrank@gmail.com - Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute. MDL 2915: Ababseh Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Amjed Ali Ababseh, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One N.A., Capital One Bank (USA), Amazon.com Inc.,and Amazon Web Services, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01397 (Filed Aug. 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct 18, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02940-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga. The Ababseh 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: Duncan Calvert Turner, Esq. BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC 19929 Ballinger Way Ne, Ste 200 Seattle, WA 98155 Telephone: (206) 621-6566 E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One N.A., Capital One Bank (USA), are represented by: Daniel J. Oates, Esq. Steven A. Miller, Esq. Kellen Andrew Hade, Esq. MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP (SEA) 2801 Alaskan Way, Ste 300 Pier 70 Seattle, WA 98121-1128 Telephone: (206) 777-7537 Facsimile: (206) 340-9599 E-mail: Dan.Oates@millernash.com steven.miller@millernash.com kellen.hade@millernash.com The Amazon.com Inc., and Amazon Web Services, Inc. are represented by: Jeffrey A. Ware, Esq. FENWICK & WEST (WA) 1191 Second Ave., 10th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 389-4531 E-mail: jware@fenwick.com MDL 2915: Atachbarian Suit over Capital One Data Breach Moved ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Abraham Atachbarian, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. Capital One Financial Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06965 (Filed Aug. 9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria) on Oct 18, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02944-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga. The Atachbarian 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: Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. STULL STULL AND BRODY 9430 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 209-2468 Facsimile: (310) 209-2087 E-mail: service@ssbla.com Capital One Financial Corporation is represented by: John R. Lawless , Jr. KING AND SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3500 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: jlawless@kslaw.com MDL 2915: Janik Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Marsha Janik, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, National Association, and Capital One Bank (U.S.A.), N.A., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01242 (Filed Aug. 9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria) on Oct. 18, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02941-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga. The Janik 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: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. SHEPERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main St. Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 Facsimile: (860) 526-1120 E-mail: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Joseph J. Cherico, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH-STMFD One Canterbury Green 201 Broad Street Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 399-5900 Facsimile: (203) 399-5800 E-mail: jcherico@mccarter.com MDL 2915: Tsirigos Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Nicholas Tsirigos, Vaseleke Inembolidis,James Arnold, and Jane Doe, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. Capital One Bank (U.S.A.), N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04507 (Filed Aug. 6, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct. 18, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02933-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga. The Tsirigos 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: Spencer I. Sheehan SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: Spencer@spencersheehan.com The Defendant is represented by: Peter Joseph Isajiw, Esq. Robert Warren Gray, Jr., Esq. KING AND SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3500 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: pisajiw@kslaw.com bgray@kslaw.com MDL 2915: Zimprich Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Randy Zimprich, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. Capital One Financial Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01689 (Filed Sept. 4, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct 18, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02943-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga. The Zimprich 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: Daniel S. Robinson, Esq. Michael Willard Olson, Esq. Wesley K. Polischuk, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: drobinson@rcrsd.com molson@robinsonfirm.com wpolischuk@rcrsd.com The Defendant is represented by: John R. Lawless, Jr., Esq. KING AND SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3500 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: jlawless@kslaw.com MICHIGAN: 200 Prisoners to Get Certified Kosher Meals ----------------------------------------------------- Paul Egan, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that as many as 200 Michigan prisoners would start receiving meals that are certified kosher under a proposed settlement reached over the weekend to a class-action lawsuit backed by the Michigan American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The Michigan Department of Corrections in 2013 introduced a vegan meal that was supposed to serve as a religious meal for prisoners from all non-Christian religions. That provoked a lawsuit from Gerald Ackerman and other Jewish prisoners, who said a vegan diet and a kosher diet are not the same. A vegan diet lacks kosher meat and dairy products and the department uses non-kosher items in preparing the meals and non-kosher equipment, utensils, and areas to prepare and serve them, the prisoners alleged. Under the proposed settlement, which will be subject to a fairness hearing before U.S. District Judge Linda Parker in Detroit, the meals would have to either be prepared in prison kitchens that are certified kosher or purchased from an outside kosher vendor. "A vegan diet . . . is based on Buddhist beliefs and practices," former prisoner Michael Arnold said in the original lawsuit, filed in 2013. "The plaintiffs do not hold such beliefs." Arnold, who was dropped from the lawsuit when he was released from prison, said "the policy of enforced vegetarianism is targeted specifically at prisoners . . . who are Jewish." The proposed settlement, agreed to by the department, requires the department to provide a certified kosher lunch and dinner each day to the class members. The meals must either be prepared at a certified kosher kitchen -- which the attorney for the prisoners says the department does not now have -- or be purchased from a certified kosher vendor. Not covered by the settlement is a demand that the prisoners receive kosher meat and dairy products on the Sabbath and certain Jewish holidays. That demand was the subject of a recent bench trial before Parker. A ruling is pending. Daniel Manville, director of the civil rights clinic at MSU's College of Law, said many of the prisoners he represents have suffered since 2013 by being forced to eat meals that are non-kosher. "It was stupid to do it that way without also certifying the kitchen as kosher," Manville said of the department using one vegan meal for all non-Christian prisoners of religious faith. "For six years, they have violated all these people's right and have not cared about it." The suit was also backed by the ACLU of Michigan. Though the settlement does not include monetary damages, the case will cost the department about $100,000 in plaintiff attorney fees, he said. The department earlier attempted to have the case thrown out, citing costs and other reasons. "The MDOC has substantial measures in place to protect against cross-contamination of food," the Attorney General's Office argued on behalf of the department in 2015. "The increased costs associated with enacting additional measures to stop cross-contamination would do substantial harm to others, particularly the overburdened taxpayers of the state of Michigan," said assistant Attorney General John Thurber. Also, while some Jewish prisoners "may want a greater variety of food and and to consume dairy products and kosher meat, the MDOC is not obligated to provide . . . them," he said. Prisoners covered by the settlement are listed as Jewish in prison records and requested religious meals. [GN] MIKE STINSON: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Decision in Gibbs Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Mike Stinson, et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Darlene Gibbs, et al. v. Mike Stinson, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00676-MHL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond. The lawsuit's controversy arises out of the Defendants' involvement in an allegedly unlawful lending operation. The lending operation, which the Plaintiffs describe as a "rent-a-tribe" scheme, allegedly offered loans to the Plaintiffs and charged interest rates ranging from 118% to 448%. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class action lawsuit was filed against Mike Stinson, 7HBF NO. 2, Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC, John Drew and Technology Crossover Ventures on October 4, 2018. The Plaintiffs filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Mike Stinson is an American singer-songwriter and musician. He is a native of Virginia. Mike Stinson moved to Los Angeles in 1991. Inspired by the country rock of Gram Parsons, as well as more traditional country artists such as Johnny Cash and George Jones, he began to write songs and eventually formed his own band. Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC operates as a venture capital firm. The Firm invests in energy, financial services, healthcare, internet, mobile, outsourcing, and technology sectors. Sequoia Capital Operations serves clients worldwide. Technology Crossover Ventures is a private equity and venture capital firm specializing in investments in leveraged buyouts, minority growth equity, full or partial recapitalizations for both diversification of capital structure and modifying shareholder equity, acquisition financings to supplement complementary add-on acquisitions, public market transactions, and public deal constructs. The firm seeks to invest in growth stage, early, mid, and late venture stages, mature, and later stages of development in private and public companies. The appellate case is captioned as Darlene Gibbs, et al. v. Michael Stinson, et al., Case No. 19-2113, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on November 19, 2019; and -- Response Brief is due on December 19, 2019.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DARLENE GIBBS, STEPHANIE EDWARDS, LULA WILLIAMS, PATRICK INSCHO, LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, GEORGE HENGLE, TAMARA PRICE and SHERRY BLACKBURN, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, are represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq. Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com elizabeth@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com - and - Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7576 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7570 Facsimile: (703) 591-9285 E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com casey@kellyandcrandall.com Defendants-Appellants MICHAEL STINSON, 7HBF NO. 2, LINDA STINSON, THE STINSON 2009 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY TRUST, STARTUP CAPITAL VENTURES, L.P., and STEPHEN SHAPER are represented by: Jonathan Peter Boughrum, Esq. MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS 1735 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 772-7228 E-mail: jboughrum@mmwr.com - and - John Michael Erbach, Esq. Maurice Francis Mullins, Jr., Esq. SPOTTS FAIN, PC 411 East Franklin Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 697-2044 E-mail: jerbach@spottsfain.com cmullins@spottsfain.com - and - David Foster Herman, Esq. Richard L. Scheff, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP 2005 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 780-2015 E-mail: dherman@armstrongteasdale.com rlscheff@armstrongteasdale.com Defendants SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC; SEQUOIA CAPITAL FRANCHISE PARTNERS, L.P.; SEQUOIA CAPITAL IX, L.P.; SEQUOIA GROWTH FUND IIII, L.P.; SEQUOIA ENTREPRENEURS ANNEX FUND, L.P.; SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH III PRINCIPALS FUND, LLC; SEQUOIA CAPITAL FRANCHISE FUND, L.P.; SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH PARTNERS III, L.P.; SEQUOIA CAPITAL FRANCHISE PARTNERS, LLC; SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH FUND III, LP; SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH III PRINCIPALS FUNDS, LLC; SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH III PRINCIPALS FUND, L.P.; and SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH FUND III, L.P., are represented by: Todd Raymond Geremia, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281-1047 Telephone: (212) 326-3429 E-mail: trgeremia@jonesday.com - and - Stephen Douglas Hubbard, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104-0000 Telephone: (415) 875-5809 - and - William George Laxton, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-2113 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 E-mail: wglaxton@jonesday.com MIKE STINSON: Sequoia Appeals Ruling in Gibbs Suit to 4th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Darlene Gibbs, et al. v. Mike Stinson, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00676-MHL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond. The lawsuit's controversy arises out of the Defendants' involvement in an allegedly unlawful lending operation. The lending operation, which the Plaintiffs describe as a "rent-a-tribe" scheme, allegedly offered loans to the Plaintiffs and charged interest rates ranging from 118% to 448%. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class action lawsuit was filed against Mike Stinson, 7HBF NO. 2, Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC, John Drew and Technology Crossover Ventures on October 4, 2018. The Plaintiffs filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Mike Stinson is an American singer-songwriter and musician. He is a native of Virginia. Mike Stinson moved to Los Angeles in 1991. Inspired by the country rock of Gram Parsons, as well as more traditional country artists such as Johnny Cash and George Jones, he began to write songs and eventually formed his own band. Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC operates as a venture capital firm. The Firm invests in energy, financial services, healthcare, internet, mobile, outsourcing, and technology sectors. Sequoia Capital Operations serves clients worldwide. Technology Crossover Ventures is a private equity and venture capital firm specializing in investments in leveraged buyouts, minority growth equity, full or partial recapitalizations for both diversification of capital structure and modifying shareholder equity, acquisition financings to supplement complementary add-on acquisitions, public market transactions, and public deal constructs. The firm seeks to invest in growth stage, early, mid, and late venture stages, mature, and later stages of development in private and public companies. The appellate case is captioned as Darlene Gibbs, et al. v. Sequoia Capital Operations LLC, et al., Case No. 19-2108, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on November 19, 2019; and -- Response Brief is due on December 19, 2019.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DARLENE GIBBS, STEPHANIE EDWARDS, LULA WILLIAMS, PATRICK INSCHO, LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, GEORGE HENGLE, TAMARA PRICE and SHERRY BLACKBURN, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, are represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq. Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com elizabeth@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com - and - Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7576 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7570 Facsimile: (703) 591-9285 E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com casey@kellyandcrandall.com Defendants-Appellants SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC; SEQUOIA CAPITAL FRANCHISE PARTNERS, L.P.; SEQUOIA CAPITAL IX, L.P.; SEQUOIA GROWTH FUND IIII, L.P.; SEQUOIA ENTREPRENEURS ANNEX FUND, L.P.; SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH III PRINCIPALS FUND, LLC; SEQUOIA CAPITAL FRANCHISE FUND, L.P.; SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH PARTNERS III, L.P.; SEQUOIA CAPITAL FRANCHISE PARTNERS, LLC; SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH FUND III, LP; SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH III PRINCIPALS FUNDS, LLC; SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH III PRINCIPALS FUND, L.P.; and SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH FUND III, L.P., are represented by: Todd Raymond Geremia, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281-1047 Telephone: (212) 326-3429 E-mail: trgeremia@jonesday.com - and - Stephen Douglas Hubbard, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104-0000 Telephone: (415) 875-5809 - and - William George Laxton, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-2113 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 E-mail: wglaxton@jonesday.com Defendants MICHAEL STINSON, 7HBF NO. 2, LINDA STINSON, THE STINSON 2009 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY TRUST, STARTUP CAPITAL VENTURES, L.P., and STEPHEN SHAPER are represented by: Jonathan Peter Boughrum, Esq. MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS 1735 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 772-7228 E-mail: jboughrum@mmwr.com - and - John Michael Erbach, Esq. Maurice Francis Mullins, Jr., Esq. SPOTTS FAIN, PC 411 East Franklin Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 697-2044 E-mail: jerbach@spottsfain.com cmullins@spottsfain.com - and - David Foster Herman, Esq. Richard L. Scheff, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP 2005 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 780-2015 E-mail: dherman@armstrongteasdale.com rlscheff@armstrongteasdale.com MIRACLE AUTOSPORT: Hid Car Defects, Rumbarger Says -------------------------------------------------- RICHARD RUMBARGER, INDIVIDUALLY SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY LAW DIVISION: MERCER COUNTY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. MIRACLE AUTOSPORT, ERIC NUEMAN, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. MER-L-001999-19 (N.J. Super, Oct 10, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and the Uniform Commercial Code, and committed common law fraud for which the plaintiff has sustained a measurable loss and ascertainable loss. According to the complaint, all vehicles that the Defendant acquires at auction are inspected either before during or after their acquisition. They also acquire vehicles from wholesalers and by trade. At every part of this process the dealer arranges for inspection and appraisal of vehicles that are purchased or acquired for resale. The Defendant performs an appraisal to determine whether the vehicle is worthy of trade and or resale. The Defendant is aware that the vehicle they were acquiring will be sold to a customer who tends to drive the vehicle personally and/or place their family in the vehicle for travel purposes as the Defendant is in the business of buying and selling automobiles. Knowledge of any defects not apparent on inspection would, however, without need for express agreement and in keeping with the underlying reason impose an obligation that for material but hidden defects be fully disclosed. The dealer has a legal obligation under New Jersey law to inspect all vehicles that are sold to customers and specifically the vehicle that was sold to the plaintiff. The Defendant allegedly omitted material facts with the intention that the plaintiff be misled. The Defendants affirmatively misrepresented certain facts to induce the Plaintiff to sign a contract and purchased the vehicle from the Defendant. The Defendant was aware that the vehicle had significant defects needing over $15,000 in repairs. The Defendant falsely advertised the car, the lawsuit says. Miracle AutoSport is licensed to buy and sell cars in the state of New Jersey and Eric Nueman is the owner and personally operates the dealership.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Jonathan Rudnick, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RUDNICK, L.L.C. 788 Shrewsbury Avenue Building 2, Suite 204 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Telephone: 732 842-2070 Facsimile: 732 879-0213 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Sitzer Antitrust Suit Dismissal Bids Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSHUA SITZER AND AMY WINGER, SCOTT AND RHONDA BURNETT, and RYAN HENDRICKSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., BHH AFFILIATES, LLC, HSF AFFILIATES, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC. Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00332-SRB (W.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, (i) denied National Association of Realtors ("NAR")'s Motion to Dismiss the Association for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to State a Cause of Action; (ii) denied the Corporate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. A vast majority of residential real estate sales and purchases in the United States occur on a Multiple Listing Service ("MLS") marketplace. An MLS is a database of properties listed for sale within a defined geographic region accessible to real estate brokers, their realtors, and agents. In a standard real estate transaction, the home seller retains a seller-broker and a home buyer separately retains a buyer-broker. Both brokers utilize a regional MLS listing to sell or locate a given property for their client. Generally, real estate brokers receive compensation in the form of a commission calculated as a percentage of a home's sale price. A seller-broker's compensation is set forth in a listing agreement, a contract between the home seller and broker containing the terms of the listing. A home buyer enters a similar contract with a buyer-broker, which typically states the buyer-broker's compensation will be paid out of the seller-broker's total commission -- a commission paid by the home seller once the property is sold. Plaintiffs Sitzer and Winger, Scott and Rhonda Burnett, and Ryan Hendrickson filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on June 21, 2019. The Plaintiffs are home sellers who listed their homes on one of four MLS marketplaces: Kansas City MLS ("Heartland MLS"), St. Louis MLS ("MARIS MLS"), Springfield, Missouri MLS ("Southern Missouri Regional MLS"), and Columbia, Missouri MLS ("CBOR MLS") ("Subject MLS"). The Subject MLS are governed by local realtor associations that are members of NAR and must adhere to NAR rules and policies. Defendant NAR is a trade association for the real-estate industry that promulgates professional standards and policies its members and affiliates must abide by, including specific guidelines for listing properties on MLS marketplaces. The Corporate Defendants are national real estate broker franchisors who each operate brokerage subsidiaries, franchisees, and/or affiliates within the geographic regions covered by the Subject MLS: Realogy Holdings Corp.; Homeservices of America, Inc.; BHH Affiliates, LLC; HSF Affiliates, LLC; RE/MAX, LLC; and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants adopted and imposed anticompetitive restraints that inflated residential real estate commissions throughout Missouri, focusing primarily on Section 2-G-1 of NAR's MLS Listing Handbook -- what the Plaintiffs refer to as the "Adversary Commission Rule." The Plaintiffs allege the cornerstone of the Defendants' conspiracy is NAR's adoption and implementation of a rule that requires all seller's brokers to make blanket, unilateral and effectively non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation ("Adversary Commission Rule") when listing a property on a MLS. The Plaintiff's FAC includes three counts against the Defendants: (1) Count I: Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (2) Count II: Violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; and (3) Count III: Violation of the Missouri Antitrust Law. NAR asks the Court to dismiss it from the action for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) or, alternatively, to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Corporate Defendants seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' FAC only pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Only NAR argues that dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. In an Order previously denying NAR's Motion to Transfer, the Court found personal jurisdiction existed under Section 12 of the Clayton Act. The result in the intant motion is the same. For the reasons discussed in the Court's prior Order, Judge Bough holds that Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over NAR and its motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction is accordingly denied. Turning to Count I, Judge Bough holds that the Plaintiffs satisfy their burden under Rule 12(b)(6) for each element of their federal antitrust claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. He finds that (i) the Plaintiffs adequately define the relevant market impacted by Section 2-G-1; (ii) the Plaintiffs demonstrate the significant influence exerted by the Defendants and their listing policies in the Subject MLS; and (iii) the Plaintiffs must present enough factual allegations to plausibly show the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive actions are a "material cause" of their alleged injuries. NAR and Corporate Defendants' motions to dismiss Count I for failure to state a claim are accordingly denied. As to Count II, Judge Bough finds that the Plaintiffs present sufficient factual allegations to plausibly support their MMPA claims against the Defendants. He finds that (i) in light of precedent describing MMPA's language regarding unlawful merchandising as unrestricted, allen-compassing and exceedingly broad and a scope which covers every practice imaginable and every unfairness to whatever degree, the Plaintiffs have pled enough as to this element to survive dismissal; and (ii) the Plaintiffs' allegations adequately and plausibly attribute the inflated commissions they paid to Section 2-G-1 and its related provision and, thus, allege an ascertainable loss. NAR and the Corporate Defendants' motions to dismiss Count II for failure to state a claim are accordingly denied. Finally, as to Count III, based on the Court's earlier analysis regarding the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' allegations with respect to their federal antitrust claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Judge Bough holds that the Plaintiffs' Count III may proceed against NAR and the Corporate Defendants. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bough denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/QSnbIh from Leagle.com. Joshua Sitzer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Amy Winger, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Ryan Hendrickson, Plaintiffs, represented byAmy R. Jackson -- amy@williamsdirks.com -- Williams Dirks Dameron LLC, Eric L. Dirks -- dirks@williamsdirks.com -- Williams Dirks Dameron LLC, Erin D. Lawrence -- erin@boulware-law.com -- Boulware Law LLC, Jeremy M. Suhr, Boulware Law LLC, 1600 Genessee Suite 416 Kansas City, MO 64102, Matthew Lee Dameron -- matt@williamsdirks.com -- Williams Dirks Dameron LLC & Brandon J.B. Boulware -- brandon@boulware-law.com -- Boulware Law LLC. Scott Burnett & Rhonda Burnett, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy R. Jackson, Williams Dirks Dameron LLC, Eric L. Dirks, Williams Dirks Dameron LLC, Erin D. Lawrence, Boulware Law LLC,Jeremy M. Suhr, Boulware Law LLC & Brandon J.B. Boulware, Boulware Law LLC. National Association of Realtors, Defendant, represented by Charles W. Hatfield -- chuck.hatfield@stinson.com -- Stinson LLP, Gregory Dickinson- gdickinson@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, pro hac vice, Jack R. Bierig -- jbierig@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, pro hac vice & Alex Barrett -- alexander.barrett@stinson.com -- Stinson LLP. HomeServices of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian C. Fries -- bfries@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop Gage LLP, Jay N. Varon -- jvaron@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, pro hac vice -- jkeas@foley.com, Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew B. Barr, Barnes & Thornburg, 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535, pro hac vice, Matthew T. Ciulla, Barnes & Thornburg, 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535, pro hac vice & Robert D. MacGill, Barnes & Thornburg, 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535, pro hac vice. NC MUTUAL: Carlton Fields Attorneys Discuss Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Andres Chagui, Esq. -- achagui@carltonfields.com -- and Brooke Patterson, Esq. -- bpatterson@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra, report that in McClendon v. North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Co. (M.D. Tenn. 2019), the plaintiff's mother purchased a whole life insurance policy to insure the plaintiff's brother, and subsequently took out a loan on the policy. When the brother died, the plaintiff assigned the policy proceeds to a funeral home. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the policy benefit calculation and filed a class action complaint, claiming that similar problems affected thousands of policyholders. The plaintiff alleged that the insurer breached the contract in three ways: (1) by charging premiums for riders past their term; (2) by applying an incorrect amount of interest to policy loans; and (3) by failing to properly credit payments to the loan balance. The insurer did not dispute that it applied an incorrect interest rate to the loan amount. Indeed, the insurer admitted that it attempted to correct the mistake by sending the plaintiff a check, which he did not cash. Because the insurer did not contest that it breached the contract with respect to the calculation of interest on the loan, the court granted summary judgment in the plaintiff's favor as to interest calculations made within the six-year statute of limitations. The court otherwise denied summary judgment to the plaintiff on his breach of contract claims. With respect to the plaintiff's claim that the insurer continued to charge the plaintiff for waiver of premium and accidental death riders after their terms ended, the court held that the continuing payment and acceptance of premiums extended the benefits under the riders beyond their original terms. If the plaintiff had suffered a qualifying event, the court reasoned, his beneficiary would have been entitled to payment pursuant to the rider. That kind of "mutual extension" did not constitute a breach of contract under Alabama law. In addition, because the parties disputed whether the insurer properly credited loan payments to the policy loan's balance, the plaintiff failed to establish that there was no dispute of material fact to warrant entry of summary judgment. The insurer also moved to dismiss the plaintiff's Alabama and North Carolina deceptive trade practices claims. The court dismissed the North Carolina claim because Alabama had the most significant relationship to the policy. The court also dismissed the Alabama claim because life insurance loans were subject to the Alabama Insurance Code and exempt from Alabama's deceptive trade practices statute. Finally, the court dismissed the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim because the existence of a valid contract forecloses such a claim, and neither party contested the existence or validity of the insurance policy or loan agreement. Goostree v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co. (N.D. Ala. 2019) In Goostree, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that the insurer operated a scheme to sell low face-value life insurance policies to low-income consumers. According to the plaintiffs, the insurer targeted undereducated consumers and charged premiums that far exceeded the policies' face value, thereby generating profits for the insurer and its agents but providing no economic benefit to the plaintiffs. In particular, the plaintiffs claimed that their agent induced them to purchase multiple insurance policies -- for which the collective premium exceeded $14,000 a year -- even though one plaintiff earned less than $16,000 a year and the other was retired and receiving Social Security benefits. When the plaintiffs sought to cash out a policy because they could no longer afford the premiums, the agent allegedly explained that a cash out was not permitted and suggested they instead convert their policies to a "reduced paid-up policy," which would no longer obligate the plaintiffs to pay premiums but would reduce their death benefit from $134,000 to $45,000. The plaintiffs alleged that, by this time, they had paid $188,000 in premiums. The plaintiffs asserted various individual and class action claims against the insurer, including breach of contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; conversion; rescission; unjust enrichment; declaratory and injunctive relief; negligence, willfulness and/or wantonness in the recommendation and sale of life insurance policies; and negligent and/or wanton training and supervision. The plaintiffs also asserted claims for breach of contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; declaratory and injunctive relief; and negligence, willfulness, and/or wantonness in the recommendation and sale of life insurance policies against the agent. The insurer removed the case to federal court, arguing that the plaintiffs had fraudulently joined their agent. The court concluded that the complaint did not allege a special relationship between the plaintiffs and their agent; thus, the plaintiffs failed to plead that the agent owed them any duty. And no contract existed between the plaintiffs and the agent. Because the plaintiffs failed to state any claim against the agent, the court held that the plaintiffs had fraudulently joined their agent. The court dismissed the agent from the action, which allowed the court to hold that it had diversity jurisdiction. The court also concluded that it had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because the alleged amount in controversy exceeded CAFA's $5 million minimum and because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that CAFA's local controversy exception applied. [GN] NEVADA: Summary Judgment in McKinley Civil Rights Suit Party Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GARY E. MCKINLEY, Appellant, v. MEGAN MCCLELLAN; ROBERT LEGRAND, WARDEN; S.L. FOSTER; STARLIN GENTRY; J. HILDERBRAND; QUENTIN BYRNE; AND S. BAROS, Respondents, Case No. 75340-COA (Nev. App.), Judge Michael P. Gibbons of the Court of Appeals of Nevada affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court order granting the Respondents' motion for summary judgment in the civil rights action. McKinley, an inmate, filed a civil rights complaint against respondents Megan McClellan, Robert Legrand, Sheryl Foster, Starlin Gentry, Jeffory Hilderbrand, Quentin Byrne, and Susan Baros, who are employees of the Nevada Department of Corrections. His complaint alleged violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution relating to allegations that his privileged mail was improperly opened, allegations he was retaliated against for grieving the allegedly improper opening of his mail, an allegedly retaliatory disciplinary hearing, and the refusal to allow him to watch dvds of his criminal proceedings. He also asserted claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED") and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"). With respect to the dvd issue, the complaint was also jointly filed with another inmate, who later voluntarily dismissed his claim, and was purportedly filed as a class action on behalf of other prisoners. McKinley filed motions for appointment of counsel and to certify the case as a class action, which were ultimately denied. The Respondents then filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, which McKinley opposed. He also filed a countermotion for summary judgment, requested that the motion be continued in order to conduct discovery, and moved to strike some of the evidence attached to the Respondents' motion. After a hearing on the matter, the district court granted the Respondents' motion for summary judgment. The appeal followed. As an initial matter, Judge Gibbons concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification as the record indicates McKinley failed to meet his burden of proving that the case was appropriate for class certification. Moreover, because McKinley is not an attorney and is proceeding pro se, he could not represent other purported class members. And to the extent McKinley argues that the district court should have appointed counsel, the Judge discerns no impropriety in the denial of his request to appoint counsel. As a result, he affirms the orders denying class certification and denying appointment of counsel. Turning to the district court's order granting summary judgment, the Judge examines the claims related to the viewing of dvds. McKinley argues that the evidence before the district court did not establish that his claims pertaining to the dvds of his criminal proceedings were barred by res judicata. The Jugde agrees. As a threshold matter, while the Respondents argued that res judicata applied to bar the dvd claims based upon McKinley's previously obtained writ of mandamus, based upon the record before the Court, it does not appear that the writ was ever presented to the district court and therefore, it is not clear how the district court could have reached its conclusion that the decision barred McKinley's claims in the instant matter if the order granting the writ was not presented to the district court. As a result, he necessarily reverse and remands that portion of the district court's order that found res judicata applied to bar these claims. Next, McKinley argues that there are genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment as to his retaliation claims. The Respondents maintain that McKinley could not establish that the adverse action was taken because of the protected conduct and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. However, there are genuine issues of material fact remaining as to both of these elements, which preclude summary judgment. First, there is a factual dispute as to whether or not McKinley became aggressive and/or threatening while addressing the law librarian's allegedly improper opening of his mail, and in response to correctional officer Main telling him to leave. Construing the facts in McKinley's favor, there is sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether the adverse action was taken because of McKinley's exercise of protected conduct. Similarly, there are issues of fact remaining related to whether McKinley received a notice of charges because of his behavior or because he exercised protected conduct, i.e., filing a grievance. Again, the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to McKinley and when that is done, there is enough evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact as to the motivation for the notice of charges. Likewise, these same factual issues are relevant to the issue of whether the adverse action reasonably advanced a legitimate correctional goal. The Judge holds that because there are disputed material facts regarding the retaliation claims, summary judgment was improper and he therefore reverses that portion of the district court's order. Turning to McKinley's due process claims, he argues that he was denied due process during the disciplinary hearing because he wanted to call certain witnesses but was not allowed to do so. While McKinley was not allowed to call all of his witnesses, he was allowed to call one witness, which did not run afoul of his qualified right to call witnesses. Additionally, he was given advance written notice of the charges and a statement by the fact-finder of the evidence relied upon. And the record shows there was some evidence to support the outcome of the hearing. As such, summary judgment was proper on his due process claims relating to the disciplinary hearing and that part of the district court's order is affirmed. Next, the district court appears to have granted summary judgment to respondents on McKinley's First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims that were raised under part three of his complaint relating to the allegedly improper opening of his legal mail. But in addressing these claims, the Judge finds that the district court mixed the standards for granting summary judgment and dismissal for failure to state a claim by stating that, after reviewing the motions and testimony, the court finds McKinley failed to state a claim. Because the challenged order was necessarily granting summary judgment on McKinley's legal mail based claims, reversal is required because the order fails to set out the undisputed material facts and legal conclusions upon which the district court was basing its determination. As a result, the Judge reverses the grant of summary judgment as to McKinley's legal mail based claims and remands the issue for further proceedings. Turning to McKinley's NIED and IIED claims, while he baldly asserts that there were genuine issues of material fact remaining with regard to these claims, the Judge holds that McKinley fails to provide any cogent argument regarding the same in his briefs. As a result, the Judge need not consider these issues. Based on the foregoing, Judge Gibbons affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court, and remanded the matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/XRz5qQ from Leagle.com. NEW SHANGHAI: Weng Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff ---------------------------------------------------------- Jie Weng, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. New Shanghai Deluxe Corp., Yu Lin Zhu Mei Fang Wu, and Rong Yang Zhu, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09596 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid and overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant operates a restaurant. The Plaintiff was employed primarily as an assistant for the chef at the restaurant, whose primary tasks consisted of preparing food and vegetables for the chef to use to cook the dishes served at the restaurant. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately August 28, 2010, to October 2, 2019. The Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff's rights by failing to pay his overtime compensation at rates at least one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the the Plaintiff are: Vincent S. Wong. Esq. LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG 39 East Broadway, Suite 306 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: (212) 349-6099 Facsimile: (212) 349-6599 OMEL FLOWERS: Coronel to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Aylen Coronel, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Omel Flowers & Design Corp. and Maria Andrade, individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-24128, (S.D. Fla., October 7, 2019), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for willful violations of minimum and overtime wage statutes under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Omel operated a flower shop where Coronel was employed as a florist from May 10, 2019 to September 5, 2019. She claims to be denied minimum and overtime wages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 2847 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33020 Tel: (305) 308 - 5619 Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LAW LLC 1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Telephone (305) 773 - 6661 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com ORGANOVO HOLDINGS: Rianhard Says Proxy Statement Misleading ----------------------------------------------------------- HENRY RIANHARD, individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Organovo Holdings, Inc., the Plaintiff, vs. TAYLOR CROUCH, KIRK MALLOY, MARK KESSEL, RICHARD MAROUN, DAVID SHAPIRO, CAROLYN BEAVER, and ORGANOVO HOLDINGS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01922-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 10, 2019), seeks to remedy false and misleading disclosures made by Organovo and its Board of Directors in the Company's proxy statement related to its 2019 annual meeting of stockholders. On July 26, 2019, the Company filed a Schedule 14A Proxy Statement with the SEC for the Annual Meeting. In the Proxy, the Board sought stockholder authorization for the Board to adopt an amendment to the Company's Certificate of Incorporation to effect a reverse stock split of the Company's common stock, at a ratio in the range of 1-for-5 to 1-for-20, with the exact ratio being determined by the Board at a later date. In the Proxy, the Company and Board affirmatively represented that brokers, banks or other nominees could not vote shares that they held on behalf of stockholders in connection with the Reverse Split Proposal unless that party gave specific instructions to a Broker concerning how to vote. The Company and Board further stated that any shares held by Brokers on behalf of stockholders and for which such stockholders did not give voting instructions would be counted as a "broker non-vote" and treated as "Against" votes with respect to the Reverse Split Proposal. Notwithstanding these disclosures, however, the Company and Board allowed Brokers to vote shares with respect to the Reverse Split Proposal that they held on behalf of stockholders and for which the Brokers were not given voting instructions. In fact, the Company and Board counted such votes as "Yes" votes with respect to the Reverse Split Proposal. As such, the Proxy was materially false and misleading. The misrepresentations in the Proxy prevented Organovo stockholders from making an informed decision about whether to approve the Reverse Split Proposal. On the basis of these false and misleading disclosures, Organovo stockholders "voted" to approve the proposal with 84.4 million affirmative votes (with the majority being broker non-votes) and 12 million "Against" votes. Had the vote concerning the Reverse Split Proposal been tabulated as represented in the Proxy, the Reverse Split Proposal would not have been approved. If the broker non-votes were properly counted as "Against" votes, then the Reverse Split Proposal would have only received approximately 28.7 million affirmative votes versus approximately 67.9 million "Against" votes. Organovo is an early-stage medical laboratory and research company which designs and develops functional, three dimensional human tissue for medical research and therapeutic applications. Organovo was established in 2007 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: William J. Fields, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 - and - Michael J. Farnan, Esq. Brian E. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com OVERSTOCK.COM: Tsai Says Securities Statements Misleading --------------------------------------------------------- TSUNGYING TSAI, Individually and On behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OVERSTOCK.COM, INC., GREGORY J. IVERSON, and PATRICK M. BYRNE, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00772-CMR (D. Utah, Oct. 17, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Overstock.com, Inc. between May 9, 2019, and September 23, 2019, inclusive. The Defendants published a series of materially false and misleading statements which defendants knew and/or deliberately disregarded were false and materially misleading at the time of such publication, and which omitted to reveal material information necessary to make defendants' statements, in light of such material omissions, not materially false and misleading. Realizing the market dynamics made it nearly impossible for Overstock to return to profitability, Overstock embarked on a blockchain strategy several years ago that was designed to profit on new markets for crypto currency. In fact, it was recently reported that, for the last several years, defendant Patrick M. Byrne spent no fewer than 220 days a year on the road, "spreading his blockchain gospel, despite the fact that Overstock was hemorrhaging cash." By the inception of the Class Period, however, the Company's fortunes suddenly seemed to change. First, Overstock had suddenly returned to profitability on an EBITDA basis and not only was the Company EBITDA positive for the first time in recent times, but profitability was suddenly increasing at such a torrid pace that Overstock had raised year-end guidance by 50% at the inception of the Class Period. Moreover, not only had the Company purported to return to producing positive cash flow, but it had done so at the most critical time -- at the launch of Overstock's crypto currency project tZERO, which theretofore had reportedly cost shareholders over $100 million to get to launch. By the time shareholders realized the scope of the misrepresentations that had been made to them during the short five months of the Class Period, shares of Overstock collapsed, falling from just below $15.00 per share on September 20, 2019, the trading day prior to September 23, 2019, to as low as $11.05 per share, before closing at $11.19 per share -- a one day decline of over 25%. The Defendants were motivated to and did conceal the true operational and financial condition of Overstock, and materially misrepresented and failed to disclose the conditions that were adversely affecting the Company throughout the Class Period, the lawsuit says. Overstock is as an online retailer in the United States and internationally, operating through Retail and tZERO segments. Through its on-line Retail division, the Company offers furniture, home decor and other related products. Recently, the Company has also shifted its focus to include the development and commercialization of financial applications of blockchain technologies, through tZERO.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs are: David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS | SCOFIELD 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 Ext. 102 Toll Free: (888) 296-3998 Facsimile: (801) 912-0320 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com PACE SUBURBAN: Nelson Moves to Certify Class of Drivers ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled MAURICE NELSON AND CHRISTI MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACE SUBURBAN BUS AND MARGARET MURRY, in her individual capacity and in her official capacity of Division Manager of Pace Suburban Bus - Heritage Division, Case No. 1:17-cv-07697 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to: (a) certify a class of all current or former non-supervisory African American employees of Pace who worked at the Heritage Garage at any point since January 1, 2011, and who drive/drove or move/moved Pace buses as part of their job duties ("drivers"); (b) appoint Plaintiffs Maurice Nelson and Christi Marshall as class representatives; and (c) appoint their counsel as class counsel. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of African American employees, who work or worked at Defendant Pace's Heritage Garage and were subject to the same disciplinary process implemented by the same key decisionmaker, Defendant Margaret, Pace's Division Manager of its Heritage Division. The Plaintiffs seek redress on behalf of themselves and a putative class for systemic race discrimination.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Bryan Wood, Esq. Ryan O. Estes, Esq. THE WOOD LAW OFFICE, LLC 303 W. Madison St., Suite 2650 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 554-8600 E-mail: bryan@jbryanwoodlaw.com restes@jbryanwoodlaw.com - and - Quinton Osborne, Esq. OSBORNE EMPLOYMENT LAW 799 Roosevelt Road, Suite 3-201 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Telephone: (331) 702-1538 Facsimile: (331) 465-0450 E-mail: quinton@osborneemploymentlaw.com PIONEER CREDIT: Toney-Adkins Sues over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHARMAINE TONEY-ADKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06868 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 17, 2019), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In April 2019, Plaintiff received a Notice of Potential Administrative Wage Garnishment Process from Defendant (Notice). In the Notice, Defendant represented that the amount owed included $3,278.62 in collection charges. The Collection Charges represent a contingency fee agreement between Defendant and the Department of Education. The Plaintiff did not owe the Collection Charges because Defendant had not yet collected anything from Plaintiff and, therefore, under the contingency agreement, was not entitled to any Collection Charge. By including the Collection Charges in the Notice, Defendant falsely represented the amount that Plaintiff actually owed, the lawsuit says. Pioneer Credit is a debt collector.[BN] PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Suit Stalled Pending Deloitte Case Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Wootton, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that a major class action against big four firm PwC has been stalled, pending a judgment in a case involving Deloitte that has the potential to end the growing trend of class actions against auditors of failed companies. PwC, Deloitte and EY, all of which are up against shareholder or investor class actions over the quality of their audits, have told courts their partners should not have to hand over documents associated with those audits as they are protected by the privilege against self-incrimination. The privilege allows individuals to refuse court orders to submit evidence that puts them at a real risk of criminal prosecution or penalty. The privilege does not normally extend to documents of a corporate nature as it is an individual protection, McCullough Robertson partner Scarlet Reid said, making this an "unusual" stance. Deloitte already successfully argued the privilege extends to audit partners in a case regarding failed construction company Hastie, but now wants the privilege extended to the entire partnership. Such a finding would mean no partner could be compelled to hand over evidence about their audits. This could significantly limit the evidence available to groups suing auditors and comes as shareholders realise that, according to Sydney Law School professor of corporate law Jason Harris, "the big accounting firms are a good option to sue". Multiple cases hang in the balance of a judgment from the Full Federal Court on Deloitte's case, which is expected this year, with Justice John Middleton on Friday putting off a case against PwC over its audits of collapsed education provider Vocation until a decision is handed down. The judge had cleared 2 1/2 months in his busy calendar to hear the case early next year. He said "it goes against the grain" for him to vacate the trial dates, but "there is an inevitability" in this case. "We've still got an evidence fight relating to self-incrimination, and I'm waiting on a full court to assist me," he said, describing making a call before the Deloitte judgment as "the tail wagging the dog". "One approach is to go boldly in and see what happens, but if I get it wrong there will be an appeal." The judge noted that "this decision of mine doesn't impact just one or two documents, it impacts a whole lot . . . If I say they [the shareholders] can't get them, I don't know how far advanced the matter can be." The documents PwC is trying to limit access to are related to its 2014 audit of Vocation. Vocation closed in 2015 after the government stripped it of almost $20 million in funding and almost 94 per cent of its stock value was wiped off. All four firms declined to comment. Are auditors fair game? With insurance often limiting the amount shareholders or investors can claim from directors of failed companies, and the often-liquidated businesses themselves offering scant sources of compensation, class actions are increasingly targeting auditors over incorrect valuations or assessments in audited financial statements. "There's a lot of money behind the big accounting firms and presumably a lot of insurance," Professor Harris said, explaining the appeal of targeting them for damages. He warned that classes pursuing this option face a tough legal battle, however. To make a claim in negligence, they "need to prove that each investor who invested in the company relied on the misrepresentations"--a high bar. As a result, some are now looking at legal actions where no such duty of care is needed, such as misleading and deceptive conduct. The class actions usually settle. Professor Harris thinks this could be because, having seen "the embarrassment" PwC experienced in the Centro litigation in 2012, "the firms don't want the scrutiny" of court. [GN] QIAGEN NV: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Qiagen N.V. (NYSE: QGEN) resulting from allegations that Qiagen may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. On October 7, 2019, Qiagen announced that its third quarter results would come in far below previous estimates and its long-time CEO, Peer M. Schatz, who served Qiagen for 27-years, would resign as CEO and Chairman of the Board effective immediately. Qiagen also announced a restructuring to shift more operations to Poland and the Philippines. Finally, to free up more resources, the Company announced a long-term deal with Illumina, Inc., ending development of its own next-gen genome sequencing machines. On this news, Qiagen's stock price fell over 20% and closed at $25.41 on October 8, 2019. Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by Qiagen investors. If you purchased shares of Qiagen please visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1694.htmlto join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] QUALITY MENTAL: Winters, et al. Seek OT Pay for Caretakers ---------------------------------------------------------- CELESTE WINTERS, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. QUALITY MENTAL HEALTH, INC., f/k/a LIFE HELP, INC., BEACON HARBOR, INC., BEACON HARBOR II, INC., & REGION VI COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION d//a LIFE HELP, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:19cv155-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs have been employed by Defendants as caretakers with non-exempt status for several years, at a facility owned and/or operated by Defendants in Greenwood, Leflore County, Mississippi. Defendants have required Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees to reside and remain on Defendants' premises for extended periods of time in excess of 120 hours per week, during which time the employees are not completely relieved from duty. However, Defendants have not compensated Plaintiff or those similarly situated for time required to be spent on Defendants' premises, of up to eight hours per night. In addition, the Plaintiffs regularly worked overtime as employees, both before, during and after their scheduled shifts. Defendants have not paid Plaintiffs straight time or overtime at 1.5 times their regular hourly rates of pay when the employees worked overtime for Defendants, as required by federal law, the lawsuit says. Defendants operate assisted living, addiction treatment and other community living and managed care facilities in Mississippi and throughout the South.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq. JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C. 221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 789-9700 E-mail: jeff@jgbrownlaw.com - and - Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq. GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 546-5056 E-mail: gdunn@gjdlaw.com RAYTHEON COMPANY: Ford Securities Suit Challenges Merger With UTC ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Ford, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RAYTHEON COMPANY and THOMAS A. KENNEDY, Case No. 0:19-cv-02818 (D. Minn., Oct. 31, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other former Raytheon stockholders against the Defendants for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the merger and related transactions between Raytheon, Light Merger Sub Corp., and United Technologies Corporation. On June 9, 2019, Raytheon announces it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Merger Sub would merge with and into Raytheon. At the meeting of the stockholders held on October 11, 2019, a majority of Raytheon Stockholders voted to approve the Merger after being solicited via a materially misleading and incomplete definitive proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on September 10, 2019. Pursuant to the Merger, the Company's shareholders received 2.3348 fully paid and nonassessable share of UTC common stock in exchange for each share of Raytheon common stock they owned. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy contained materially misleading information concerning the financial projections for Raytheon, UTC, and the Combined Company. The Proxy entirely omitted the financial projections for the pro forma combined company giving effect to the Merger. Despite omitting the Pro Forma Projections, the Defendants elected to tout the benefits Raytheon shareholders would receive as a result of the Transaction and their continued ownership stake in the Combined Company. The Proxy was an essential link in accomplishing the Merger, which undervalued the Raytheon and caused the Plaintiff and the Class to suffer financial loss in that they did not retain a fair equity stake in the post-Merger Combined Company, says the complaint. Hence, the Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Plaintiff is a holder of Raytheon common stock. Raytheon is a technology company, which specializes in defense and other government markets through the development of integrated products, services and solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-971-1341 Fax: 212-202-7880 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com - and - Garret B. Blacnhfield, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORK & BLANCHFIELD 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W-1050 St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: 651-287-2100 Facsimile: 651-287-2103 Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Latifi Class Suit Against TDL Group Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action suit initiated by Samir Latifi against The TDL Group Corp., (TDL), a subsidiary of the company, is still ongoing. In July 2019, a class action complaint was filed against The TDL Group Corp., (TDL) in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by Samir Latifi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The complaint alleges that TDL violated the Canadian Competition Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Tim Hortons franchisees are required to sign. The plaintiff seeks damages and restitution, on behalf of himself and other members of the class. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant Brands International Inc. RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Suits over Non-Compete Policy Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend four class action suits alleging violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees. On October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("BKW") and Burger King Corporation ("BKC") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed against the Company, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Monique Michel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed against the Company, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Sandra Muster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. These complaints allege that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees are required to sign. Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for himself or herself and other members of the class. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant Brands International Inc. ROMI BAKERY: Robles Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Gregorio Ceron Robles, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ROMI BAKERY INC. (D/B/A GIAN PIERO BAKERY), and MICHAEL DELLA POLLA, Case No. 1:19-cv-06153 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that he worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a baker at the Defendants' bakery. The Defendants own, operate, or control a bakery, located in Island City, New York, under the name "Gian Piero Bakery."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 SERVICES MANGIA: Denied De los Santos Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ricardo De los Santos, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Services Mangia, Inc., Mangia 57, Inc., Joanna Sasha & Friends Food SVC Inc., Sasha Muniak, Pawell Koszalka, Margaret Doe and Silvia Doe, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-09262 (S.D. N.Y., October 7, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurants in New York under the "Mangia" brand where De los Santos was employed as a delivery worker. He claims to have spent more than 20% of his time performing non-tipped duties such as opening and closing the restaurant, rolling silverware, performing side work, and other non-tipped duties, which usually is 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 SHANGHAI ORIGINAL: Court Retains Decertification in Jin Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Allyne Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejects reconsideration of a class decertification order in the case captioned Jianmin Jin, Plaintiff v. Shanghai Original, Inc. d/b/a Joe's Shanghai et al Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-5633 (ARR) (JO), (E.D.N.Y.). In October 2016, Jinanmin Jin and Chunyou Xie filed suit against Joe's Shanghai on behalf of themselves and others similar situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Previously, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a NYLL class of all non-managerial employees at Joe's Shanghai restaurant in Flushing, Queens (Flushing restaurant). However, Judge Ross decertified that class in a July 10, 2019 decision. The decertification decision was precipitated by various actions by counsel which led the Court to conclude that that counsel was not able to provide adequate class representation. The issue was referred to Judge Orenstein, who reopened discovery to allow plaintiffs to conduct dozens of depositions. The judge found that the plaintiffs' counsel decided not to complete the remaining depositions or prosecute motions for sanctions, without notice to the court. Subsequent red flags about counsel's competency continued to appear, including failure to adequately respond to the court's orders regarding witness lists, and apparent attempts to delay trial. Plaintiff moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for reconsideration of Judge Ross's July 10, 2019 decertification decision. In support of this motion, plaintiff submits affidavits by Joe's Shanghai employees Aragon Cardoso Cruz and Maximino Raymundo. Upon consideration, Judge Ross opines, "The Cruz and Raymundo affidavits have no bearing on my determination that the class decertification was, and remains, necessary because of inadequate representation. My decision to decertify the class was based on my conclusion that requirements for a class action were no longer met because class counsel was failing to "fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4). The new affidavits do not change the fact that counsel failed to conduct a single deposition of an employee during the allotted discovery time and repeatedly failed to respond to court orders. After decertification, counsel continued to ignore court orders, and delayed in submitting a proposed decertification notice, an essential step for protecting the legal rights of individual class members. My decision was based not based on prejudice against small law offices, but rather, counsel's actual conduct in this case." Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for relief from the decertification order is denied, Judge Ross rules. A full-text copy of Judge Ross' October 2, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyhufdbe from Leagle.com Jianmin Jin, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated & Chunyou Xie, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron Schweitzer , Troy Law, PLLC, Kibum Byun , Troy Law, PLLC & John Troy , Troy & Associates, PLLC, 4125 Kissena Blvd Ste 119, Flushing, NY 11355-3150. Shanghai Original, Inc., doing business as Joe's Shanghai, East Brother Corp, doing business as Joe's Shanghai, Shanghai City Corp, doing business as Joe's Shanghai, Shanghai Duplicate Corp, doing business as Joe's Shanghai, Kiu Sang Si, also known as Joseph Si, Yiu Fai Fong & Tun Yee Lam, Defendants, represented by David B. Horowitz – dh@fwatty.com - Fong & Wong, P.C., Fiona M. Dutta , Fong & Wong, P.C. & Robert W. Wong – rww@fwatty.com -, Fong & Wong, P.C.. SHREVEPORT, LA: Overcharged Residential Water Customers, Says Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- KSLA reports that Caddo Parish District Judge Michael Pitman made an important ruling on behalf of the citizens of Shreveport. Judge Pitman ruled that the residential water and sewer customers in Shreveport have been overcharged for years. On Monday, Oct. 14, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and denied the City's Motion for Summary Judgment. Judge Pitman had previously certified this lawsuit as a class action suit to include all 60,000 residential water & sewer customers. This ruling brings the citizens of Shreveport one step closer to getting refunds for overcharges on their water and sewer bills. Class legal representatives, Jerry Harper and Anne Wilkes of the Harper Law Firm will be contacting counsel for the City and the Perkins Administration in an effort to resolve any outstanding issues and to encourage the City Council members, on behalf of their constituents, to assist in the process. "With the ruling and the assistance of the Perkins Administrations, we hope to swiftly move forward toward resolving a longstanding city-wide problem that affects every family in Shreveport," Harper said. Wilkes said, "we have been working towards this day for over two years. This was an important victory for the people of Shreveport." Harper and Wilkes told the Court after the ruling that they will be filing an injunction against the City to prevent it from sending out water bills that violate the Ordinance and the Court's order. [GN] SIOUX HONEY: Tran's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Josephine L. Staton has taken under submission the Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit styled Susan Tran v. Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative, Case No. 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS (C.D. Cal.). According to the Court's Civil Minutes, hearing was held and oral arguments were heard on the Motion for Class Certification. The Court subsequently took the matter under submission.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim Richman, Esq. THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP 81 Prospect St. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (718) 705-4579 Facsimile: (212) 687-8292 E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com - and - Noah Geldberg, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC 644 S Figueroa St. Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411 Telephone: (213) 625-3900 Facsimile: (213) 232-3255 E-mail: noah@geragos.com The Defendant is represented by: Edward Lenci, Esq. HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON LLC 800 Third Ave., 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 417-6200 Facsimile: (212) 935-1166 E-mail: elenci@hinshawlaw.com SLEEP NUMBER: Tentative Settlement Reached in Fresno Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Sleep Number Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that a tentative settlement has been reached in the class action suit initiated by two former Home Delivery team members in the Superior Court in Fresno County, California. On September 18, 2018, two former Home Delivery team members filed suit, now venued in Superior Court in Fresno County, California, alleging representative claims on a purported class action basis under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff class to that group. The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed or refused to adopt adequate practices, policies and procedures relating to wage payments, record keeping, employment disclosures, meal and rest breaks, among other claims, under California law. The Complaint sought damages in the form of civil penalties and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and expressly disclaims the recovery of any purported individual specific relief or underpaid wages. The parties tentatively reached a settlement pending Court approval, which includes the settlement and release of certain additional related claims. Sleep Number said, "We intend to continue vigorously defending this matter in the event it does not settle." Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds, bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Arkansas Class Suits over Royalties Resolved ----------------------------------------------------------------- Southwestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that as of September 30, 2019, all certified class actions against the Company regarding royalty payments in Arkansas have been resolved favorably to the Company or settled. Some actions filed on behalf of mineral interest owners who opted out of the class actions remain pending, but the Company does not expect these cases to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Southwestern Energy Company, an independent energy company, engages in the exploration, development, and production of natural gas and oil in the United States. It operates through two segments, Exploration and Production, and Midstream. Southwestern Energy Company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Spring, Texas. SPECTRUM SECURITY: Court Flips Memorandum 33 Class Decertification ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four, affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court order in the case captioned GUSTAVO NARANJO, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SPECTRUM SECURITY SERVICES INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. B256232 (Cal. App.). Spectrum contracts exclusively with federal agencies. Its officers take temporary custody of federal prisoners and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) detainees who must travel offsite for medical treatment or other appointments. For the relevant time period before October 1, 2007, Spectrum had two different employee manuals. In October 2007, a "Memorandum 33" was issued, a one-page document addressed only meal and rest breaks. Unlike the other employee manuals, Memorandum 33 advised, "Meal and rest periods must be taken." It reaffirmed Spectrum's longstanding policy that meal and rest periods were "on duty." In June 2007, Plaintiff Gustavo Naranjo and a certified class of former and current employees filed a lawsuit against Spectrum Security Services, Inc., alleging Labor Code section 226.7 meal break violations and sought premium wages, derivative remedies pursuant to sections 203 (waiting time penalties) and 226 (itemized wage statement penalties), and attorney fees. The results were mixed, and both sides appealed. Naranjo's class certification motion was heard before the California Supreme Court, where the trial judge granted the motion in part and denied it in part. A class of "all non-exempt detention officers and security officers employed by Spectrum in California during the Class Period of June 4, 2004 to the present" was certified as to the first cause of action (meal period violations (Sec. 226.7)); third cause of action (waiting time penalties (Sec. 203)); and fourth cause of action (itemized wage statements (Sec. 226)). The trial court qualified Naranjo as the class representative and the law firm of Posner & Rosen as class counsel. The trial court however declined to include the second cause of action for alleged rest break violations in the class certification order. The trial court acknowledged Spectrum's companywide policy not to permit duty-free rest breaks; but nevertheless found that common questions did not predominate, which meant Naranjo's claims were not typical and the class action format was not the superior means to resolve the rest break claim. The following year, the new trial judge declined to revisit the denial of Naranjo's motion to certify a rest break class. The parties stipulated to try the lawsuit in three phases. At the close of the testimony, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the pre-Memorandum 33 meal break subclass. The parties stipulated the pre-Memorandum 33 meal break subclass was owed $1,393,314 in premium pay for the period from June 2004 until September 2007. The parties also stipulated that the section 226 penalty was $399,950. Also, the trial court determined Spectrum's failure to include the meal break premium wage in the final paychecks of employees who separated from the company was not willful and ruled in Spectrum's favor on the section 203 waiting time penalties claim. Judgment was entered January 31, 2014. The trial court awarded prejudgment and postjudgment interest, each at 10 percent. As named plaintiff and class representative, Naranjo received a $10,000 service/enhancement payment. Class counsel Posner & Rosen were awarded attorney fees as part of the judgment pursuant to section 226, subdivision (e), albeit in an amount less than requested. Both sides appeal from the judgment. Spectrum challenges its liability for premium wages to the pre-Memorandum 33 meal break subclass and for section 226 itemized wage statement penalties, the stipulated premium wage award, the award of prejudgment interest, and the section 226, subdivision (e) award of attorney fees to class counsel. The pre-Memorandum 33 meal break subclass attacks the denial of section 203 waiting time penalties and the trial court's decision to apportion and reduce the attorney fees. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 906, Naranjo also seeks review of the intermediate order denying certification of the proposed rest break class. On review, the California Appeals Court rules that: (1) The portion of the judgment awarding the meal break subclass premium wages, but denying section 203 penalties, is affirmed; (2) The portion of the judgment assessing section 226 penalties and awarding the meal break subclass attorney fees is reversed; (3) The meal break subclass is entitled to prejudgment interest on the premium wages award at the rate of seven percent; (4) The interlocutory order denying certification of a rest break class is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to award prejudgment interest at seven percent on the premium wages award and to certify a rest break class. In the interests of justice, the meal break subclass and Naranjo are awarded costs on appeal, the Appellate Court orders. A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' September 26, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y42hcjhu from Leagle.com Marsili Rapp, Howard Z. Rosen - hzrosen@rmrllp.com - Brianna M. Primozic - brapp@rmrllp.com - and Jason C. Marsili - jmarsili@rmrllp.com - for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger, Dave Carothers - dcarothers@cdflaborlaw.com- and Steven A. Micheli - smicheli@cdflaborlaw.com - for Defendant and Appellant. ST MARY PARISH: Boudreaux Moves to Certify Class of Black Kids -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff Class in the lawsuit styled CLAUDE BOUDREAUX, et al. v. SCHOOL BOARD OF ST. MARY PARISH, et al., Case No. 6:65-cv-11351-RGJ-CBW (W.D. La.), moves for class certification. On September 30, 2019, the Court wrote that this case "should be formally recertified as a class action in accordance" with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c) and invited briefing addressing the requirements of Rule 23(c). Accordingly, the Plaintiff Class moves the Court to issue an order: (a) declaring this pre-1966 class action to be recertified under the amended 1966 version of Rule 23, with the class defined as: "all Black children eligible to attend the public schools in St. Mary Parish and their parents and/or guardians"; and (b) appointing the Plaintiff Class' current counsel of record as class counsel. According to the Motion, counsel for the Plaintiff Class has conferred with counsel for Defendant School Board of St. Mary Parish. The Defendant does not oppose this Motion, except: (a) with regard to how the class is defined, and (b) insofar as the Defendant does not believe it has sufficient information to take a position about whether the Plaintiff Class Representatives are adequate representatives of the class. As the Defendant concedes, the Plaintiff Class satisfies the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, and typicality, as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2), the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiff Class seeks comprehensive relief for the over three thousand Black students, who are eligible to attend schools operated by the District and their parents/guardians. The Plaintiff Class claims a common, class-wide injury resulting from the District's ongoing failure to eliminate the vestiges of segregation. The Plaintiffs contend all claims or defenses are typical, and any relief obtained shall benefit the entire class.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michaele N. Turnage Young, Esq. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 700 14th Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 682-1300 E-mail: mturnageyoung@naacpldf.org - and - Samuel Spital, Esq. Deuel Ross, Esq. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10027 Telephone: (212) 965-2200 Facsimile: (212) 226-7592 E-mail: sspital@naacpldf.org dross@naacpldf.org - and - Gideon T. Carter, III, Esq. Post Office Box 80264 Baton Rouge, LA 70898-0264 Telephone: (225) 214-1546 Facsimile: (225) 341-8874 E-mail: gideontcarter3d@gmail.com STATE STREET: Still Defends Suit Over Invoicing Practices --------------------------------------------------------- State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself against a purported class action suit related to the company's invoicing practices. In March 2017, a purported class action was commenced against the company alleging that its invoicing practices violated duties owed to retirement plan customers under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In addition, the company received a purported class action demand letter alleging that its invoicing practices were unfair and deceptive under Massachusetts law. State Street said, "A class of customers, or particular customers, may assert that we have not paid to them all amounts incorrectly invoiced, and may seek double or treble damages under Massachusetts law." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. State Street Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a range of financial products and services to institutional investors worldwide. State Street Corporation was founded in 1792 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. SUNOCO INC: Bid to Exclude "Ley" Testimony in Cline Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John Gibney Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma issued an Opinion denying Defendant's Motion for Exclude Testimony in the case captioned PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNOCO, INC. (R&M), and, SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS, L.P., Defendants, Civil Action No. 6:17-cv-313-JAG, (E.D. Okla.). Perry Cline owns a royalty interest in oil wells in Oklahoma. Cline sued Sunoco for not paying him statutory interest when Sunoco pays the late proceeds. Cline seeks to maintain a class action on behalf of those to whom Sunoco paid production proceeds late and did not pay statutory interest. To support his motion for class certification, Cline offered the testimony and expert reports of Barbara A. Ley, a certified public accountant. Ley has developed a model by which she says that she can identify the individual class members and calculate class-wide damages using information from Sunoco's business records. Sunoco moved to exclude Ley's reports and testimony for the purposes of the class certification motion. Sunoco asserts that that Cline overstates Ley's qualifications and distinguishes the cases in which Ley has testified, but it does not argue that Ley lacks the necessary qualifications to render an opinion. Ley, a certified public accountant licensed to practice in Oklahoma and Texas, has over forty years of experience. Her expertise includes oil and gas issues. Ley has testified in a number of oil and gas cases in both state and federal courts in Oklahoma. Thus, Ley has adequate qualifications to testify as an expert in the matter, the Court opines. The Court also determines whether Ley's testimony is reliable under the principles set forth in Daubert. Sunoco first argues that Ley's methodology does not accurately identify the proposed class members. Sunoco points to a number of payments Ley excludes primarily, those payments falling under the exceptions to the PRSA and says that, by excluding the payments from the model but not from the definition, the model does not cover the entire class. In response, Cline says that he has proposed a revised class definition in his reply to the motion to certify that excludes those categories. The Court accepts Cline's proposed class definition, so Sunoco's first argument fails. Sunoco secondly describes Ley's model as inaccurate and unreliable, and says that Ley's model does not reliably identify Untimely Payments and does not properly calculate statutory interest. The Court finds that Ley's testimony and expert reports demonstrate that Ley's model, although not fully developed, provides a reliable way to identify untimely payments and calculate damages sufficient to satisfy the Daubert standard. Judge Gibney opines, "Ley's testimony is admissible, so the Court will consider it when making its class certification decision." Thus, the Court denies the defendant's Motion to Exclude. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 3, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4kmcskr from Leagle.com Perry Cline, on behalf of himself & Perry Cline, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew G. Pate - dpate@nixlaw.com - Nix Patterson & Roach, Bradley E. Beckworth - bbeckworth@nixlaw.com - Nix Patterson, LLP, Jason A. Ryan - jryan@ryanwhaley.com - Ryan Whaley Coldiron Jantzen Peters & Webber, PLLC, Jeffrey J. Angelovich - jangelovich@npraustin.com - Nix Patterson, LLP, Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr. , Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr., PC, 624 South BostonSuite 900Tulsa, OK 74119, Lisa P. Baldwin - lbaldwin@nixlaw.com - Nix Patterson & Roach, pro hac vice, Michael Burrage , Whitten Burrage, Patrick M. Ryan - pryan@ryanwhaley.com - Ryan Whaley Coldiron Jantzen Peters & Webber, PLLC, Paula M. Jantzen - pjantzen@ryanwhaley.com - Ryan Whaley Coldiron Jantzen Peters & Webber, PLLC, Phillip G. Whaley - pwhaley@ryanwhaley.com - Ryan Whaley Coldiron Jantzen Peters & Webber, PLLC Sunoco, Inc. & Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, LP, Defendants, represented by Daniel M. McClure - dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com - Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Kevin W. Yankowsky - kevin.yankowsky@nortonrosefulbright.com - Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice, Mark D. Christiansen , McAfee & Taft & Rebecca J. Cole - rebecca.cole@nortonrosefulbright.com - Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice. SUPERIOR REAL: Class of Laborers Certified in Rodriguez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. D.P. Marshall, Jr., conditionally certifies a class in the lawsuit entitled ALBERT RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SUPERIOR REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS, LLC; ALVIN FRANKS, JR., Case No. 4:19-cv-00405-DPM (E.D. Ark.). The class/group is defined as: All current and former construction laborers who work or worked for Superior Real Estate Solutions, LLC, and Alvin Franks Jr. and who were paid an hourly rate at any time since 11 June 2016. Albert Rodriguez worked as a construction worker for Superior and Franks between November 2018 and June 2019. Mr. Rodriguez says he was paid hourly, worked more than forty hours a week, and was not paid any extra for his overtime work. He says the Company usually had between ten and fifteen construction workers on the payroll, who were all paid the same way. He moved to conditionally certify a collective action. Superior and Franks haven't responded to the motion for a group, according to the Order. Judge Marshall directs Superior and Franks to provide the Plaintiff's counsel (on an electronic spreadsheet) a list of names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of the group members. The notice, proposed consent forms, e-mail, and reminder postcard are approved with certain tweaks. "Please name the employer in the group description. Remove 'Court' from the subject line of the email. Delete the dash in 'hourly paid' each time that phrase appears," Judge Marshall notes. The Plaintiff's counsel may send these messages by regular mail and e-mail. There's no need for texts or a bulletin board notice, Judge Marshall adds. The Court also sets this schedule: * Superior and Franks to produce spreadsheet by November 8, 2019; * Notice period opens on November 15, 2019; and * Opt-in period closes on February 14, 2020.[CC] SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Campbell, Neal & Mott TCPA Suits Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend class action lawsuits alleging Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations. The Bank or the Company is, or has been, defending a number of putative class actions alleging claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of phone calls made by the Bank. The complaints generally have alleged that the Bank or the Company placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation, without specifying an aggregate amount. Campbell et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on January 25, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The original complaint named only J.C. Penney Company, Inc. and J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. as the defendants but was amended on April 7, 2017 to replace those defendants with the Bank. Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Bank, for which the Bank is indemnifying Wal-Mart, was filed on January 17, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The original complaint named only Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as a defendant but was amended on March 30, 2017 to add Synchrony Bank as an additional defendant. Mott et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on February 2, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Synchrony Financial, incorporated on September 12, 2003, is a consumer financial services company. The Company provides a range of credit products through programs it has established with a group of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers, buying groups, industry associations and healthcare service providers. The Company's revenue activities are managed through three sales platforms: Retail Card, Payment Solutions and CareCredit. It offers its credit products through its subsidiary, Synchrony Bank (the Bank). The company is based in Stamford, Connecticut. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Stichting Depositary APG Class Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity Pool and Stichting Depositary APG Fixed Income Credit Pool v. Synchrony Financial et al. On November 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit, Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Synchrony Financial, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, naming as defendants the Company and two of its officers. The lawsuit asserts violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material information concerning the Company's underwriting practices and private-label card business, and was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between October 21, 2016 and November 1, 2018. The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. On February 5, 2019, the court appointed Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity Pool as lead plaintiff for the putative class. On April 5, 2019, an amended complaint was filed, asserting a new claim for violations of the Securities Act in connection with statements in the offering materials for the Company's December 1, 2017 note offering. The Securities Act claims are filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company bonds in or traceable to the December 1, 2017 note offering between December 1, 2017 and November 1, 2018. The amended complaint names as additional defendants two additional Company officers, the Company's board of directors, and the underwriters of the December 1, 2017 note offering. The amended complaint is captioned Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity Pool and Stichting Depositary APG Fixed Income Credit Pool v. Synchrony Financial et al. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Synchrony Financial, incorporated on September 12, 2003, is a consumer financial services company. The Company provides a range of credit products through programs it has established with a group of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers, buying groups, industry associations and healthcare service providers. The Company's revenue activities are managed through three sales platforms: Retail Card, Payment Solutions and CareCredit. It offers its credit products through its subsidiary, Synchrony Bank (the Bank). The company is based in Stamford, Connecticut. TENNESSEE: Adams Moves for Certification of DOC Prisoners Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER ADAMS, et al. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION COMMISSIONER TONY PARKER, et al. (sued in official capacity only), Case No. 1:19-cv-00296-HSM-SKL (E.D. Tenn.), ask the Court to certify the case sub judice as a class action on behalf of a prisoners class. "The case sub judice is literally a life or death case. It is not a matter of if a class member will be injured, they have already been injured and continued future injury is imminent," the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs note that the Defendants have caused identification wristbands to be permanently secured to the arms of inmates that are serving long terms of incarceration. The Plaintiffs allege that the wristbands cannot be removed for thorough cleaning and sanitizing, thereby, making them a breeding ground for dangerous bacteria that may cause foodborne illnesses, they may aid in spreading communicable diseases, and they are a safety hazard for these working on live energized electrical circuits and machinery/equipment with moving parts. The class is defined as: "All similarly situated persons, current and future, who are committed to the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction for incarceration under its control and supervision, housed in public and privately owned and managed facilities, as well as correctional employees, volunteers who work thereat, and visitors to said facilities, for whom the Tennessee Department of Correction has the ultimate responsibility for their health, safety, and well being while incarcerated therein, or, while on each respective prison's property in relation to the food consumed thereat which is handled, prepared, and served by inmate's wearing wristbands, those who physically interact with inmates wearing wristbands, and those who share common areas of each respective prison with inmates wearing wristbands; as well as inmate class members who are required to operate machinery/equipment with moving parts, or, work on electrically energized circuits and/or components while wearing wristbands." Plaintiffs Christopher Adams, et al., of Pikeville, Tennessee, appear pro se.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Herbert Harrison Slatery, III, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TENNESSEE 425 5th Avenue N. Nashville, TN 37202 Telephone: (615) 741-3491 TIGER EYE: Class in Adkinson Labor Suit Conditionally Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DONALD ADKINSON and KERRY WIMLEY, Individually And on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIGER EYE PIZZA, LLC and KEN SCHROEPFER, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-4007 (W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O. Hickey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs Adkinson and Wimley's Motion for Conditional Certification, for Approval and Distribution of Notice and for Disclosure of Contact Information. On April 23, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the action, seeking relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"). The Plaintiffs allege that they were formerly employed by the Defendants as hourly paid delivery drivers at the Defendants' pizza stores in Texarkana, Arkansas and Texarkana, Texas. They claim that the Defendants failed to pay them, and others similarly situated, proper minimum wage and overtime compensation. Their complaint indicates that they bring their FLSA claims for collective-action treatment on behalf of all others similarly situated. The Plaintiffs likewise indicate that they bring their AMWA claims for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class-action treatment on behalf of all others similarly situated. In the instant motion, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify, pursuant to the FLSA, the following collective: All Delivery Drivers employed by the Defendants since Jan. 23, 2016. They also ask for a ninety-day period to distribute notice and consent forms and for the potential Plaintiffs to opt into the case. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to order the Defendants to provide the names, current and/or last known mailing addresses, and cell phone numbers, or alternatively email addresses, of the potential opt-in Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to authorize a distribution plan involving notice being delivered to potential opt-ins via U.S. mail, text message, and alternatively, email for the potential Plaintiffs who have no known cell phone number, with a follow-up email being sent three weeks after the delivery of initial notice. The Defendants oppose the motion. They mount a two-pronged attack on the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. First, they attack the viability of the Plaintiffs' unsworn declarations submitted in support of conditional certification. Second, they argue that the facts of the case are such that conditional certification is improper. The Court is faced with two tasks. First, it must determine whether conditional certification of the proposed collective is proper under the FLSA. Second, if it finds that conditional certification is appropriate, the Court must outline the correct means of providing notice to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs and set procedures by which a potential collective member may opt in. Judge Hickey finds that it seems unreasonable to impose a higher evidentiary standard for affidavits at the lenient conditional certification stage than would later be imposed at the summary judgment stage. As the Eighth Circuit has explained, a decision to certify a class is far from a conclusive judgment on the merits of the case, so it is of necessity not accompanied by the traditional rules and procedure applicable to civil trials. Although In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prod. Liab. Litig. related to a Rule 23 class certification action, these statements are particularly true of a conditional class certification of an FLSA action. A conditional class certification is by its very nature 'conditional' and subject to revision by a decertification motion that often follows. Accordingly, the Judge will consider the Plaintiffs' provided declarations in support of conditional certification even if, as the Defendants argue, some statements in the declarations would not constitute admissible evidence at trial. Next, Judge Hickey is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have made a modest showing that they and other delivery drivers are similarly situated in that, while employed as delivery drivers for Defendants in Texarkana during the relevant period, they were subjected to a common policy which deprived them of requisite minimum wage and overtime. Thus, the case will be conditionally certified as a collective action. As to the Notice Plan, Judge Hickey does not agree that the header of the notice, containing the full case caption, implies judicial endorsement of the merits of the action. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' notice form may bear the case caption. However, out of an abundance of caution, the Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs that a judicial disclaimer would prevent any potential confusion related to judicial endorsement. She cannot locate judicial disclaimer language in the Plaintiffs' proposed notice form, so she will require the Plaintiffs to revise their notice form to include the following language in numbered paragraph 2: "The Court does not encourage or discourage participation in this case." The additional language will ensure that the notice respects judicial neutrality and avoids even the appearance of judicial endorsement of the merits of the action. Judge Hickey finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed anti-retaliation provision is appropriate to provide as much information as possible from which putative collective members "can make informed decisions about whether to participate" in the case. Thus, she approves the proposed anti-retaliation provision for use in the notice form. However, the Defendants raise a fair point that the case does not involve claims or allegations of past retaliatory conduct. To avoid the potential of misleading or confusing putative collective members into believing that Defendants have been accused of retaliatory conduct, the Plaintiffs will include the following language at the beginning of their anti-retaliation provision: "This case does not involve claims or allegations that Defendants have retaliated against former or current employees." Judge Hickey finds it reasonable and appropriate to allow Plaintiffs to send email notice to the putative collective members. Thus, email notice dissemination will be allowed, and the Plaintiffs' proposed email notice form is approved, with the caveat that the Plaintiffs must add the judicial disclaimer language discussed: "The Court does not encourage or discourage participation in this case." However, it would be needlessly repetitive to also allow notice dissemination via text message. Thus, the Plaintiffs' request to also send notice via text message is denied. Judge Hickey also finds that one follow-up email is sufficient and that a second, sent only nine days later, is unnecessary. The Plaintiffs may send a follow-up email 21 days after initial notice dissemination to the potential opt-ins who have not responded to the mailed or emailed notice. There is no need for the RightSignature service to send yet another follow-up email 30 days after initial dissemination. The Judge declines to require that the defense counsel be copied on all email notice dissemination. Finally, Judge Hickey finds that a 14-day deadline for providing the contact information is more reasonable than the seven days suggested by the Plaintiffs. Thus, the Defendants will provide to the Plaintiffs the names, current and/or last known mailing addresses, and all known email addresses of any individual who meets the collective definition. The list must be produced in a usable electronic format, such as Microsoft Word or Excel. The Defendants will deliver this information to the Plaintiffs' counsel within 14 days of the entry of the Order. For the stated reasons, Judge Hickey granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification, for Approval and Distribution of Notice and for Disclosure of Contact Information. Accordingly, she conditionally certified the case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Judge Hickey approved (i) the proposed notice of right to join lawsuit form, once edited to comply with the Order; (ii) the proposed consent to join collective action form; (iii) sending the notice packet to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs via U.S. Mail; (iv) the use of email to provide notice to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs, as well as the proposed language of the notice email message, once edited to comply with the Order; (v) the utilization of www.rightsignature.com as a means for the potential opt-in Plaintiffs to sign the consent documents; and (vi) the dissemination of one follow-up email, sent 21 days after initial dissemination to any potential opt-in Plaintiff who has not responded to the initial notice. The Defendants are directed to produce the names, current and/or last known mailing addresses, and all known email addresses of any individual who meets the collective definition. The list must be produced in a usable electronic format. The Defendants will deliver the information to the Plaintiffs' counsel within 14 days of the entry of the Order, with the understanding that the Plaintiffs' counsel is to treat this information as confidential. The Plaintiffs will have 90 days from the date the Defendants deliver the requisite contact information in which to distribute the notice and consent documents and to file signed consent forms of the opt-in Plaintiffs with the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/upeAaO from Leagle.com. Donald Adkinson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated & Kerry Wimley, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Josh Sanford -- josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm PLLC & Merideth Queen McEntire, Sanford Law Firm, PLLC. Tiger Eye Pizza, LLC & Kenneth Schroepfer, Defendants, represented by Raymond Douglas Rees, Cooper & Scully PC, pro hac vice, Benton Williams, II -- Benton.Williams@bentonwilliamspllc.com -- Benton Williams PLLC & Shabaz Aslam Nizami -- shabaz.nizami@cooperscully.com -- Cooper & Scully P.C. TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Appeals Court Tosses AG's Settlement Challenge ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Fischer, writing for Arizona Capitol Times, reports that a federal appeals court has slapped down a bid by Attorney General Mark Brnovich to undo a class-action settlement of a lawsuit over allegedly defective pressure cookers. In a unanimous decision on Oct. 10, a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals did not address Brnovich's contention that the nationwide settlement is unfair to the vast majority of consumers who had purchased the product, including Arizona residents. That deal reserves the lion's share of the cash for the attorneys who sued. And the best that most consumers will get is a coupon for a future purchase from the company and a one-year extension on their existing warranties--and only if they watch a company-produced video on pressure cooker safety. But appellate Judge John Bush, writing for the court, concluded all those arguments about fairness from Brnovich are legally irrelevant. He said the attorney general has no legal standing to come in, after a deal was cut, and argue to have it nullified as unfair. Assistant Attorney General O.H. Skinner, who presented the legal arguments, told Capitol Media Services that an appeal is being weighed--and not just in a bid to get a better settlement for those who bought the device. He said the ruling, if left undisturbed, could undermine the practices of the attorney general's office in interceding in other class-action lawsuits, particularly in consumer fraud cases, where it appears that the main beneficiaries are the attorneys who brought the claim and not the people who were actually harmed financially. "We think that what we did here is the same as in innumerable consumer protection cases every day out of our office," Skinner said. "We think that protecting consumers from class-action settlements where they don't get any money is a core part of protecting consumers." The 2016 lawsuit filed in Ohio charges that certain pressure cookers manufactured by Tristar Products had defective lids that could open while the cookers were in use, exposing the user to possible injury from the hot, pressurized contents spilling out. Bush said that after the first day of trial it appeared things were not going well for the plaintiffs. Even the trial judge said it was not obvious that a defect existed or that, even if it did, it made the company's pressure cookers worthless. That resulted in a settlement which covered not just those in the states where the original plaintiffs were from but also anyone in the country who had bought the items. That settlement, according to the court, was worth about $1 million to consumers, primarily in the coupons and warranty extensions, and nearly $2 million in legal fees. In fact, the vast majority of the 3.2 million people who purchased the pressure cooker nationwide--the number that wound up in Arizona is unknown--won't even get the $73 coupons because they didn't file a claim, either because they were unaware of the settlement or concluded that the offer was not worth their time. Only when the trial judge held a hearing to review the fairness did Brnovich file legal papers, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, arguing the settlement was unfair and should put more aside for those who bought the items. Rejected by the trial judge, Skinner filed an appeal, telling the judges that Arizona has a legitimate interest--and legitimate right--to intercede. He said the state is acting to protect the interests of its residents who had purchased the pressure cookers but, under the terms approved by the trial court, are being denied compensation. Skinner also said the deal was worded in a way to deny not just financial compensation for an allegedly defective product but also to preclude lawsuits over actual injuries. Bush, however, said the state had not shown any indirect effects on Arizona as a whole. The judges were no more persuaded by arguments that the attorney general's office regularly participates in class-action lawsuits to protect the interests of its residents, working for "improved settlement terms." [GN] TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Pederson Sues over Unwanted Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- DAN PEDERSON, CONNOR OLSON and SHELL WHEELER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., a principal campaign committee, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-02735 (D. Minn., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the organization, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., in negligently, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiffs through text messages on Plaintiffs' cellular telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiffs' privacy. Trump For President is the official candidate committee that facilitates and financially supports Mr. Trump's campaign for office. Trump For President is registered with the Federal Elections Commission. Trump For President routinely sends text messages to wireless telephones with automatic telephone dialing equipment without the wireless users prior express consent. Trump For President violations caused Plaintiffs and members of the Class actual harm, including aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited text messages, as well as the violation of their statutory rights, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are: Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumeradvocates.com kas@consuneradvocates.com UNILEVER MANUFACTURING: Mislabels Magnum Products, Dashnau Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Dashnau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unilever Manufacturing (US), Inc., Case No. 7:19-cv-10102-KMK (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks damages under consumer protection laws from the Defendant's misleading representations on their vanilla ice cream products' packaging. The Defendant sells ice cream products purporting to contain flavor from their natural characterizing flavor, vanilla, under their Magnum brand ("Products"). The Products are misleading because they do not contain the amount, type and percentage of vanilla as a component of the flavoring in the product, which is required and consistent with consumer expectations. The representations of "vanilla (bean)" describing the ice cream products are unqualified, and the labels and packaging do not disclose that addition of non-vanilla flavors as part of the Products, the Plaintiff contends. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth about the Products, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it, the Plaintiff avers. The Products contain other representations, which are misleading and deceptive. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Products are sold at premium prices, approximately no less than $6.59, per 9.12 OZ calculated on an average per ounce basis across the Products, excluding tax--compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal use and consumption. Unilever Manufacturing (US), Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells ice cream products purporting to contain flavor from their natural characterizing flavor, vanilla under their Magnum brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com UNITED COMMUNITY: Parshall Says Merger Documents Misleading ----------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UNITED COMMUNITY FINANCIAL CORP., MARTIN E. ADAMS, LEE J. BURDMAN, SCOTT D. HUNTER, RICHARD J. SCHIRALDI, GARY M. SMALL, ELLEN J. TRESSEL, LOUIS M. ALTMAN, PATRICK W. BEVACK, SCOTT N. CREWSON, and FIRST DEFIANCE FINANCIAL CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01989-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 18, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a registration statement. The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on September 9, 2019, pursuant to which United Community Financial Corp. will merge with First Defiance Financial Corp. On September 9, 2019, United Community's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with First Defiance. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of United Community will receive 0.3715 shares of First Defiance common stock for each share of United Community they own. On October 9, 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. -- The Registration Statement omits material information regarding the Company's and First Defiance's financial projections. With respect to the Company's financial projections, the Registration Statement fails to disclose projected cash flow and all underlying line items. -- The Registration Statement omits material information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P. With respect to Sandler's Comparable Company Analyses, the Registration Statement fails to disclose the individual multiples and metrics for the companies observed by Sandler in the analyses. -- The Registration Statement fails to disclose the nature of the other potential strategic alternatives to the Proposed Transaction as discussed at the July 23, 2019 Board meeting. The Company's stockholders are entitled to an accurate description of the process leading up to the execution of the Merger Agreement, the lawsuit says. United Community Financial Corp., a publicly traded financial services company, provides a wide array of consumer, commercial, wealth and insurance products and services through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Home Savings Bank.[BN] Attorneys for the Plainitff are: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com UP FINTECH: Lopez Says Registration Statement Misleading -------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UP FINTECH HOLDING LIMITED, TIANHUA WU, JOHN FEI ZENG, YONGGANG LIU, LEI FANG, DAVID ERIC FRIEDLAND, VINCENT CHUN HUNG CHEUNG, BINSEN TANG, XIN FAN, XIAN WANG, JIAN LIU, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., AMTD GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED, CHINA MERCHANTS SECURITIES (HK) CO., LIMITED, TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED (F/K/A TOP CAPITAL PARTNERS LIMITED), and SKY FINTECH HOLDING LIMITED, the Defendants, Case No. 655882/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Oct. 8, 2019), asserts strict liability claims under sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against UP Fintech's underwriters for the Company's initial public offering (IPO), and certain officers, directors, and controlling shareholders of UP Fintech. The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased UP Fintech American Depositary Shares in or traceable to the Company's March 20, 2019 IPO. On March 20, 2019, UP Fintech completed the IPO of its ADSs. In connection with the IPO, UP Fintech filed a final amended Registration Statement on Form F-1 and a related Prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC on March 18, 2019 and March 20, 2019, respectively (collectively, the "Registration Statement"). As of December 31, 2018, UP Fintech had 446 employees. On February 22, 2019, the Company filed its Registration Statement on Form F-l for the IPO, which after two amendments was declared effective on March 19, 2019. On March 20, 2019, the Company filed its Prospectus with the SEC on Form 424B4. In the IPO, defendants sold 14.95 million UP Fintech shares at $8 per share, generating nearly $120 million in offering proceeds, not including underwriting discounts. The Registration Statement was negligently prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing the preparation of such documents. The Registration Statement repeatedly discussed UP Fintech's operating costs and expenses, employee compensation and benefits, and the Company's employees, including 2018's growth in the amount of employees. These representations were materially false and misleading because UP Fintech's operating costs and expenses had already drastically increased during the Company's first quarter of the 2019 fiscal year due to the massive increase in employees that occurred in 2018, especially employee compensation and benefits. Rather than disclose this known adverse historical fact, the Registration Statement provided boilerplate risk statements about potential contingent future issues that may or could occur. While these risk statements acknowledged the material importance to investors of UP Fintech's operating costs, they were themselves materially misleading because they failed to disclose that employee compensation had ballooned well beyond the historical growth amounts contained in the Registration Statement. These representations in the Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material fact because, at the time of the IPO, the number of UP Fintech employees had already nearly doubled and its operating costs and expenses materially increased. As of market close on October 3, 2019, the price of UP Fintech ADSs was trading at just $4.18 per share, 48% below the IPO price, the lawsuit says. Lopez purchased shares of the Company's ADSs pursuant and traceable to the IPO and has been damaged thereby. UP Fintech is an online brokerage firm focusing on global Chinese investors. Defendants conducted the IPO in New York, and the Company's ADSs trade on the Nasdaq. It is a Cayman Islands exempted company with principal executive offices located at 18/F, Grandyvic Building, No. 16 Taiyanggon Middle Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, People's Republic of China. Through its proprietary trading platform, UP Fintech's customers are able to trade equities and other financial instruments on multiple stock exchanges worldwide.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Thomas G. Amon, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. AMON 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 810 2430 E-mail: tamon@amonlaw.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Jonathan D. Bobak, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525 3990 Facsimile: (619) 525 3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com soddo@robbinsarroyo.com jobabak@robbinsarroyo.com URBAN GARDEN: Padilla Seeks OT & Minimum Wages for Landscapers -------------------------------------------------------------- HARRY PADILLA, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs. URBAN GARDEN CENTER, INC., and DIMITRI GATANAS, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09660 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants' violations of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a landscaper from in or around May 2016 until on or around June 10, 2019. From the beginning of his employment until May 21, 2019, at which time Plaintiff was injured and unable to work, the Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him. Specifically, the Defendants required Plaintiff to work over 40 hours per week at Defendants' various job sites, but failed to compensate him at the statutorily required overtime rate of at least one and one-half times the minimum wage rate, or one and one-half times his regular rate of pay when greater, for any hours that he worked each week in excess of 40. Instead, the Defendants paid Plaintiff at his straight-time rate of pay for all hours worked each week -- which often fell below the minimum rate that the NYLL requires for each hour worked -- including those that he worked in excess of 40 in a week. The Defendants have paid and treated all of their landscapers in the same manner, the lawsuit says. Urban Garden Center, Inc. operates a landscaping company and garden center in Manhattan.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Caitlin Duffy, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 679-5000 Facsimile:. (212) 679-5005 US BANK: Denial of Leave to File Counterclaim in Cabrera Overturned ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ZACARIAS CABRERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee, successor in interest to BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as successor by merger to LASALLE BANK, N.A., as trustee RAMP 2007-RS-1, and SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., a corporation, Appellees, Case No. 4D18-3537 (Fla. App.), Judge Martha C. Warner of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District reversed in part and dismissed in part the nonfinal order of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court that denied Cabrera's motion for leave to file a class action counterclaim. Borrower Cabrera timely appeals a nonfinal order of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court that denied his motion for leave to file a class action counterclaim in the foreclosure case. In 2017, the Appellee, U.S. Bank National Association, sued the Borrower to foreclose on a mortgage. This was the third attempt to foreclose on the same mortgage, the Bank or its predecessor having voluntarily dismissed the prior two complaints. The Borrower answered, raising affirmative defenses. The Borrower served a motion to amend to add a class action counterclaim against the Bank and SunTrust Mortgage, as the loan servicer, seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. In his amended counterclaim, the Borrower claimed that the Bank and SunTrust routinely added to the debt secured by the mortgage the attorney's fees and costs incurred in dismissed or unsuccessful prior foreclosure actions. Thus, the Borrowers were being charged fees even though the Bank did not prevail in the prior actions, despite the fact that the provisions of the mortgage allowed the Bank to include attorney's fees only if it prevailed. The proposed counterclaim designated the class as consisting of homeowners who may have been serviced by SunTrust but whose mortgages were owned or held by the Bank or by other lenders. The counterclaim included the necessary allegations to support a class action: numerosity, typicality, representative status, predominance of common questions of law and fact. It sought a declaratory judgment against the Bank and SunTrust, as well as damages to compensate borrowers for this improper practice by the Bank as to borrowers. It also added a count against SunTrust for violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, pursuant to section 559.72, Florida Statutes (2017), in connection with the unauthorized inclusion of attorney's fees in the amounts due. The counterclaim demanded damages incurred by the entire class for the statutory violations. In response, the Bank filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its foreclosure complaint. However, it did not deprive the court of jurisdiction, as the filing of a motion to amend to add a counterclaim is treated the same as a pending counterclaim for purposes of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(2). In response to the motion for leave to file class action counterclaim, the Bank argued that the counterclaim would unnecessarily complicate a simple foreclosure, that it added a third party, and that the claims failed to state a viable claim for relief under Florida law. After a short non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order granting the Borrower's motion to amend insofar as it allowed him to amend to assert compulsory counterclaims, but it denied the motion to assert those claims as a class action. From that order, the Borrower appeals. First, Judge Warner holds that although the Bank contends that allowing a class action counterclaim would unfairly prejudice it by increasing the complexity of a common foreclosure complaint, that same concern would be true of almost any counterclaim asserting a class action. Furthermore, any class counterclaim would bring additional "parties" into a lawsuit. Yet Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(c) specifically includes a "counterclaim" within its terms. Therefore, these differences in and of themselves do not prevent the assertion of a class counterclaim. Next, in Count I of the counterclaim attached to the motion to amend, the class representative seeks a declaration that the practice of adding attorney's fees and costs from unsuccessful foreclosure actions against borrowers to the balance of their mortgages violates Florida law and requires that the Bank and SunTrust compensate borrowers to whom it occurred. The Judge holds that these claims relate to the operative facts of the foreclosure, because the Borrower alleges that his mortgage was increased by adding attorney's fees from the prior unsuccessful actions to his balance. The complaint is against the Bank and SunTrust, its servicer. They all relate to the inclusion of attorney's fees from unsuccessful attempts to foreclose on the mortgage in the amount due on the mortgage and promissory note. The counterclaim is compulsory, because it involves the same aggregate operative facts of the main claim and defense, i.e., whether the attorney's fees from unsuccessful suits had been included inappropriately in the amount claimed due under the mortgages. Count II is asserted against SunTrust only and as a class action. Thus it is not a true counterclaim but a third party claim. The Judge holds that the class action rule does not include third party claims within its provisions. Even if this may be loosely determined to be a counterclaim asserted against the loan servicer as an agent of the Bank, it is not a compulsory counterclaim. The counterclaim seeks damages for breach of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by adding attorney's fees to the balance of mortgages, similar to Count I. However, Count II is also filed on behalf of borrowers on any mortgage SunTrust serviced, thus involving lenders other than the Bank in the suit. Such a claim would require review of mortgages held by other lenders. It further alleges that SunTrust used various means of communication and attempted to collect debts involving interstate commerce, which is a different element than the foreclosure proceeding. It would require proof that the debts were "consumer debts" within the meaning of section 559.55(6), Florida Statutes (2006). These elements are all beyond the operative facts of the foreclosure complaint. Therefore, as to Count II, the Judge holds that the order is not an appealable final order. She dismissed the appeal as to the denial of the motion to amend to include Count II of the counterclaim. As the Count I counterclaim is compulsory, and the trial court allowed the Borrower to file his compulsory counterclaim, the issue remains as to whether it could be asserted as a class action for all borrowers similarly situated. Since rule 1.220 permits the assertion of class actions by way of counterclaims, as a matter of law, the Judge finds that the claim may be asserted. Motions to amend should be liberally granted. Once filed, whether it should proceed as a class claim depends upon an analysis of the factors for maintaining a class action set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220. The rule requires a trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its ruling to either certify a class or deny certification. The trial court truncated the review by denying the motion to amend. Yet to determine whether the court has abused its discretion, the appellate court must have the benefit of the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court. Based on the foregoing, Judge Warner reversed and remanded for the trial court to grant the amendment to assert Count I as a class action and then to consider whether the counterclaim can and should be asserted as a class action. As to Count II, she dismissed the appeal because it is a nonappealable order. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/uut3Be from Leagle.com. Jon Herskowitz of Baron & Herskowitz, Miami, Rachel Bentley, of Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach, Jeffrey M. Liggio -- jliggio@liggiolaw.com -- and Geoff S. Stahl -- gstahl@liggiolaw.com -- of Liggio Law, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Philip M. Burlington -- pmb@flappellatelaw.com -- and Adam Richardson -- ajr@flappellatelaw.com -- of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant. Sara F. Holladay-Tobias -- stobias@mcguirewoods.com -- Emily Y. Rottmann -- erottmann@mcguirewoods.com -- and Brittney L. Difato -- bdifato@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuire Woods LLP, Jacksonville, for appellee U.S. Bank, N.A., as trustee, successor in interest to Bank of America, N.A., as Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank, N.A., as trustee Ramp 2007-RS-1. VISALUS INC: Class Settlement in Harris Suit Gets Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, gave final approval of the proposed class settlement in the case captioned ERIC J. HARRIS, SR., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and CAPRECE BYRD, BRYANT WATTS, RENAE WHITE, LAURA HERL, DR. FRANK McWHORTER, ERIC J. HARRIS, SR. and CONNIE BATES, individually on their own behalf, Plaintiffs, v. VISALUS, INC., a corporation, et al, Case No. 17-cv-12626, (E.D. Mich.). The Court finds the Settlement fair, adequate and reasonable. For purposes of the Final Approval Order and Judgment, the Settlement Class is: All U.S. Independent Promotors of ViSalus, Inc. who qualified for units in the Founders' Equity Incentive Plan between January 1, 2015 through March 1, 2017. The Named Plaintiff, Eric J. Harris, Sr., has, in the opinion of the Court, worked hard on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Court therefore approves an incentive to Eric J. Harris, Sr. in the amount of $15,000. The Court further awards $115,000 in attorneys fees and costs. Attorneys at Sommers Schwartz, P.C.; Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott PLLC; and Wexler Wallace have served fairly and adequately as Class Counsel, the Court finds. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxwqqcar from Leagle.com Caprece Byrd, Bryant Watts & Renae White, Plaintiffs, represented by Brent Caldwell , Pregeg Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Mark R. Miller - mrm@wexlerwallace.com - Wexler Wallace, Matthew J.M. Prebeg – mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com - Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Patrick E. Cafferty - pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com - Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Andrew Kochanowski - akochanowski@sommerspc.com - Sommers Schwartz, P.C. Dr Frank McWhorter, Connie Bates & Laura Herl, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark R. Miller , Wexler Wallace, Patrick E. Cafferty , Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Andrew Kochanowski , Sommers Schwartz, P.C. Eric J Harris Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Brent Caldwell , Pregeg Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Mark R. Miller , Wexler Wallace, Patrick E. Cafferty , Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Andrew Kochanowski , Sommers Schwartz, P.C. VISALUS, INC., Nick Sarnicola, Ashley Sarnicola, Blake Mallen, Ryan Blair, Todd Goergen & Gary J. Reynolds, Defendants, represented by Andrew Clark - aclark@honigman.com - Honigman LLP, Brian A. Howie - brian.howie@quarles.com - Quarles & Brady LLP, Edward A. Salanga -edward.salanga@quarles.com - Quarles & Brady LLP, Kevin D. Quigley - kevin.quigley@quarles.com - Quarles & Brady LLP, Michael S. Catlett - michael.catlett@quarles.com - Quarles & Brady LLP & Nicholas B. Gorga - ngorga@honigman.com - Honigman LLP. Vincent Owens, Defendant, pro se. Michael Craig, Defendant, represented by Andrew Clark , Honigman LLP & Nicholas B. Gorga , Honigman LLP. VIVINT SOLAR: December 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Federman & Sherwood on Oct. 14 disclosed that on October 11, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Vivint Solar, Inc. (NYSE: VSLR). 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 March 5, 2019 through September 26, 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-vivint-solar-inc/ Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Vivint Solar, Inc. 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 Wednesday, December 11, 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 [GN] VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Li Suit Alleging Securities Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- ZHAOER LI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., DAVID BYWATER, and ANA RUSSEL, Case No. 1:19-cv-06165 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), is brought on behalf of persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired Vivint securities between March 5, 2019, and September 26, 2019, against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On September 27, 2019, Marcus Aurelius Value published a report alleging that "28 undisclosed lawsuits . . . specifically allege Vivint forged customer contracts or otherwise engaged in fraud or deception." On this news, Vivint's share price fell $0.14 per share, or over 2%, to close at $6.55 per share on unusually high trading volume. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to the investors that: the Company engaged in fraudulent practice, including forging customer contract; as a result the Company's reported sales and megawatts installed were overstated; these practices were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; as a result, the Company's earnings would be materially adversely impacted; and as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statement 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 suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Vivint securities during the Class Period. Vivint offers solar energy systems to residential customers through a direct-to-home sales model.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com WALLGREENS BOOTS: Court Narrows Claims in Illinois Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2019, that the Court has issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss the securities class action suit in the Northern District of Illinois against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co. On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co. The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June 16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff. Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on October 16, 2015. On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on November 4, 2016 and filed an amended answer on January 16, 2017. Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification on April 21, 2017. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion on March 29, 2018 and merits discovery is proceeding. On December 19, 2018, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint and defendants moved to dismiss the new complaint on February 19, 2019. On September 23, 2019, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and is based in Deerfield, Illinois. WALLGREENS BOOTS: Response to Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2019, that the company has until November 21, 2019, to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the class action suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On December 11, 2017, purported Rite Aid shareholders filed an amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "M.D. Pa. action") arising out of transactions contemplated by the merger agreement between the Company and Rite Aid. The amended complaint alleged that the Company and certain of its officers made false or misleading statements regarding the transactions. The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 15, 2019. The Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses, discovery commenced, and plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification. The Company's response to that motion is due on November 21, 2019. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and is based in Deerfield, Illinois. XPO LOGISTICS: Awaits Court OK to Dismiss Labul Consolidated Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the defendants in the consolidated Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., class action suit filed a motion to dismiss and awaits court's decision. On December 14, 2018, two putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on alleged material misstatements and omissions in the Company's public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On January 7, 2019, the plaintiff in one of the class actions, Leeman v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-11741 (S.D.N.Y.), voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. In the other putative class action, Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No. 3:18-cv-02062 (D. Conn.), which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, on April 2, 2019, the court appointed Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund (together, the "Pension Funds") as lead plaintiffs. On June 3, 2019, the Pension Funds, with additional plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System, filed a consolidated class action complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, based on alleged material misstatements and omissions in the Company's public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint on August 2, 2019 and await a decision from the court. XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom, Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut. XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement in Carter Suit Receives Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the settlement in the class action suit entitled, Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel Morales v. XPO Logistics, Inc. ("Carter"), has received final court approval. Certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are party to several putative class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries. In these litigations, the contract carriers, and in some cases the contract carriers' employees, assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the contract carriers' business expenses. The cases include four related matters pending in the Federal District Court, Northern District of California: Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel Morales v. XPO Logistics, Inc. ("Carter"), filed in March 2016; Ramon Garcia v. Macy's and XPO Logistics Inc. ("Garcia"), filed in July 2016; Kevin Kramer v. XPO Logistics Inc. ("Kramer"), filed in September 2016; and Hector Ibanez v. XPO Last Mile, Inc. ("Ibanez"), filed in May 2017. The Company has reached agreements to settle the Carter, Garcia, Kramer and Ibanez matters and has accrued the full amount of the settlements. The Carter settlement has received final court approval, and the parties await final approval in the other matters. XPO Logistics said, "With respect to other pending claims, the Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims." XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom, Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut. XPO LOGISTICS: Suits vs. Intermodal Drayage Subsidiaries Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries are party to putative class action litigation and other administrative claims in California brought by independent contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries. Certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries received notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of approximately 150 owner-operators contracted with these subsidiaries filed claims in 2012 with the DLSE in which they assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. These claims seek reimbursement for the owner-operators' business expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease payments. Decisions were rendered in June 2015 by a DLSE hearing officer with respect to claims of five plaintiffs, resulting in awards in an aggregate amount of approximately $1 million, following which the Company appealed the decisions in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On May 16, 2017, the Central District Court issued judgment finding that the five claimants were employees rather than independent contractors and awarding an aggregate of approximately $1 million plus post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees to the claimants. The Company appealed this judgment, but on February 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to consider the appeal on technical grounds. In addition, separate decisions were rendered in April 2017 by a DLSE hearing officer in claims involving four additional plaintiffs, resulting in an award for the plaintiffs in an aggregate amount of approximately $1 million. The Company appealed the DLSE award to the California Superior Court, Long Beach, and the court ultimately entered judgment in favor of the four plaintiffs for approximately $812 thousand on September 27, 2019. The remaining DLSE claims (the "Pending DLSE Claims") were transferred to California Superior Court, Los Angeles in three separate actions involving approximately 170 claimants, including the claimants mentioned above who originally filed claims in 2012. The Company has reached an agreement to settle the majority of the Pending DLSE Claims, the settlement payment has been made, and the settled claims have been dismissed. In addition, certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries are party to putative class action litigation and other administrative claims in California brought by independent contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries. In these litigations, the contract carriers assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable relating to the claims. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims. XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom, Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut. YAHOO INC: July 20, 2020 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Taylor, writing for WSIL, reports that Yahoo users can now file a claim for a piece of a $117 million class-action settlement related to massive data breaches within the company. If you had a Yahoo account between January 2012 and December 2016--including traditional Yahoo email, an accounts on Yahoo Sports, Yahoo Finance, tumblr or flickr--you can get two years of free credit monitoring services by All-Clear-ID. If you can prove that you spent time dealing with some issues related to the data breach or if you already have credit monitoring or protections services, you can receive a payment of $100. The deadline for filing a claim is July 20, 2020. To opt in to the settlement, you can go to: https://yahoodatabreachsettlement.com/en [GN] [*] IMF Bentham Buys Dutch Rival to Boost Funding for Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jemima Whyte, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that IMF Bentham has formed an alliance with a Dutch rival that will boost its funding for class actions to more than $2 billion, just as concern mounts in corporate Australia at rapidly growing numbers of these suits. Litigation funder IMF Bentham is buying Netherlands-based Omni Bridgeway in a deal worth up to $141 million at a time of intensifying scrutiny of class actions, many bankrolled by litigation funders. The $770 million ASX-listed company says the deal will help it diversify where it bankrolls class actions on behalf of investors. IMF Bentham is among the world's largest litigation funders, and had previously said it is keen to expand in Europe. The company says the deal marks the end of its five-year plan, which has also included restructuring how it finances class action claims as it tries to evolve from "a principal investor to a fund manager". "While the transaction involves IMF Bentham buying Omni Bridgeway's business, it is a merger of equals," said IMF Bentham managing director Andrew Saker. To fund the transaction, IMF Bentham is seeking to raise $19 million in a placement of new shares at $3.50 each and $120 million in a rights issue at $3.40. Shares in IMF have rallied from their lows in April this year, and climbed further after short seller Muddy Waters criticised its UK-based rival Burford Capital for its accounting practices. The Omni Bridgeway transaction is payable in three tranches. The first tranche is EUR35 million ($57 million) in cash, with the next EUR20 million payable in shares and subject to performance hurdles over three years. The final tranche after five years is worth up to EUR32.5 million, and is also payable in shares. In pro-forma statements released to the exchange, $61.2 million is attributed to goodwill. Cross-border specialist Founded in the Netherlands in 1986, Omni Bridgeway is known as a leading financier of high-value claims and a global specialist in cross-border enforcement against sovereign governments. For the year to December 2018, Omni Bridgeway reported revenue and other income of EUR20 million and net profit of EUR5 million. The company has more than 320 pending cases, with more than EUR2.5 billion in total claim values. Omni Bridgeway has 45 employees in three countries, and Singapore is the only overlapping jurisdiction between the two companies. As part of the merger, some of Omni Bridgeway's key executives will join IMF's board and management team, including Omni managing director Raymond van Hulst. IMF first met with the company last year, introduced by investment bank Houlihan Lokey. Transaction and advisory costs were about $11 million, the company said. IMF shares remain in a trading halt. [GN] ********* 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 ***