/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200102.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 2, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 2 Headlines 12TH MAN FOUNDATION: Class Action Status OK'd in Kyle Field Suit 3B INSPECTION: Tipton Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay for Inspectors AC SQUARE: Cal. App. Partly Affirms Judgments in Sneddon Suit ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Appointed as Lead Counsel AGRI STATS: Sued by Olean Wholesale for Fixing Prices of Turkey ALL-GREEN INC: Reyes Seeks OT Wages for H-2B Program Laborers ALLWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Sanchez Seeks OT Pay for Finish Carpenters AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Solis Says AMERICAN FINANCE: Appeal in St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending AMERICAN FINANCE: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in N.Y. AMERICAN FINANCE: Plaintiffs' Bid for Rehearing En Banc Denied AMERICAN HONDA: Rojas Breach of Contract Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. AMERICAN INCOME: Violates FLSA Minimum Wage Rule, Patterson Says AMERICAN SALES: Ross Seeks Overtime Wages for Baggage Handlers AMNEAL PHARMA: Document Discovery in Generic Pricing Suit Ongoing AMNEAL PHARMA: Opana ER(R) Antitrust Litigation Ongoing AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement in Sergeants Suit Wins Initial Approval ANGI HOMESERVICES: Bid to Dismiss Suit v. HomeAdvisor Inc. Pending ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Pill Suit Over Acquisition by CD&R APPI MANAGEMENT: Guzman Seeks Overtime Pay for Painting Laborers APPLE INC: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Periods, Trim Claims APPLE INC: Lerman et al. Seek to Certify Classes AROTECH CORP: Riggle Suit Challenges Proposed Sale to Greenbriar AVLON INDUSTRIES: Townsend Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data BABCOCK & WILCOX: Accord in Securities Suit Awaits Final Approval BABCOCK & WILCOX: Kent Class Action Suit Voluntarily Dismissed BEACH ENTERTAINMENT: Court Denies Dismissal of Hand TCPA Lawsuit BLUE APRON: Bailey Seeks to Certify 6 Classes in Unpaid Wages Suit BYTEDANCE LTD: TikTok Faces Class Action Over Child Privacy CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Court Denies Dismissal of Lepkowski Suit CARDINAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Louisiana Sheriffs Fund Suit CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces Morgan Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Court Certifies Settlement Class CENTURYLINK INC: Agrees to Settle Sales Practices & Securities Suit CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Litigation Still Ongoing CHECKR INC: Montanez Sues Over Improper Reporting Convictions CHESTNUT RUN: Fails to Timely Repay Security Deposits, Young Says COLONIAL COMPLIANCE: Wells Seeks OT Wages for Marine Consultants COMPASS GROUP: Jilek Contract Suit Removed to C.D. California CONCENTRA INC: Court Refuses to Stay Pascal Suit Pending FCC Order CONTINENTAL BUILDING: Kent Challenges Sale to CertainTeed Gypsum CORNWELL QUALITY: Salinas Wage and Hour Suit Moved to C.D. Calif. CREDIT CORP: Faces Sloatman Suit Over Illegal & Unsolicited Calls CRETE CARRIER: Court Grants Prelim. OK on Settlement in Prieto Suit CURO GROUP: Robbins LLP Announces Securities Class Action DEALER FUNDING: Rivera-Santiago Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania DELTA AIR: Sued by Foshee for Selling Customers' Personal Info DIXIE GROUP: Pays $1,528,000 in Garcia Class Action Settlement DOLE FOOD: Bid to Vacate 2013 Dismissal Order in Chaverri Denied DT CHICAGOLAND: McQueen Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data DXC TECHNOLOGY: Faces Palm Tran Securities Suit in California E-TRADE SECURITIES: Rupnow Balks at Charging of Hidden Interests EDWARD JONES: 2nd Amended Securities Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice ELDORADO RESORTS: Continues to Defend Elberts Class Action ELDORADO RESORTS: Faces 8 Caesars Merger-Related Class Suits EXPRESS ENERGY: Smith Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA FABRICATION AND MAINTENANCE: Solenberg Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay FIAT CHRYSLER: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit FRESH FARMS: Yarger Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages GABRIEL BROTHERS: Skaggs Seeks OT Pay for Assistant Managers GATE GOURMET: Stokes Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics GODADDY INC: Settlement in Bennett Suit Awaits Court Approval GOOGLE LLC: Lefkowitz ADA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York HEAVY MATERIALS: Fixes Price of Ready-Mix Concrete, St. Rose Says HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend S.D.N.Y. Class Action HERITAGE INC: Zarrabi Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Stolen Tips IMPAX LABORATORIES: Williams' Appeal From Struck Class Claims Nixed INFINITE PRODUCT: Dasilva Sues Over Illegal Sale of CBD Products J&W GRADING: Brown, et al. Seek to Certify Class JETRO HOLDINGS: West Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data JUUL LABS: Frederick County Sues Over Underage Nicotine Addiction KINDER MORGAN: Oates Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for Inspectors KITCHEN UNITED: Wallace Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data LALAJA INC: Vazquez-Aguilar Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA LANNETT CO: Continues to Defend Price Fixing-Related Class Suit LANNETT CO: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Feb. 7 LANNETT CO: Suit Over Drug Pricing Methodologies Ongoing LEGACY FIELD: Tipton Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA LINDT AND SPRUNGLI: Faces Desalvo ADA Suit in C.D. California MATCH GROUP: Appeal in Kim Class Action Pending MATCH GROUP: Bid to Appoint Lead Counsel in Crutchfield Pending MATCH GROUP: Bid to Stay Candelore Class Action Pending MDL 2543: Declaratory Judgment Bid in GM Ignition Switch Suit Nixed MERCK & CO: Faces Luttrell Suit Over Sale of Defective Zostavax MERIT MEDICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action MIDLAND CREDIT: Cogley Sues Over Fair Debt Collection Act Breach MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Grants Bid to Stay Class Certification MOJITO CLUB: Valdes FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending NCB MANAGEMENT: Collection Practices Violate FDCPA, Rowley Says NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits NOHO HEALTH: Fischler Sues Over Web Site Inaccessible by Blind NVR, INC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Smith Suit NYC TAXI: Vicente Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL OFFICE DEPOT: Andrews Privacy Invasion Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ON THE BARRELHEAD: Soldevilla Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ONTO INNOVATION: Class Suits Related to Rudolph Merger Dismissed OUT-LOOK SAFETY: McMillian Seeks Unpaid Prevailing and OT Wages P&S SELECT: Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Chacon Suit PARK HOTELS & RESORT: Suits over Chesapeake Lodging Merger Closed PHILADELPHIA, PA: Newsome Sues Over Bias Against Nursing Officers PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Court Consolidates 3 Securities Fraud Suits PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Certification of Class & Subclasses Sought PROTEON THERAPEUTICS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action QUALCOMM INC: Makes Case for Trimming Size of Patent Fees Suit QUORUM HEALTH: Accord in Della-Maggiora Suit Awaits Approval QUORUM HEALTH: Discovery Still Ongoing in Zwick Partners Class Suit RAY STONE: Faces Otis Employees Suit in California Superior Court SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Swearingen Sues Over Sale of Defective Zantac SAREN RESTAURANTS: Pelka Sues Over Unlawful Use Biometric Data SC ENVIRONMENTAL: Unger, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces Police Retirement System of St. Louis Suit SCIENTIFIC GAMES: SciPlay Faces Good Class Suit in Nevada SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: March 2020 Standing Trial in Anderson Suit SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Trial in Baker Suit Set for Feb. 18 SEIU LOCAL 1000: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Hamidi Suit SIRIUS XM: Nazario Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls SMC CORP: Palomar Seeks to Recover Illegally Deducted Wages SPARK THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Gomez Suit over Roche Deal SPECIALIZED LOAN: Joseph Sues Over Improper Debt Collection STANDARD INDUSTRIES: Imburgia Sues Over False Master Elite Scheme STOVER DIAGNOSTICS: Bid for Conditional Certification Withdrawn STOVER DIAGNOSTICS: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Class TANDY LEATHER: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Class Action TEGNA INC: Bid to Dismiss Clay Massey Suit over Ad Rates Pending TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Spinney Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Opioids TEXARKANA BEHAVIORAL: Withrow Seeks Overtime Wages for Nurses TRANS UNION: Tanaka Sues in Hawaii Alleging Violation of FCRA U.S. SUGAR: Faces Class Suit Over Sugar Field Burns in Poor Towns UNITED SERVICES: Undervalues "Total Loss" Vehicles, Ruby Alleges UNITED STATES: Young Balks at Mich. Medicaid's Work Requirements UNITI GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Alerts of Class Action UNITI GROUP: Safadi Putative Class Action Suit Ongoing UNO RESTAURANT: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Claims USA: Denial of Writ of Habeas Corpus in Aguilar ICE Suit Endorsed WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Court Tosses Motion for Class Certification WHITE STONE: Faces Phelps Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts WILL COUNTY, IL: Walsh, et al. Seek to Certify Class X FINANCIAL: Faces Ningappa Securities Suit Over IPO Price Drop ZARA USA: Fouts Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data ZERO OTTO: Hoxha Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ZILLOW GROUP: Bid for Class Cert. in Consolidated Suit Pending ********* 12TH MAN FOUNDATION: Class Action Status OK'd in Kyle Field Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Barron, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that a state district judge in Newton County has approved class action status for a lawsuit filed by former Texas A&M students against the fund-raising 12th Man Foundation, the latest development in a long-running dispute over the university's seating policies at remodeled, expanded Kyle Field. The decision by State District Judge Delinda Gibbs Walker, in a 52-page opinion signed Tuesday, certified a class of several hundred longtime A&M endowed donors to join as plaintiffs in a 2017 lawsuit filed by Nathan Hines of Newton, who says the foundation deprived him and others of ticketing and parking rights promised when they made endowment agreements with the 12th Man Foundation in the 1980s and '90s. At issue could be up to 400 or more endowment agreements that could involve as many as a thousand seats at Kyle Field, which was expanded to 102,733 seats as part of a $480 million project completed in 2015. Gibbs Walker, who presided over a Sept. 26 hearing on the request for class action certification, said the A&M donors meet each of the requirements set down by state law for class certification. The class, the judge said, would include "all owners and beneficiaries of a Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation Permanently Endowed Scholarship Program Agreement who have not settled and released their claim (against the foundation) for the imposition of additional charges or fees for home and away football game seating benefits and home football parking benefits, and/or for the (diminishment) of those benefits." Hines' lawsuit, initially filed in December 2017, alleges breach of contract and other violations by the foundation and its directors. The plaintiffs seek either to have what they believe are their proper seat and parking locations at Kyle Field restored or, as an alternative, damages, costs and fees in excess of a million dollars. Hines, a 1980 A&M graduate, is among several dozen donors who filed lawsuits against the foundation since 2011 over seating and/or parking issues as A&M has expanded Kyle Field and moved from the Big 12 into the Southeastern Conference. The endowments, attorneys claim, were critical factors for a financially challenged A&M athletic department in the 1980s and '90s. As the department's finances have improved, however, the 12th Man Foundation has steadily moved to renege on its promises to longtime donors, attorneys claim. "Although 'an Aggie does not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do,' the foundation reneged on the promises made to endowment owners," said a statement attributed to attorneys Bill Cobb of Austin, Scott McQuarrie of Porter and Blair Bisbey of Newton. "It did so by reselling their coveted parking locations and, later, their 'lifetime seat locations' that foundation documents show they had been promised, to the 'next generation' of big donors in order to fund Kyle Field renovations." While awaiting trial on the lawsuit, attorneys said, plaintiff Hines "retains hope that the foundation will heed the Aggie Code of Honor, acknowledge and correct its mistake and voluntarily do right by the endowment owners." Gibbs Walker ordered the foundation to provide to Hines' attorneys the names and mailing information to potential class members, including notifications in A&M former student publications of the pending lawsuit. No date has been set for a trial in the matter. A spokesman for the 12th Man Foundation did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment on the ruling. Gibbs Walker, however, acknowledged in her order the possibility of an appeal by the foundation. Attorneys claimed in the original lawsuit that 12th Man Foundation officials began in 2004 to downgrade parking rights granted to longtime donors in favor of requirements that would bring money from new donors. That effort culminated, they said, in the reseating campaign associated with the stadium's expansion. "The drive for money displaced honor," the lawsuit said. ". . . The Foundation decided it was more profitable to break oral agreements than it was to honor them." [GN] 3B INSPECTION: Tipton Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay for Inspectors ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMY TIPTON, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. 3B INSPECTION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01003-P (N.D. Tex., Nov. 27, 2019), alleges that the Defendant required Ms. Tipton and other inspectors to work more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime compensation. According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers throughout the United States as exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The FLSA Class Members are all current and former inspectors, and all employees in substantially similar positions, that worked at any time during the three-year period before the filing of this Complaint nationwide that were paid on a day rate. The New Mexico Class Members all current and former inspectors, and all employees in substantially similar positions, that worked at any time during the three-year period before the filing of the Complaint in New Mexico that were paid on a day rate. 3B Inspection provides inspection services to the oil and gas industries. Specifically, Defendant provides inspection of full pipeline systems, and related entities, including process plants, pump and compressor stations, terminals, and tanks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com AC SQUARE: Cal. App. Partly Affirms Judgments in Sneddon Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MICHAEL SNEDDON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AC SQUARE, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. A153076 (Cal. App.), Judge James Richman of the Court of Appeals of California for the First District, Division Two, affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's judgments in favor of Sneddon and Trejo but against only AC Square. Respondent Ghaneh was the sole owner of Respondent AC Square, a company that installed internet, telephone, and television services for Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC. In June 2007, a wage-and-hour class action was filed against AC Square, Ghaneh, and Comcast on behalf of cable technicians employed by AC Square. Sixty-four class members, including Appellants Sneddon and Trejo, opted out of the class and in October 2010, filed a separate action against AC Square, Ghaneh, and Comcast, asserting various causes of action for unpaid wages, violations of the Labor Code and local ordinances, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiffs were represented by Daniel Berko, who represents Sneddon and Trejo on appeal. In 2011 and 2012, numerous Plaintiffs settled their claims against the Defendants, leaving by October 2013, only 40 Plaintiffs remaining, including Sneddon and Trejo. Sneddon and Trejo settled their claims against the Respondents, but when AC Square failed to pay them what they were owed under the settlement, they sought to hold Ghaneh personally liable for the settlement amounts. On Aug. 8, 2017, separate judgments were entered in favor of Sneddon and Trejo. The trial court found Ghaneh was not personally liable under the terms of the settlement agreements. Sneddon provided that judgment be entered in his favor in the amount of $10,000 plus $3,573.57 in interest; Trejo's, in the amount of $22,712.00 plus $7,699.26 in interest. Because the court had previously ruled that judgment be entered against AC Square, but not against Ghaneh, the judgments were entered "against AC Square," which had ceased doing business, with Sneddon and Trejo to taking "nothing against Afshin Ghaneh." The appeal followed. Sneddon and Trejo appealed, arguing that Ghaneh is in fact jointly liable under the terms of the settlement agreements. Judge Richman finds that trial court erred in finding Ghaneh is not personally liable to Sneddon. The genesis of the trial court's error as to Sneddon was that it treated him differently than the 15 Plaintiffs when their settlement agreements were identical in terms of their incorporation of the 998 offer, on which the trial court relied to find Ghaneh personally liable to the 15 Plaintiffs. While the court spent six paragraphs detailing how the 998 offer created personal liability for Ghaneh as to the 15 Plaintiffs, it spent one paragraph summarily finding that Ghaneh is not personally liable to Sneddon and Trejo, disregarding as it did so that Sneddon's settlement agreement also incorporated the 998 offer. Because Sneddon's settlement agreement was identical to those of the 15 Plaintiffs in all material regards, he should have met with the same outcome as them, namely, a finding that Ghaneh is personally liable to him under the settlement agreement. However, Judge Richman finds that the trial court was correct in finding Ghaneh is not personally liable to Trejo. Paragraph 3 of his settlement agreement is substantively the same as Sneddon's and the 15 Plaintiffs', all providing that AC Square, on behalf of AC Square and Ghaneh, will pay the total amount due. This language does not create liability for Ghaneh since it means that AC Square will pay the settlement. Unfortunately for Trejo, and as he acknowledges, his settlement agreement does not incorporate the 998 offer -- which had long since expired when he settled his claim -- and thus lacks the language that is critical to Ghaneh's liability. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in finding that AC Square alone is liable for the settlement amount due Trejo, the Appeals Court states. Judge Richman reversed that the trial court's order that Ghaneh is not personally liable to Sneddon for the amount due under the settlement is reversed. Sneddon's judgment will be modified to reflect that judgment will be entered in his favor and against AC Square and Afshin Ghaneh. Judge Richman affirmed the judgment in favor of Trejo. Sneddon will recover his costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Appeals Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/BRoz4A from Leagle.com. ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Appointed as Lead Counsel --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07118 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2019), the Hon. Laura Taylor Swain granted Plaintiffs Robert Fulcher and Linda Rosi's motions for consolidation, Fulcher's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, and the motion for approval of Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, and denies Rosi's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel. All future filings shall be made under Docket Number 19-CV-7118. Aclaris Therapeutics Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that on July 30, 2019, plaintiff Linda Rosi filed a putative class action complaint captioned Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its executive officers. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose an alleged likelihood that regulators would scrutinize advertising materials related to ESKATA and find that the materials minimized the risks or overstated the efficacy of the product. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of Rosi and all other persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between May 8, 2018 and June 20, 2019. On September 9, 2019, an additional plaintiff, Robert Fulcher, filed a substantially identical putative class action complaint captioned Fulcher v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al., in the same court against the same Defendants. On September 30, 2019, Rosi and Fulcher each filed separate motions to consolidate the cases and to be appointed "lead plaintiff" for the putative class. On October 15, 2019, Rosi filed a "notice of non-opposition" to Fulcher's motion to consolidate cases and to serve as lead plaintiff. Defendants dispute plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company deals in identifying, developing, and commercialization of drugs and therapies to meet needs in dermatology, medical, and immunology sectors. Aclaris Therapeutics serves patients in the United States. The company is based in Wayne, Pennsylvania. AGRI STATS: Sued by Olean Wholesale for Fixing Prices of Turkey --------------------------------------------------------------- OLEAN WHOLESALE GROCERY COOPERATIVE, INC. and JOHN GROSS AND COMPANY, INC. v. AGRI STATS, INC., BUTTERBALL LLC, CARGILL, INC., CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, COOPER FARMS, INC., FARBEST FOODS, INC., FOSTER FARMS, LLC, FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, THE HILLSHIRE BRANDS COMPANY, HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION, HORMEL FOODS, LLC, HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC., KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, KRAFT FOODS GROUP BRANDS LLC, PERDUE FARMS, INC., PERDUE FOODS LLC, TYSON FOODS, INC., TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC. AND TYSON PREPARED FOODS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-08318 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought on behalf of those who purchased turkey directly from a defendant or co-conspirator in the United States beginning at least as early as January 1, 2010, through January 1, 2017, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. The Turkey Integrator Defendants are the leading suppliers of turkey in an industry with approximately $5 billion in annual commerce. The turkey industry is highly concentrated, with a small number of large producers in the United States controlling supply. The Defendants and their co-conspirators collectively control approximately 80 percent of the wholesale turkey market in the United States. According to the complaint, each one of the Defendants and co-conspirators entered into an agreement to exchange information through Agri Stats. Each Defendant's agreement to exchange information regarding turkey production is shown in the 2010 excerpt from an Agri Stats presentation that lists the participants in Agri Stats' turkey reports. The information exchange by the Defendant Integrators through Agri Stats is exactly the type of information exchange that the Supreme Court has recognized is likely to have anticompetitive effects under a rule of reason analysis. The Plaintiffs contend that the data is current and forward looking--which courts consistently hold has "the greatest potential for generating anticompetitive effects." The information contained in Agri Stats reports is specific to the turkey producers, including information on profits, prices, costs and production levels. The Plaintiffs add that none of the Agri Stats information was publicly available. Agri Stats is a subscription service, which required the Defendant Integrators to pay hefty fees over the Class Period--far in excess of any other pricing and production indices and to agree to volunteer their own data. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class paid artificially inflated prices for turkey during the Class Period, says the complaint. Such prices exceeded the amount they would have paid if the price for turkey had been determined by a competitive market. Thus, the Plaintiffs and class members were injured by the Defendants' agreement to exchange information through Agri Stats regarding the turkey market. Plaintiff Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. is a retailers' cooperative located in Olean, New York. Agri Stats is a company that provides secretive information exchange services to companies in a variety of agricultural sectors, including pork, chicken, and turkey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (708) 628-4949 Facsimile: (708) 628-4950 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com - and – Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. Rio S. Pierce, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com riop@hbsslaw.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Benjamin E. Shiftan, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 680 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 433-9000 Facsimile: (415) 433-9008 Email: bshiftan@pswlaw.com - and - Clifford H. Pearson, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Michael H. Pearson, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 Email: cpearson@pswlaw.com bpouya@pswlaw.com mpearson@pswlaw.com ALL-GREEN INC: Reyes Seeks OT Wages for H-2B Program Laborers ------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS MANUEL GONZALEZ REYES, OMAR GALLEGOS VELASCO, ANDRES DE JESUS LECHUGA CARRILLO, ERIC GALLEGOS VELASCO, ISRAEL DE JESUS LOPEZ VELASCO, JOSE MANUEL LOPEZ MARTINEZ, REGINO REYES LOPEZ, and GERARDO GONZALEZ ESPARZA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALL-GREEN INC., and NOEL STATON, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01103-PRW (W.D. Okla., Nov. 26, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated routinely worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, but were not paid overtime compensation for all of their overtime hours by Defendants. Under the H-2B Program, the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective were permitted entry into the United States as Laborers to provide general lawn care services, including lawn mowing and landscaping and Christmas light installation services on behalf of the Defendants for properties in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area. The Defendants paid them at an hourly rate in 2018 and then a "day rate" in 2019, violating the FLSA and the terms of the H-2B Temporary Non-Agricultural Worker Program between the Defendants and the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Plaintiffs contend. All-Green, Inc. is a locally owned, full service landscape management company serving northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan. Mr. Stanton is an owner and officer of All-Green Inc. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Taylor, Esq. THE OFFICES AT DEEP FORK CREEK 5613 N. Classen Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 286-1600 Facsimile: (405) 842-6132 ALLWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Sanchez Seeks OT Pay for Finish Carpenters ---------------------------------------------------------------- SALVADOR SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC. and GOTHAM DRYWALL INC. and NIALL ROONEY and JOHN FITZPATRICK, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10998 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 27, 2019), seeks to remedy the Defendants' violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff also brings the action under the Wage Theft Protection Act for the Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage rates. The Plaintiff and the collective class worked as finish carpenters at Allwood Construction Inc. and Gotham Drywall Inc., which are construction companies owned, controlled and operated by Niall Rooney and John Fitzpatrick, respectively. Allwood Construction is a building contractor. The company offers custom built homes and specialty commercial projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 Facsimile: (212) 233-9238 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Solis Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- EVA SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1–100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10181 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2019), arises from the Defendants' failure to provide rest breaks and meal periods, to provide adequate pay stubs, to reimburse for uniform-maintenance expenses, to maintain proper records, and to pay minimum and overtime wages under the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act. American Airlines employed the Plaintiff as an Airport Agent at LAX and at Ontario International Airport in the state of California. The Plaintiff contends that she and the other Affected Employees were not provided with all required wages under California law. American Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Ave. Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com - and - John P. Dorigan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. DORIGAN 600 Canterbury Lane Sagamore Hills, OH 44067 Telephone: (330) 748-4475 Facsimile: (330) 748-4475 E-mail: jpdorigan@aol.com AMERICAN FINANCE: Appeal in St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal from a court order dismissing the second amended complaint in the class action suit initiated by Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard remains pending. On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch and William M. Kahane. On February 23, 2018, the complaint was amended to, among other things, assert some claims on the plaintiff's own behalf and other claims on behalf of herself and other similarly situated shareholders of the Company as a class. On April 26, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the proxy materials used to solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the Company's 2017 annual meeting were materially incomplete and misleading. The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, as well as control person liability against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane under 20(a). It also asserts state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and abetting such breaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR Global and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission of the Company's advisory agreement (or severable portions thereof) which became effective when the Merger became effective, and a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the Company’s advisory agreement are void. The Company believes the second amended complaint is without merit and intends to defend vigorously. On June 22, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On August 1, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss. Defendants filed reply papers on August 22, 2018, and oral argument was held on September 26, 2018. On September 23, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motions and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal from that order. Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this time. American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York. AMERICAN FINANCE: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit pending before the the New York State Supreme Court. On October 26, 2018, Terry Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D. Kabnick. The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to which RCA shareholders acquired shares of the Company during the Merger contained materially incomplete and misleading information. The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act against Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla, and Ms. Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane under Section 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement. The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to defend vigorously. Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this time. On March 6, 2019, Susan Bracken, Michael P. Miller and Jamie Beckett, purported stockholders of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, on behalf of themselves and others who purchased shares of common stock through the Pre-Listing DRIP, against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D. Kabnick. The complaint alleges that the April and December 2016 registration statements pursuant to which class members purchased shares contained materially incomplete and misleading information. The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act against the Company, Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong and Perla, and Ms. Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane under Section 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and either rescission of the Company's sale of stock or rescissory damages. The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to defend vigorously. Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this time. On April 30, 2019, Lynda Callaway, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D. Kabnick. The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to which plaintiff and other class members acquired shares of the Company during the Merger contained materially incomplete and misleading information. The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act against the Company, Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla, and Ms. Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement. Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this time. On July 11, 2019, the New York State Supreme Court issued an order consolidating the three above-mentioned cases: Terry Hibbard, Bracken, and Callaway (the "Consolidated Cases"). The Court also stayed the Consolidated Cases pending a decision on the motions to dismiss in the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following the federal court's decision on the motions to dismiss in the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation, on October 24, 2019 plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each of the Consolidated Cases seeking substantially similar remedies from the same defendants. The Company has not yet responded to the amended complaints. American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York. AMERICAN FINANCE: Plaintiffs' Bid for Rehearing En Banc Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has denied plaintiffs' Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, in a Maryland class action suit. On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of Retail Centers of America, Inc. (RCA) filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland a putative class action lawsuit against RCA, the Company, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson, Edward G. Rendell (Weil, Michelson and Rendell, the "Director Defendants"), and AR Global, alleging violations of Sections 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by RCA and the Director Defendants, violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by AR Global and the Director Defendants, breaches of fiduciary duty by the Director Defendants, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by AR Global and the Company in connection with the negotiation of and proxy solicitation for a shareholder vote on what was at the time the proposed Merger and an amendment to RCA's charter. The complaint sought on behalf of the putative class rescission of the Merger, which was voted on and approved by RCA stockholders on February 13, 2017, and closed on February 16, 2017, together with unspecified rescissory damages, unspecified actual damages, and costs and disbursements of the action. RCA was sponsored and advised by affiliates of the Advisor. On April 26, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff, along with other stockholders of RCA, filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2017. The amended complaint named additional individuals and entities as defendants (David Gong, Stanley Perla, Lisa Kabnick, all of whom were independent directors of the Company at the time of the Merger ("Additional Director Defendants"), Nicholas Radesca, the Company's chief financial officer at the time of the Merger and RCA's advisor), added counts alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with the Registration Statement for the proposed merger, under Section 13(e) of the Exchange Act, and counts for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Company, RCA, the Director Defendants, the Additional Director Defendants and Nicholas Radesca deny wrongdoing and liability and intend to vigorously defend the action. On August 14, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 29, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint. On April 26, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order. On March 11, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint. On March 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was subsequently denied on April 9, 2019. Due to the stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonable possible losses are determinable at this time. No provisions for such losses have been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 2019 or 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York. AMERICAN HONDA: Rojas Breach of Contract Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Patrick Rojas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc., a California Corporation and Honda North America, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21721, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Nov. 27, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-10136-CAS-FFM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder. The suit involves breach of contract issues. The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company, Ltd. It was founded in 1959.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Crissman Harris, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON AND MASON LLP 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: scott@wbmllp.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON APC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Rachel L Soffin, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 South Gay Street Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP 633 West 5th Street Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 250-1800 Facsimile: (213) 250-7900 E-mail: eric.kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com AMERICAN INCOME: Violates FLSA Minimum Wage Rule, Patterson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Audra Patterson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE CO., and AARON BLAKE RALSTON, Case No. 4:19-cv-00918-KGB (E.D. Ark., Dec. 19, 2019), arises from the Defendants' willful violations of the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Upon hire, the Defendants required the Plaintiff and new hires to attend training. The initial training was scheduled during the first five days of Plaintiff's employment, for approximately five or six hours per day. The Plaintiff was not paid for their time spent in training, says the complaint. The Defendants classified the Plaintiff and insurance sales workers as independent contractors. Although the Plaintiff may have been classified as exempt from the FLSA for purposes of their regular sales duties, the Plaintiff was neither engaging in exempt duties nor earning commissions during the week they spent in training, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an insurance sales worker in January 2019. American Income Life Insurance Co. is an insurance company registered with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, with its statutory home office in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve Rauls, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com AMERICAN SALES: Ross Seeks Overtime Wages for Baggage Handlers -------------------------------------------------------------- Randolph Ross, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Sales and Management Organization, LLC d/b/a Eulen America, Defendant, Case No. 719967/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Nov. 26, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for baggage handler under the New York Minimum Wage Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff asserts that he and a class of other similarly situated current and former hourly employees, who worked for the Defendant are entitled to unpaid overtime wages from the Defendant for working more than 40 hours in a week and not being paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the regular rate for each and all such hours over 40 in a week. The Plaintiff also claims that they entitled to recover unpaid non-overtime/overtime wages, wage deductions, including accrued paid time, as well as maximum penalties, and compensation for not receiving notices and statements as required by NYLL. Mr. Ross was employed by the Defendant from in July 2012 to October 30, 2019. He was employed as a baggage handler performing all manual, physical and repetitive tasks within the capacity such as loading and unloading baggage and packages, throughout his workday. The Defendant was engaged in the business of providing baggage handling and wheelchair services to airlines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: 718 740-1000 Facsimile: 718 355-9668 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com AMNEAL PHARMA: Document Discovery in Generic Pricing Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, is proceeding to document discovery. Between March 2016 and January 2019, numerous complaints styled as antitrust class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (or end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") have been filed against manufacturers of generic digoxin, lidocaine/prilocaine, glyburide-metformin, and metronidazole, including Impax. The end-payor plaintiffs comprise Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund; Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund; Pipe Trade Services MN; Edward Carpinelli; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Nina Diamond; UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund; Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund; The City of Providence, Rhode Island; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund; United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust; Ottis McCrary; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Unite Here Health; Valerie Velardi; and Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc.; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.; César Castillo, Inc.; Ahold USA, Inc.; and FWK Holdings, L.L.C. The opt-out plaintiffs comprise The Kroger Co.; Albertsons Companies, LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P.; Humana Inc.; and United Healthcare Services, Inc. On April 6, 2017, the JPML ordered the consolidation of all civil actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2724). Consolidated class action complaints were filed on August 15, 2017 for each of the 18 drugs; Impax is named as a defendant in the 2 complaints respecting digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine. Impax also is a defendant in the class action complaint filed with the MDL court on June 22, 2018 by certain direct purchasers of glyburide-metformin and metronidazole. Each of the various complaints alleges a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for the particular drug products at issue. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On October 16, 2018, the Court denied Impax and its co-defendants' motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint. On February 15, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims brought by two classes of indirect purchasers in the digoxin action. The Court dismissed seven state law claims in the end-payor plaintiffs' complaint and six state law claims in the indirect reseller plaintiffs' complaint. Motions to dismiss the glyburide-metformin and metronidazole complaint, as well as 2 of the complaints filed by certain opt-out plaintiffs, were filed February 21, 2019. On March 11, 2019, the Court issued an order approving a stipulation withdrawing the direct purchaser plaintiffs' glyburide-metformin claims against Impax. Document discovery otherwise is proceeding. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Opana ER(R) Antitrust Litigation Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself against the claims in the Opana ER(R) Antitrust Litigation. From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints styled as class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (also known as end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") were filed against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and Impax. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise Value Drug Company and Meijer Inc. The end-payor plaintiffs comprise the Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Wisconsin Masons’ Health Care Fund; Massachusetts Bricklayers; Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund; Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Kim Mahaffay; and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund. The opt-out plaintiffs comprise Walgreen Co.; The Kroger Co.; Safeway, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P.; Albertson’s LLC; Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.; and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") ordered the pending class actions transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2580). (Actions subsequently filed in other jurisdictions also were transferred by the JPML to the N.D. Ill. to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings, and the District Court likewise has consolidated the opt-out plaintiffs' actions with the direct purchaser class actions for pretrial purposes.) In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Discovery, including expert discovery, is ongoing. On March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification and served opening expert reports. Defendants' oppositions to class certification and rebuttal expert reports were filed and served on August 29, 2019. No trial date has been scheduled. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement in Sergeants Suit Wins Initial Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court overseeing the case, Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC, et. al., has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the case as to the settling defendants (including the Company). In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis plc) and numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic versions of Forest's Namenda IR product. The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly purchased Namenda(R) IR or its generic equivalents in various states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants' allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims pending factual development or resolution of claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct purchasers (in which the Company is not a defendant). On September 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay, referred the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of supplemental, non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to be scheduled in 2019. The parties thereafter participated in supplemental discovery, as well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss briefing. On December 26, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims. On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs informed the Magistrate Judge that they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019. In June 2019, the Company reached a settlement with plaintiffs, subject to Court approval. On September 10, 2019, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the case as to the settling defendants (including the Company). The amount of the settlement is not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. ANGI HOMESERVICES: Bid to Dismiss Suit v. HomeAdvisor Inc. Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANGI Homeservices Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation, is pending. The cases Airquip, Inc. et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. l:16-cv-1849 and Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-1802, both filed in U.S. District Court in Colorado and consolidated under the caption In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation. This lawsuit alleges that the company's HomeAdvisor business engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service professionals who join its network, including charging them for substandard customer leads or failing to disclose certain charges. On September 25, 2019, the court issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion to file a consolidated amended complaint. On October 9, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain claims in the amended complaint. On December 30, 2019, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed by Defendant Craftjack, Inc. On the same date, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants C. David Venture Management, LLC and Venture Street, LLC. ANGI Homeservices said, "There have been no other material or otherwise noteworthy developments in this case since the filing of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2019. The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them." ANGI Homeservices Inc. operates a digital marketplace for home services, connecting millions of homeowners with home service professionals in North America and Europe. The company was formerly known as Halo TopCo, Inc. and changed its name to ANGI Homeservices Inc. in May 2017. ANGI Homeservices Inc. was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado. ANGI Homeservices Inc. is a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Pill Suit Over Acquisition by CD&R --------------------------------------------------------------- David Pill, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL INC., SAMUEL ZELL, LORD JAMES BLYTH, FREDERIC F. BRACE, LINDA WALKER BYNOE, ROBERT J. ECK, WILLIAM A. GALVIN, F. PHILIP HANDY, MELVYN N. KLEIN, JAMIE MOFFITT, GEORGE MUNOZ, SCOTT R. PEPPET, VALARIE L. SHEPPARD, WILLIAM S. SIMON, CHARLES M. SWOBODA, Case No. 1:19-cv-02301-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 19, 2019), is stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which CD&R Arrow Parent, LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of funds sponsored by Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC, will acquire Anixter. On October 30, 2019, Anixter's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an Initial Agreement and Plan of Merger with CD&R, a Delaware corporation, and CD&R Arrow Merger Sub, Inc., a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of CD&R. In accordance with the Initial Merger Agreement, at the effective time of the Proposed Transaction, Merger Sub will be merged with and into Anixter, leaving Anixter as the surviving company in the merger, a wholly-owned subsidiary of CD&R. Each share of Anixter common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time (other than those owned by CD&R, Anixter, Merger Sub, and stockholders who are entitled to demand and have properly demanded appraisal of such shares in accordance with Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law) will be automatically converted into the right to receive $81.00 in cash. The Initial Merger Agreement was amended on November 21, 2019, providing for the acquisition of the Company by CD&R at an increased price of $82.50 per share in cash. On December 4, 2019, Defendants filed a Proxy Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Proxy Statement omits certain material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders it false and misleading, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Plaintiff alleges. The Proxy Statement omits material information from both Centerview's and Wells Fargo Securities' Discounted Cash Flow Analyses. The Proxy Statement also omits material information in connection with Centerview's review of "publicly available Wall Street research analyst reports" in order to ascertain stock price targets for the Company's shares, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the owner of Anixter common stock. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction, unless the Proxy Statement is rectified; or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from Defendants' wrongdoing. The Defendants are a leading distributor of network and security solutions, electrical solutions, and utility power solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Carl L. Stine, Esq. Antoinette A. Adesanya, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com APPI MANAGEMENT: Guzman Seeks Overtime Pay for Painting Laborers ---------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD GUZMAN and EDGAR BONILLA, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.P.P.I. MANAGEMENT CORP., JOSEPH AUFIERO and THOMAS AUFIERO, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06751 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2019), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in violation of both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as painting laborers. The Plaintiffs allege that they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week but the Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record keeping requirements of the FLSA and the NYLL by failing to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by and wages paid to them. The Defendants are engaged in the painting contracting industry. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway, Ste. B Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com APPLE INC: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Periods, Trim Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JERICHO TRIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC.; and DOES 1 through 25 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01114556-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Nov. 26, 2019), alleges that the Defendants failed to provide compliant meal periods and rest periods, and failed to accurately itemize and report wages, hours and pay rates, in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by Apple, Inc. from 2013 to 2018. He regularly worked shifts of 5-8 hours throughout the course of his employment with Apple, Inc. Apple classified the Plaintiff and Class Members as "non-exempt" employees. The Plaintiff contends that Apple intentionally failed to implement a system to track, maintain, and record missed meal and/or rest breaks to pay meal and/or rest period premiums. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California. Apple designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Ste. 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Facsimile: (949) 209-0303 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com APPLE INC: Lerman et al. Seek to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as CHAIM LERMAN, ROSLYN WILLIAMS, and JAMES VORRASI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. APPLE INC., the Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-07381 (SJ) (LB) (E.D.N.Y.), Plaintiffs ask the Court for an Order: 1. certifying these classes: New York Class: "all individuals and entities in New York who currently own or have owned an iPhone 4s that was updated from iOS 7 or iOS 8 to iOS 9"; New Jersey Class: "all individuals and entities in New Jersey who currently own or have owned an iPhone 4s that was updated from iOS 7 or iOS 8 to iOS 9"; 2. appointing Chaim Lerman and Roslyn Williams as Class Representatives of the New York Class and James Vorrasi as Class Representative of the New Jersey Class; and 3. appointing Pomerantz LLP and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC as Class Counsel. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are: Michael Grunfeld, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Michael Grunfeldof, Esq. Villi Shteyn, 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 mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com vshteyn@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Shimon Yiftach, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-8209 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com shimony@bgandg.com AROTECH CORP: Riggle Suit Challenges Proposed Sale to Greenbriar ---------------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS RIGGLE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AROTECH CORPORATION, JON B. KUTLER, KENNETH W. CAPPELL, LAWRENCE F. HAGENBUCH, and JAMES J. QUINN, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13531-AJT-DRG (E.D. Mich., Nov. 27, 2019), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Arotech arising out of the Defendants' attempt to sell Arotech to Greenbriar Equity Group, L.P. through Argonaut Intermediate, Inc. and Argonaut Merger Sub, Inc. On September 23, 2019, the Company announced that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, by which the Company will be acquired by Greenbriar in a deal valued at $80.8 million. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Arotech stockholder will receive $3.00 in cash for each share of Arotech common stock they own. On October 23, 2019, Arotech filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy is materially deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material information regarding the Company insiders' potential conflicts of interest; the Company's financial projections; and the valuation analyses performed by the financial advisor of the Company, B. Riley FBR, Inc. Without the additional information the Proxy is materially misleading in violation of federal securities laws, the Plaintiff says. He adds that the Proxy is an essential link in accomplishing, and receiving stockholder approval for, the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from conducting the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material information discussed below is disclosed to the holders of the Company common stock, or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. The Plaintiff is and has been a continuous stockholder of Arotech. Arotech Corporation is a defense and security company engaged in two business areas: interactive simulation and mobile power systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com - and - Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 860-9158 Facsimile: (212) 214-0506 E-mail: raymond@bespc.com AVLON INDUSTRIES: Townsend Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- CANDICE D. TOWNSEND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVLON INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2019CH13791 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 27, 2019), seeks injunctive and equitable relief, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses resulting from the Defendant's violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, when employees first begin their jobs at Avlon, they are required to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication, instead of using only key fobs or other identification cards. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards-which can bec hanged or replaced if stolen or compromised-fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the BIPA, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, Avlon disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff worked for Avlon in Illinois through 2019. As an employee, Avlon required the Plaintiff to scan the Plaintiff's fingerprint so that it could use it as an authentication method to track time. Avlon subsequently stored the Plaintiff's fingerprint data in its databases. Avian is a creator and supplier of professional hair care maintenance and styling products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. Mara Baltabols, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com BABCOCK & WILCOX: Accord in Securities Suit Awaits Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in a consolidated stockholder class action suit awaits the court's final approval of settlement. On March 3, 2017 and March 13, 2017, the Company and certain of its former officers were named as defendants in two separate but largely identical complaints alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The two complaints were brought on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock between July 1, 2015 and February 28, 2017 and were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. During the second quarter of 2017, the Stockholder Litigation was consolidated into a single action and a lead plaintiff was selected by the Court. Through subsequent amendments, the putative class period was expanded to include investors who purchased shares between June 17, 2015 and August 9, 2017. The plaintiff in the Stockholder Litigation alleged fraud, misrepresentation and a course of conduct relating to certain projects undertaken by the Volund & Other Renewable segment, which, according to the plaintiff, had the effect of artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock. The plaintiff further alleged that stockholders were harmed when the Company later disclosed that it would incur losses on these projects. The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages. On November 13, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss ("MTD") in the Stockholder Litigation, and on December 28, 2017, plaintiff filed its opposition to the MTD. The federal trial court judge denied the MTD on February 8, 2018, which allowed the case to proceed. After engaging in some discovery, the parties held a mediation on December 14, 2018 to discuss possible settlement of the Stockholder Litigation. The parties did not successfully resolve the Stockholder Litigation at the December 14, 2018 mediation. Following a period of additional discovery, the parties held a second mediation on April 16, 2019. At the second mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Stockholder Litigation. The agreement require defendants to pay or cause to be paid $19.5 million into a settlement fund. The parties subsequently executed a stipulation of settlement and plaintiff's counsel submitted it to the Court for its preliminary approval. The Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement on August 12, 2019. The $19.5 million payment was subsequently made by certain of our insurance carriers. A final approval hearing is scheduled for December 16, 2019. Babcock & Wilcox said, "Within our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2019, the $19.5 million liability is recorded in other accrued liabilities and the $19.5 million insurance proceeds held in escrow are recorded in other current assets." Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., incorporated on January 13, 2015, is a technology-based provider of fossil and renewable power generation and environmental equipment that includes a suite of boiler products and environmental systems. The Company operates in three segments: Power, Renewable and Industrial. The company is based in Barberton, Ohio. BABCOCK & WILCOX: Kent Class Action Suit Voluntarily Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the putative class action suit entitled, Kent v. Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., et. al., No. 1:19-cv-01032-MN (D. Del.), has been voluntarily dismissed. On June 3, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company, the Board and Mr. Young in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint is captioned Kent v. Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., et. al., No. 1:19-cv-01032-MN (D. Del.). The complaint asserted, among other things, claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly disseminating a materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Equitization Transactions, which was filed with the SEC on May 13, 2019. The complaint sought an order rescinding the Equitization Transactions or, in the alternative, awarding monetary damages as well as other relief. On September 19, 2019, the Kent action was voluntarily dismissed as to the named plaintiff only. On October 7, 2019, the parties to the Kent action executed a definitive agreement pursuant to which the Company, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, agreed to pay Kent's counsel attorneys' fees and costs of $0.1 million. Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., incorporated on January 13, 2015, is a technology-based provider of fossil and renewable power generation and environmental equipment that includes a suite of boiler products and environmental systems. The Company operates in three segments: Power, Renewable and Industrial. The company is based in Barberton, Ohio. BEACH ENTERTAINMENT: Court Denies Dismissal of Hand TCPA Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Nanette Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied dismissal of J.T. HAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BEACH ENTERTAINMENT KC, LCC d/b/a SHARK BAR, THE CORDISH COMPANIES, INC., ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00668-NKL. (W.D. Mo.). Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Plaintiff and putative class members allegedly received text messages that they had not consented to from the Defendants advertising Shark Bar's products and services. Defendants Beach Entertainment KC, LCC d/b/a Shark Bar, Entertainment Consulting International, LLC, and the Cordish Companies, Inc., asserted that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and (6), for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Defendants Cordish and ECI moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, arguing the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them as non-resident entities. In response, Plaintiff assert that both ECI and Cordish have the requisite minimum contacts with Missouri to make personal jurisdiction proper, and that in the alternative, Shark Bar's contacts with Missouri can be imputed to them through an alter-ego or agency theory. As an initial matter, Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that ECI's and Cordish's alleged conduct giving rise to Plaintiff's cause of action falls within the Missouri long-arm statute, the Court notes. Plaintiff has alleged Defendants transact significant amounts of business within the District and provided evidence that ECI and Cordish maintain offices and officers or employees in Kansas City, and that ECI is registered as a foreign limited liability corporation with the state of Missouri and has executed an operating agreement with Shark Bar to provide marketing services. Moreover, Plaintiff has also made a prima facie showing that ECI has sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri, the Court finds. As to the nature, quality, and quantity of ECI's contacts with Missouri, Plaintiff has demonstrated a number of contacts between ECI and the state. At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff has satisfied the minimal burden of making a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction exists as to ECI. Thus, ECI's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied, the Court rules. As to Cordish, Plaintiff argues personal jurisdiction over Cordish is proper, because not only did they participate in the oversight, development, and use of the ATDS as well as creation of the data collection policy used to promote Missouri venues to Missouri customers, but Cordish also has a physical presence in the state through its executives, office, and ownership interests located here. At this stage, the Court must take Plaintiff's allegations as true to the extent they are uncontroverted by Defendants' affidavits. At this stage, the Court is required to resolve these factual conflicts in Plaintiff's favor. Cordish's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied, the Court rules. CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS Defendants assert that Plaintiff's second amended Complaint should be dismissed, because it is premised on an unconstitutional statutory framework. Specifically, Defendants contend that the government-debt exception, the government-speaker exception, and the non-profit exception each violate the First Amendment Free Speech Clause and Equal Protection. Defendants also contend the TCPA's definition of the term ATDS is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Finally, Defendants assert that the unconstitutional provisions are not severable from the TCPA, and therefore the entire statute should be struck down. First Amendment The First Amendment prevents Congress from enacting laws abridging the freedom of speech. It is well established that content-based laws those that target speech based on its communicative content are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests under strict scrutiny. ATDS Government-Debt Exemption In relevant part, the TCPA as modified by Congress' 2015 amendment provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to make a call using an ATDS to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call, unless such call is made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States. Defendants argue that on their face, the ATDS restrictions discriminate based on a call's content, i.e., a caller may use an ATDS to collect a government debt, but not, for example, to inform someone about a beneficial service or communicate with a customer. Defendants contend that these content-based restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny, that they fail strict scrutiny, and that they are not severable from the remainder of the statute. As a preliminary matter, the Government argues this court should consider severance prior to reaching the constitutionality of the government-debt exception to avoid unnecessary constitutional adjudication. They assert that the Court should first make a severability determination, and if the challenged provision is severable and severance would provide no relief, the Court may decline to determine the constitutionality of the government-debt exception. Therefore, the Court will first address the constitutionality of the government-debt exemption and then turn to severability. Whether the government-debt exception is content-based The Court agrees. On its face, the government-debt exception clearly applies only where the call was made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States. The only way to determine whether a call falls within this exemption is to examine whether the subject of the call was to collect a government debt. It is true that calls made pursuant to the government-debt exception may relate to the relationship between the federal government and a debtor. However, on its face, the statute does not limit the exemption on that basis. The provision explicitly limits its applicability to when the content of the call is for the purpose of collecting a government debt. Therefore, the government-debt exception is content-based and is subject to strict scrutiny. Whether the government-debt exception survives strict scrutiny The government-debt exception makes no attempt to accommodate privacy concerns, and the Government advances no justification for why calls pertaining to a debt owed to the government are any less of a nuisance or privacy invasion. It is precisely this underinclusivity that Defendants argue belies the Government's asserted interest. Therefore, even assuming residential privacy is a compelling interest, the government-debt exception does not further that interest. The government-debt exception is also not narrowly tailored to achieve its interest in privacy. A statute is narrowly tailored if it targets and eliminates no more than the exact source of the evil it seeks to remedy. The Government first focuses its argument on the ATDS restriction as a whole, asserting the autodialer restriction's prohibition on unwanted robocalls is narrowly tailored because it restricts a limited method of communication the use of certain technologies in placing calls and only without the consent of the called party, making it closely drawn to the unwanted intrusions it aims to prevent. However, this analysis does not incorporate the government-debt exception at issue here. The Government next asserts that the government-debt exception is limited by the fact that such calls would only be made to those who owe a debt to the federal government. However, the terms of the government-debt exemption are not so limited. The exemption states that the ATDS restriction does not apply to calls made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States. Therefore, the government-debt exception fails strict scrutiny, and the Court must now determine whether it is severable from the TCPA. Whether the government-debt exception is severable from the TCPA Defendants are correct that, as with all statutory amendments, Congress likely intended the ATDS restrictions to work in tandem with the exemptions. However, Congressional intent that a statute's provisions function in harmony with subsequent amendments does not compel the conclusion that Congress intended those subsequent amendments to be unable to be severed. Given the general presumption in favor of severability, the apparent Congressional intent that the unconstitutional provision be severed, and the TCPA's demonstrated ability to be fully operative without the severed provision, the Court finds the government-debt exception is severable. Other courts have found the same. Therefore, Defendants' motion to dismiss on the ground that the government-debt exception is unconstitutional and unseverable is denied. ATDS Government-Speaker Exemption Having severed the government-debt exception, the Court considers Defendants' remaining arguments with respect to the ATDS restrictions. Defendants contend that the fact that the statute does not include government entities within the definition of person and the FCC's subsequent ruling that government agents communicating authorized' messages are also exempt indicates a content-based preference for government messages, regardless of the speaker's identity and independently triggers strict scrutiny. The TCPA provision prohibiting the use of ATDS applies to any person within the United States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States. The TCPA itself does not define person, but the Communications Act of 1932, which the TCPA amended, provides that the term person includes an individual, partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust or corporation. First, the ATDS restriction and its alleged government-speaker exemption can be justified without reference to the content of the speech. Congress has chosen to regulate the telemarketing practices that the record reflected were the most intrusive due to their unexpected and frequent nature. The record does not indicate calls from government sources were necessarily among the nuisance calls that consumers were concerned about. Moreover, the Government offers a broader justification as to why the government would be exempt. First, that the TCPA's definition does not explicitly include the federal government is not a speaker-preference but rather a reflection of its inherent sovereign immunity. Further, the Government argues that the Government is permitted to subject its own speech to differing requirements and it has never been thought to raise First Amendment concerns. The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech. A government entity has the right to speak for itself. It is entitled to say what it wishes, and to select the views it wants to express. The Government has justified the alleged exemption without reference to the content of the speech. Second, the Eighth Circuit has concluded residential privacy is a substantial governmental interest and the history of the TCPA indicates its goal in enacting the restrictions was to regulate intrusive, nuisance calls to consumers' homes from telemarketers. By targeting such telephone solicitations, Congress has narrowly tailored the restriction to this privacy interest. Therefore, even assuming ATDS restrictions do not apply to government entities, it is a valid time, place, and manner restriction on speech. Defendants' motion to dismiss on this ground is denied. Equal Protection Defendants also claim the TCPA violates the Equal Protection Clause, arguing Plaintiff cannot show the differential treatment of different types of speech survives equal protection scrutiny, because the Equal Protection Clause requires that statutes affecting First Amendment interests be narrowly tailored to their legitimate objective and for the same reasons stated above, the restrictions are not narrowly tailored to their intended interest. Because Defendants do not advance any new arguments with respect to the alleged equal protection violation and the Court has fully addressed their First Amendment claims above, it need not decide the issue. It is generally unnecessary to analyze laws which burden the exercise of First Amendment rights by a class of persons under the equal protection guarantee, because the substantive guarantees of the Amendment serve as the strongest protection against the limitation of these rights. Therefore, the Court does not decide the Equal Protection question. Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause Lastly, Defendants assert that the TCPA ATDS provisions are unconstitutionally vague because the ATDS definition fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence adequate notice of what constitutes an ATDS. The ATDS definition is not unconstitutionally vague. The statute uses common words that give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know the types of dialing systems the TCPA prohibits. When deciding whether a statute is unconstitutionally vague, common sense must not be and should not be suspended. A caller of ordinary intelligence is on notice that if they use a system that is storing or producing numbers using a random or sequential number generator, and then dialing those numbers, they may come within the scope of the statute's prohibition. That Congress may, without difficulty, have chosen clearer and more precise language equally capable of achieving the end which it sought does not mean that the statute which it in fact drafted is unconstitutionally vague. Defendants' motion to dismiss on vagueness grounds is denied. The motion to dismiss by Defendants is DENIED. A full-text copy of the Chancery Court's October 31, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx99r73u from Leagle.com J. T. Hand, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Schuyler R. Ufkes - sufkes@edelson.com - pro hac vice, William Charles Kenney , Bill Kenney Law Firm, LLC, 1101 Walnut Street, Suite 102, Kansas City, MO, 64106, Benjamin H. Richman -brichman@edelson.com - Edelson, pro hac vice, Brandt Silver-Korn - bsilverkorn@edelson.com - Edelson, pro hac vice, Eve-Lynn J. Rapp - erapp@edelson.com - Edelson PC, pro hac vice, Michael Ovca -movca@edelson.com - Edelson, pro hac vice & Sydney Janzen - sjanzen@edelson.com - Edelson, pro hac vice. Beach Entertainment KC, LLC, doing business as Shark Bar, Defendant, represented by David I. Zalman – dzalman@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, pro hac vice, Glenn T. Graham – ggraham@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, pro hac vice, Lauri Anne Mazzuchetti - lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, pro hac vice, W. James Foland – jfoland@fwpclaw.com - Foland Wickens Roper Hofer & Crawford, Whitney M. Smith – wsmith@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, pro hac vice & Jacqueline M. Sexton -jsexton@fwpclaw.com - Foland Wickens Roper Hofer & Crawford. The Cordish Companies, Inc. & Entertainment Consulting International, LLC, Defendants, represented by Jacqueline M. Sexton , Foland Wickens Roper Hofer & Crawford & W. James Foland , Foland Wickens Roper Hofer & Crawford. IT Nachos, LLC, Miscellaneous, represented by Patrick W. Skilliter - pskilliter@mslawgroup.com - Mac Murray & Shuster LLP, pro hac vice & Nathan R. Taylor , Taylor, Stafford, Clithero, & Harris, LLP, Ridgeview Business Center, 3315 East Ridgeview Street, Suite 1000, Springfield, MO 65804 United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Joshua Abbuhl , United States Department of Justice. BLUE APRON: Bailey Seeks to Certify 6 Classes in Unpaid Wages Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as TERRANCE BAILEY, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, vs. BLUE APRON, LLC; BLUE APRON, INC.; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-07000-VC (N.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 5, 2018), the Plaintiff will move the Court on April 9, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying these classes: Pre-Shift Unpaid Wages Class: "all hourly employees who worked for Blue Apron at its Richmond, California facility as production associates at an time from October 5, 2014 to the date the Court issues an order certifying the class who worked at least one shift during that time period"; Meal Period Unpaid Wages Class: "all hourly employees who worked for Blue Apron at its Richmond, California facility as production associates at any time from October 5, 2014 to the date the Court issues an order certifying the class who worked at least one shift in which a meal period was taken during that time period"; Meal Period Class: "all hourly employees who worked for Blue Apron at its Richmond, California facility as production associates at any time from October 5, 2014 to the date the Court issues an order certifying the class who worked at least one shift of over five hours"; Rest Period Class: "all hourly employees who worked for Blue Apron at its Richmond, California facility as production associates at any time from October 5, 2014 to the date the Court issues an order certifying the class who worked at least one shift over three and a half hours during that time period"; Wage Statement Subclass: "all hourly employees who worked for Blue Apron at its Richmond, California facility as production associates at any time from October 5, 2017 to the date the Court issues an order certifying the class who received at least one wage statement during that time period". Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: "all hourly employees who worked for Blue Apron at its Richmond, California facility as production associates at any time from October 5, 2016 to the date the Court issues and order certifying the class who terminated their employment or had their employment terminated within this period"; 2. appointing himself as Class Representative; 3. appointing his counsel, David Mara, and Jill Vecchi of Mara Law Firm, PC as Class Counsel; and 4. approving notice to the class. Blue Apron Inc. is an American ingredient-and-recipe meal kit service. It exclusively operates in the United States. The weekly boxes contain ingredients and also include suggested recipes that must be cooked by hand by the customer using the pre-ordered ingredients.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: David Mara, Esq. Jill Vecchi, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM, PC 2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 E-mail: dmara@maralawfirm.com jvecchi@maralawfirm.com BYTEDANCE LTD: TikTok Faces Class Action Over Child Privacy ----------------------------------------------------------- Chris Eggertsen, writing for Billboard, reports that with its legal woes continuing to mount, TikTok is in trouble once again over alleged child-privacy violations. Less than a year after the video-sharing app Musical.ly -- which was subsumed into TikTok in August 2018 -- reached a $5.7 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over alleged violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, a new class-action lawsuit filed against the company suggests that settlement didn't go far enough. "Defendants have not made whole the millions of consumers harmed by their unlawful conduct," the complaint reads. "Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this class action for relief." Filed on Dec. 3 in U.S. District Court in Illinois by plaintiffs T.K. (through her mother Sherri Leshore) and A.S. (through her mother Laura Lopez), the new complaint alleges that the Musical.ly app "surreptitiously tracked, collected, and disclosed" the personal information of minor children without their parents' or guardians' consent, selling their data to third-party advertisers while also opening them up to attacks by child sexual predators. The plaintiffs -- who estimate the size of the class affected by Musical.ly's alleged actions at six million U.S. users -- are asking for actual, statutory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Musical.ly (which was purchased by TikTok's parent company ByteDance for $1 billion in December 2017) failed to put appropriate safeguards in place to protect users under age 13, including failure to obtain parental consent before sharing minor children's personal information and making that information publicly available by default to other users on the app. They further allege that between December 2015 and October 2016, the app collected geolocation data, thereby enabling users to identify the location of other users, including children. "Because the App had virtually all privacy features disabled by default, there were serious ramifications, including reports of adults trying to contact minor children via the App," the complaint reads. Defendants named in the suit include ByteDance Technology, Musical.ly Inc., Musical.ly The Cayman Islands Corporation and TikTok Inc. A representative for TikTok did not respond to Billboard's request for comment by press time. The complaint notes that while defendants began advising parents to monitor their children's use of the app in October 2016, this guidance was "limited" and "mere 'window dressing.'" It further alleges the company knew all along that young children were using the app, noting that a total of 46 of Musical.ly's most popular users were under the age 13 as of February 2017. Moreover, they accuse the company of actually encouraging young children to sign up by, among other things, creating song folders labeled "Disney" and "school," leveraging entertainers popular with preteens and teens to promote the app and offering tools that made it easy for children to create and upload videos. (Under terms of the FTC settlement, TikTok was forced to remove all videos by users under the age of 13.) "For the reasons discussed herein, Defendants had actual knowledge they were collecting personally identifiable information and/or viewing data from children," the complaint continues. "The youth of the user base is easily apparent in perusing users' profile pictures and in reviewing users' profiles, many of which explicitly noted the child's age, birthdate, or school." The complaint includes a total of five counts, including violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act; Intrusion Upon Seclusion; violation of the California Constitutional Right to Privacy; violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The suit only adds to the current legal and regulatory headaches for TikTok, which is already under investigation by the U.K. Commissioner's Office over its use of children's data. In October, the National Music Publishers Assocation called on Congress to investigate the app over potential copyright theft, while last month reports indicated the company had become the subject of a national security review in the U.S. over concerns of censorship and counterintelligence by the Chinese government, where its parent company ByteDance is based. [GN] CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Court Denies Dismissal of Lepkowski Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Defendants' bid for dismissal of RACHEL LEPKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04598-YGR. (N.D. Cal.) -- in light of the filing of plaintiffs' amended complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 24, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3u55ack from Leagle.com Rachel Lepkowski, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Neal J. Deckant - ndeckant@bursor.com - Bursor & Fisher, P.A., L. Timothy Fisher - ltfisher@bursor.com - Bursor & Fisher P.A. & Scott Bursor - scott@bursor.com -Bursor & Fisher, P.A. CamelBak Products, LLC & CamelBak International, LLC, Defendants, represented by Todd Owen Maiden - tmaiden@reedsmith.com - Reed Smith LLP. CARDINAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Louisiana Sheriffs Fund Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cardinal Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund. In August 2019, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund filed a purported class action complaint against Cardinal Health and certain current and former officers and employees in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common shares between March 2015 and May 2018. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions related to the integration of the Cordis business and inventory and supply chain problems within the Cordis business, and seeks to recover unspecified damages and equitable relief for the alleged misstatements and omissions. Cardinal said, "We believe that the claims asserted in this complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them. Due to the early stage of this proceeding, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss or range of loss in this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services and products company in the United States and internationally. It provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ohio. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces Morgan Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry SPV I, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Theodore Morgan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Cavalry SPV I, LLC, and Blitt and Gaines, P.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07865 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sara L. Ellis. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cavalry Portfolio is a debt collection agency located in Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 726-6160 E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com - and - Celetha Chatman, Esq. Michael Jacob Wood, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Court Certifies Settlement Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MONIQUE RAQUEDAN, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-03828-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Hoh entered an order: 1. approving and certifying this class for purposes of Settlement: "all non-exempt employees of Centerplate who worked for Centerplate in the State of California at any time from May 24, 2013, to March 31, 26 2019, excluding those individuals who already have resolved all the claims asserted in the Action"; 2. finding that: -- opt outs for these Class Members are valid: Raymond Chestnut, Kirsten Clauveh, Jose Alfredo Vera, Daniel Schwartz, Sandra Barrera, and Carol Perrigo.' -- these Class Members did not intend to opt out of the Settlement: Susanna Wong, Anderson Penn, Christopher Moore, Hnin Lwin, David Bonilla, and Ming Run Xie. 3. appointing Ronald Martinez and Monique Raquedan as representatives for the Settlement Class; 4. appointing Setareh Law Group LLP as Class Counsel; 5. directing Defendant to pay Class Members a gross settlement amount of $5,450,000 pursuant to the procedure described in the Settlement Agreement. Defendant shall have no further liability for costs, expenses, interest, attorney's fees, or for any other charge, expense, or liability, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement; 6. approving $3,889,077.31 as reasonable recovery to the class: The figure was determined by subtracting Class Counsel Fees of $1,362,500; Class Counsel Costs of $25,922.69; Service Awards of 24 $10,000 for Named Plaintiffs Ronald Martinez and Monique Raquedan; PAGA penalties of 25 $112,500; and Administration Costs of $50,000 from the Maximum Settlement Amount of 26 $5,450,000. The Settlement Administrator estimated that there are "9,951 Class Members who will be paid their portion of the Net Settlement Fund." The Settlement Agreement did not require a claim form and did not provide for a reversion. Class Counsel's claimed lodestar is $685,008. However, the Court notes that Class Counsel's claimed lodestar includes unreasonable charges.; 7. allowing legal research costs of $199.12, and disallowing an additional $1,263.38 in requested costs because Class Counsel did not provide adequate documentation of those costs. 8. disallowing charges of $129.59 (dated December 14, 2018) and $62.00 (dated January 12, 2018) for “Thomas A. Segal” because there are no invoices or supporting documentation for these charges and Class Counsel's description of "Thomas A Segal" does not explain how these charges are related to this case. 9. disallowing a charge of $803.79 for "Proper SF Hotel San Francisco" on November 13, 2018, because Class Counsel did not explain this charge in the Supplemental Setareh Declaration in the section regarding hotel charges, and because Class Counsel did not submit any invoices or supporting documentation for this charge. 10. disallowing $803.79 charge for "Proper SF Hotel San Francisco"; 11. disallowing charge of $268.00 for "Barkley Court Reporters"; 12. awarding Class Counsel Setareh Law Group LLP a total of $1,362,500 in attorney's fees and $25,922.69 in costs and expenses; and 13. awarding Class Representative Incentive Awards of $5,000 to each of Plaintiffs Ronald Martinez and Monique Raquedan.[CC] CENTURYLINK INC: Agrees to Settle Sales Practices & Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company has agreed to settle the consolidated suit entitled, In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation, for payments of $15.5 million to compensate class members and of up to $3.5 million for administrative costs. In June 2017, a former employee filed an employment lawsuit against the company claiming that she was wrongfully terminated for alleging that the company charged some of its retail customers for products and services they did not authorize. Starting shortly thereafter and continuing since then, and based in part on the allegations made by the former employee, several legal proceedings have been filed. In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class action, was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the company charged some of its retail customers for products and services they did not authorize. A number of other complaints asserting similar claims have been filed in other federal and state courts, as well. The lawsuits assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Also in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the company failed to disclose material information regarding improper sales practices, and asserting federal securities law claims. A number of other cases asserting similar claims have also been filed. Beginning June 2017, the company also received several shareholder derivative demands addressing related topics. In August 2017, the Board of Directors formed a special litigation committee of outside directors to address the allegations of impropriety contained in the shareholder derivative demands. In April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its review of the derivative demands and declined to take further action. Since then, derivative cases were filed. Two of these cases, Castagna v. Post and Pinsly v. Post, were filed in Louisiana state court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita. The remaining derivative cases were filed in federal court in Louisiana and Minnesota. These cases have been brought on behalf of CenturyLink against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company and seek damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The consumer putative class actions, the securities investor putative class actions, and the federal derivative actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation. CenturyLink said, "Subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, we have agreed to settle the consumer putative class actions for payments of $15.5 million to compensate class members and of up to $3.5 million for administrative costs. We have accrued for those amounts." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana. CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al. CenturyLink and certain CenturyLink board members and officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink shareholders as a result of the transaction. It alleges that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3 shareholders failed to disclose material information of several kinds, including information about strategic revenue, customer loss rates, and customer account issues, among other items. The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory damages, and other equitable relief. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana. CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Litigation Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend Crago Order Routing Litigation. On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders through Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (CS&Co). The lawsuit names CS&Co and the company (CSC) as defendants and alleges that an agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co's duty to seek best execution. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion. Defendants have answered the complaint to deny all allegations, and are vigorously contesting the lawsuit. The Charles Schwab Corporation provides a variety of financial services to individual investors, independent investment managers, retirement plans, and institutions. The Company provides its clients with securities brokerage, banking, and related financial services through offices in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the United Kingdom. The company is based in San Francisco, California. CHECKR INC: Montanez Sues Over Improper Reporting Convictions ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE MONTANEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CHECKR, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-07776 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 26, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting records of convictions even after such convictions have been overturned and the persons, who are the subjects of the reports have been declared innocent. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff served 22 years in prison for a murder that he did not commit, before his conviction was overturned on appeal and he was formally granted a certificate of innocence by the Cook County, Illinois criminal courts. When the Plaintiff applied to be an Uber driver in September 2018, nearly two years after he was formally declared to be innocent, Checkr, Inc. sold a background report about him which inaccurately reported that he had plead guilty to murder and that the disposition of the case was a conviction, according to the complaint. Over 2,500 individuals nationwide have been formally exonerated of criminal convictions since 1989. Like him, many of these individuals continue to be haunted by their wrongful convictions as they move on with their lives and seek employment, because the Defendant continues to improperly report records of convictions on background reports for employment purposes, despite the fact that publicly available court records clearly demonstrate their innocence, Mr. Montanez asserts. Mr. Montanez argues that Checkr's practices cause substantial harm to consumers, who have been legally exonerated by prejudicing their employers and prospective employers with misleading and adverse criminal record information. As a result of Checkr's conduct, the Plaintiff suffered damages, including loss of employment opportunity, damage to reputation, embarrassment, humiliation, and other emotional and mental distress. Checkr is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts business in the State of California and which has a principal place of business in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erika A. Heath, Esq. DUCKWORTH & PETERS, LLP 369 Pine Street, Suite 410 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-0333 E-mail: erika@duckworthpeters.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq. WEINER & SAND LLC 800 Battery Ave., Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: 404.205.5029 Facsimile: 866.800.1482 E-mail: js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com CHESTNUT RUN: Fails to Timely Repay Security Deposits, Young Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARQUIA YOUNG, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHESTNUT RUN VILLAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. N19C-11-266 MMJ (Del. Super., Nov. 27, 2019), alleges that the Defendant willfully, unconscionably and unilaterally attempted to deny the Plaintiff and other Delaware renters with their legal rights pursuant to the Delaware Landlord Tenant Code by, among other things, not timely refunding security deposits. The Defendant has also breached the Deceptive Trade Practices Statute by committing a breach of contract against the Plaintiff and those similarly situated. According to the complaint, the Defendant systematically does not refund security deposits or provide damage letters to tenants within the prescribed time and does not maintain the tenant security deposit funds in a correct account as specified per Delaware Statute. On January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a Lease Agreement with the Defendant. On March 31, 2019, the Lease Agreement was terminated and possession of the unit was returned to the Defendant. On April 18, 2019, the Plaintiff e-mailed the Defendant to inquire about the return of the security deposit but received no immediate response. The Defendant did not refund Plaintiff's security deposit or provide a list of damages within 20 days per the Delaware Landlord Tenant Code, according to the complaint. The Defendant did not deposit or maintain the security deposit provided by the Plaintiff into an account as specified in the Delaware Landlord Tenant Code. The Defendant's misrepresentation concerning their exclusion of the Delaware Landlord Tenant Code due to their headquarters being located in Pennsylvania was false and misleading, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff was significantly harmed by Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated have been substantially harmed by this Defendant's failure to abide by Delaware law. Defendant has deprived the tenants of their right to be protected by the Delaware Landlord Tenant Code. The Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated are Delaware persons, who were tenants of Defendant and who had their security deposits not placed in a Delaware Bank and or upon expiration of their tenancies did not have the security deposit refunded or have a damages letter provided within the 20 day statutory framework as afforded by 25 Del. C. section 5514. The Defendant is the owner of the Property located at 9 Mary Ella Drive, Apt. B, Wilmington, Delaware (the Property). The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Matlusky, Esq. THE MATLUSKY FIRM, LLC 1423 North Harrison Street Wilmington, DE 19806 Telephone: (302) 658-4474 Facsimile: (302) 658-5130 COLONIAL COMPLIANCE: Wells Seeks OT Wages for Marine Consultants ---------------------------------------------------------------- IAIN WELLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLONIAL COMPLIANCE SYSTEMS, INC., a Georgia corporation, Defendant, Case 3:19-cv-07810 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 27, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and California law. According to the complaint, Colonial improperly classified Wells and other similarly situated workers as independent contractors and paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation. Mr. Wells worked for Colonial as a Marine Surveyor/Marine Consultant. He and the other workers like him regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each week. But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in single workweek, the lawsuit asserts. Colonial Compliance specializes in maritime International and U.S. regulatory requirements as well as technical and operational.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 340 S. Lemon Ave., No. 1228 Walnut, CA 91789 Telephone: 713 999 5228 Facsimile: 713 999 1187 E-mail: matt@parmet.law COMPASS GROUP: Jilek Contract Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as James Jilek, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Compass Group USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV38382, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Nov. 27, 2019. The suit arises from contract related issues. Compass Group retails prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption. The company offers catering, dining, and support services for foodservice events. Compass Group USA serves hotels, restaurants, education, and industrial sectors. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] Defendant Compass Group USA is represented by: Kathryn G Hummel, Esq. K AND L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-5000 Facsimile: (310) 552-5001 E-mail: kate.hummel@klgates.com CONCENTRA INC: Court Refuses to Stay Pascal Suit Pending FCC Order ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California refused to stay the case captioned LAWRENCE PASCAL, Plaintiff, v. CONCENTRA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02559-JCS, (N.D. Cal.) pending FCC guidance. Plaintiff Lawrence Pascal commenced the class action against Defendant Concentra, Inc. under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), asserting that Concentra has violated the TCPA by sending text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) without the consent of recipients. Presently before the District Court is Concentra's Motion to Stay Pending FCC Guidance, in which Concentra asks the Court to stay the case under the primary jurisdiction doctrine or its inherent authority because the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") may issue an order soon addressing what constitutes an ATDS under the TCPA. The TCPA makes it unlawful to call a cellular telephone number using an ATDS without the prior consent of the recipient. The statute defines an ATDS as equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator and (B) to dial such numbers. It also vests the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with the authority to implement the restrictions of the TCPA. Exercising that authority, the FCC has issued a series of orders that address what constitutes an ATDS, including most recently, an order issued in 2015 (2015 Order). The District Court, like the court in zor v. Abacus Data Sys., Inc., No. 19-CV-01057-HSG, 2019 WL 3555110, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2019), declines "to hold that the state of the law is so unclear that this case must await FCC guidance when the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly found otherwise." The primary jurisdiction doctrine does not justify a stay in the Pascal case, the District Court opines. Moreover, to determine whether a court should exercise its discretion to enter a stay under its inherent authority, the court considers the following three competing interests: (1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. The factors set forth above do not support a stay, Judge Spero finds. With respect to the first factor, there is a fair likelihood that Plaintiffs will be damaged because of the length of the stay, which is indeterminate. First, Concentra's argument as to the possibility that a future FCC order will be dispositive of Plaintiff's claim is not supported by any specific explanation of how the possible changes in the definition of an ATDS will be relevant to this case, the District Court holds. Second, the Supreme Court has made clear that only in rare circumstances will a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both. Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. Therefore, the District Court concludes that Concentra has not met its burden as to this factor. Finally, the District Court rejects Concentra's assertion that a stay will advance the orderly course of justice and be in the interest of judicial economy because the case might if the Court and the parties wait long enough go away when the FCC issues a new definition of ATDS. Far from advancing the orderly course of justice, a stay in this case would amount to ignoring binding Ninth Circuit authority on a mere possibility that the law may at some point change to Concentra's benefit. Consequently, entering a stay under the circumstances here would undermine the orderly course of justice. Accordingly, the District Court denied Concentra's Motion to Stay Pending FCC Guidance. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 24, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6edmoqc from Leagle.com Lawrence Pascal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Louis Javitch , Javitch Law Office, 480 S Ellsworth Ave., San Mateo, CA 94401 Concentra, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Esteban Morales Fabila , Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, 11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 400 Reston, Va 20190 CONTINENTAL BUILDING: Kent Challenges Sale to CertainTeed Gypsum ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Kent, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONTINENTAL BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., EDWARD BOSOWSKI, JAMES BACHMANN, MICHAEL KEOUGH, MICHAEL O. MOORE, IRA S. STRASSBERG, JACK SWEENY, and CHANTAL VEEVAETE, Case No. 1:19-cv-02303-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 19, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Continental will be acquired by CertainTeed Gypsum and Ceilings USA, Inc. and Cupertino Merger Sub, Inc. On November 12, 2019, Continental Building Products' Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Parent, Merger Sub, and Compagnie de Saint-Gobain S.A. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Continental Building Products' stockholders will receive $37.00 in cash for each share of Continental Building Products common stock they own. On December 11, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading, says the complaint. The Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the Company's financial projections. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate (a) Adjusted EBITDA and (b) Unlevered Free Cash Flow; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. The Proxy Statement also omits material information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. The Plaintiff is the owner of Continental Building Products common stock and needs proper information regarding the Proposed Transaction. Continental Building Products is a leading North American manufacturer of gypsum wallboard and complementary finishing products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com CORNWELL QUALITY: Salinas Wage and Hour Suit Moved to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cornwell Quality Tools Company removed the case captioned as RANDY SALINAS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CORNWELL QUALITY TOOLS COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RIC1905144 (Filed Oct. 10, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 27, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-02275 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to reimburse expenses, making unlawful deductions from wages, failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, and failing to pay wages. Cornwell Quality Tools, a privately held company, manufactures tools for the automotive and aviation industries. The company is based in Wadsworth, Ohio.[BN] Defendant Cornwell is represented by: Jared L. Bryan, Esq. Allyson S. Ascher, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 885-1360 Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 E-mail: jared.bryan@jacksonlewis.com allyson.ascher@jacksonlewis.com - and - Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: adam.siegel@jacksonlewis.com - and - Robert M. Gippin, Esq. RODERICK LINTON BELFANCE, LLP 50 S. Main Street, 10th Floor Akron, OH 44308-1828 Telephone: (330) 315-3400 Facsimile: (330) 434-9220 E-mail: rgippin@rlbllp.com CREDIT CORP: Faces Sloatman Suit Over Illegal & Unsolicited Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Sloatman, IV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-10739 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2019), arises from the Defendants' illegal actions in contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff challenges that Defendants' practice of recording calls to consumers without having first notifying the consumers or obtaining their consent to have the call recorded, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Company used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its daily call to the Plaintiff seeking to collect the debt allegedly owed by someone other than the Plaintiff. The calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes, says the complaint. On several occasions, the Plaintiff answered the Defendant's telephone call and informed an agent for the Defendant that: 1) the person who allegedly owed the debt in question cannot be reached on Plaintiff's telephone; 2) that the Defendant has an incorrect telephone number; and 3) that the Defendant must cease placing such calls to the Plaintiff. Despite receiving this information on numerous occasions, the Defendant continued to place frequent calls to him, says the Plaintiff. Credit Corp Solutions Inc. is a consumer debt collection company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com CRETE CARRIER: Court Grants Prelim. OK on Settlement in Prieto Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned YANELLE PRIETO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CRETE CARRIER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-60903-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla.), Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and classes of similarly situated persons, and Defendant Crete have agreed to settle the Action pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in an executed Settlement Agreement. The Parties reached the Settlement through arm's-length negotiations with the help of experienced mediator, David H. Lichter. Under the Settlement, subject to the terms and conditions therein and subject to Court approval, the Plaintiff and the proposed Settlement Class will fully, finally, and forever resolve, discharge, and release their claims. The Settlement has been filed with the Court, and the Plaintiff and the Class Counsel have filed the instant Motion. Upon considering the Motion, the Settlement and all related exhibits, the record in these proceedings, the representations and recommendations of counsel, and the requirements of law, Judge Bloom preliminarily approved the Settlement, together with all related exhibits, as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Judge Bloom therefore provisionally certified the following Settlement Class: all individuals residing in the United States (i) who were sent a text message, (ii) on his or her cellular telephone, (iii) using the Twilio/Portal platform, (iv) by or on behalf of Crete Carrier Corp. (Crete), (v) after he or she requested that Crete stop transmitting text messages, and (vi) that were sent in the four years prior to the date of the Agreement. Judge Bloom appointed (i) Plaintiff Yanelle Prieto as Class Representative; and (ii) Scott A. Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law, P.A., and Andrew J. Shamis of Shamis and Gentile, P.A., as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Judge approved the form and content of the Class notices. Epiq Systems, Inc., will serve as the Administrator. The Administrator will implement the Class Notice program, as set forth in the Settlement, using the Class notices approved by the Preliminary Approval Order. The Administrator will administer Mail Notice as set forth in the Settlement. The Administrator will establish a Settlement Website as a means for the Settlement Class members to obtain notice of, and information about, the Settlement. The Settlement Website will be established as soon as practicable following Preliminary Approval, but no later than before commencement of the Class Notice program. The Settlement Website will include an online portal to file Claim Forms, hyperlinks to the Settlement, the Long-Form Notice, the Preliminary Approval Order, and other such documents as Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant agree to include. These documents will remain on the Settlement Website until at least 60 days following the Claim Deadline. The Administrator is directed to perform all substantive responsibilities with respect to effectuating the Class Notice program, as set forth in the Settlement. A Final Approval Hearing will be held before the Court on Feb. 7, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. The Opt-Out Deadline is 30 days before the Final Approval Hearing. The Plaintiff and the Class Counsel will file their Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, Fee Application, and request for a Service Award for Plaintiff, no later than Dec. 23, 2019, which is 45 days before the Final Approval Hearing. They will file their responses to timely filed objections to the Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, the Fee Application, and/or the request for a Service Award for the Plaintiff no later than Jan. 23, 2020, which is 15 days before the Final Approval Hearing. All proceedings in the Action are stayed until further order of the Court, except as may be necessary to implement the terms of the Settlement. Based on the foregoing, the Court sets the following schedule for the Final Approval Hearing and the actions which must take place before and after it: a. Deadline for Completion of Mailed Notice - Jan. 7, 2020 (60 days after Preliminary Program Approval) b. Deadline for filing papers in support of Final Approval Hearing - Dec. 23, 2019 (45 days prior to the Final Approval of the Settlement and Class) c. Deadline for opting-out of Settlement and submission of objections - Jan. 8, 2020 (30 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing) d. Responses to Objections - Jan. 23, 2020 (15 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing) d. The Final Approval Hearing - Feb. 7, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. (Approximately 90 days after Preliminary Approval) e. The last day that Settlement Class members may submit a Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator - Feb. 22, 2020 (15 days after the Final Approval Hearing) A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/dSysmy from Leagle.com. Yanelle Prieto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Garrett O. Berg -- gberg@shamisgentile.com -- Shamis, Gentile, P.A., Jordan David Utanski -- utanski@edelsberglaw.com -- Scott Adam Edelsberg -- scott@edelsberglaw.com -- Edelsberg Law PA & Andrew John Shamis . Crete Carrier Corporation, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant, represented by Eve Alexis Cann -- ecann@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson & Nathan C. Chase, Jr. -- nchase@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson Bradshaw, pro hac vice. CURO GROUP: Robbins LLP Announces Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP announces that CURO Group Holdings, Corp. (NYSE: CURO) may face damages caused by a pending securities lawsuit. CURO is a diversified consumer finance company, provides consumer finance to a range of underbanked consumers. Shareholder Class Action Alleging CURO Group Holdings, Corp. (CURO) Made Materially False and Misleading Statements Survives Motion to Dismiss Investors filed a class action complaint against CURO for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the class action complaint, between July 31, 2018 and October 24, 2018, CURO consistently touted the ongoing success of transitioning its Canadian inventory products from Single-Pay Loans to Open-End Loans and reaffirmed its 2018 full-year financial guidance. Despite these positive assurances of the transition, on October 24, 2018, CURO shocked investors with disappointing results for the Company's third quarter, including Canadian revenue that had decreased by $4.4 million, provision for losses that had increased by $8.7 million, and an adjusted EBITDA that decreased by $15.36 million. As a result, CURO revised its 2018 full-year guidance to include adjusted net income in the range of $88 to $91 million compared to the previous range of $110-$116 million and an adjusted EBITDA in the range of $215 million to $218 million compared to its previous range of $245 to $255 million. On this news, CURO's stock price plummeted $7.69, or almost 34%, to close at $15.18 per share. On December 3, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge John W. Lungstrum denied CURO's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims, paving the way for litigation to proceed. CURO Group Holdings, Corp. (CURO) Shareholders Have Legal Options Contact us to learn more: Leo Kandinov (800) 350-6003 lkandinov@robbinsllp.com Shareholder Information Form Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. CONTACT: Leonid Kandinov, Esq. Robbins LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 Tel: (619) 525-3990 or Toll Free (800) 350-6003 Website: www.robbinsllp.com E-mail: lkandinov@robbinsllp.com [GN] DEALER FUNDING: Rivera-Santiago Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as ELIZABETH RIVERA-SANTIAGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. DEALER FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 181202695, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on Nov. 27, 2019. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-05651-PBT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Petrese B. Tucker. The suit involves personal property issues. Dealer Funding, a sub-prime auto finance company, provides secondary credit for dealerships in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cary L. Flitter, Esq. FLITTER MILZ, P.C. 450 N. Narberth Ave., Suite 101 Narberth, PA 19072 Telephone: (610) 822-0782 Facsimile: (610) 667-0552 E-mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Hyun Yoon, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Cira Centre 2929 Arch Street, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (215) 252-9537 Facsimile: (215) 867-6070 E-mail: Eric.Yoon@hklaw.com DELTA AIR: Sued by Foshee for Selling Customers' Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- Bonnie Foshee, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00612-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla., Dec. 19, 2019), seeks damages for breach of contract arising from the Defendant's illegal sale of its customers' personal information. Alternatively, the Plaintiff seeks restitution for unjust enrichment, remedies for bailment, as well as all remedies available under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, including declaratory and injunctive relief, actual damages in the amount of Delta's illegal profits from the sale of personal information, and attorneys' fees and costs. The lawsuit is a putative class action challenging the Defendant's breach of one of the fundamental promises it makes to its customers: "We do not sell your name or other personal information to third parties, and do not intend to do so in the future." The Plaintiff alleges that, Delta does, indeed, sell its customers' personal information to a third party for profit. From the time the Plaintiff paid for Delta airline tickets and travel insurance offered by AGA Service Company Corp. d/b/a Allianz Global Assistance until discussions with her counsel, she had no reason to suspect that Delta had sold her personal information to AGA for a profit. Contrary to Delta's express promise not to sell its customers' personal information, it does just that when, according to its own admission, "Delta is paid a marketing fee for allowing AGA to sell insurance to Delta customers." This "marketing fee," according to Delta, is "derived from the number of data sets transmitted" to AGA the Plaintiff and the Class provided Delta with sensitive personal and financial information, including, but not limited to, their full legal names, credit and debit card numbers, expiration dates, CVV codes, email addresses, and other personal information, in reliance on Delta's promise that it would not sell their information for profit. Delta breached that duty, and was unjustly enriched, by ignoring its own promises and selling the Plaintiff's and the Class' Personal Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Florida who used her credit card to purchase airline tickets from Delta through Delta's Web site, http://www.delta.com/. Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Christopher C. Gold, Esq. Bradley M. Beall, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561/750-3000 Fax: 561/750-3364 Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com cgold@rgrdlaw.com bbeall@rgrdlaw.com - and - Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq. Alec H. Shultz, Esq. John R. Byrne, Esq. Jeremy L. Kahn, Esq. LEÓN COSGROVE, LLP 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33134 Phone: 305/740-1975 Fax: 305/437-8158 Email: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com aschultz@leoncosgrove.com jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com jkahn@leoncosgrove.com DIXIE GROUP: Pays $1,528,000 in Garcia Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Dixie Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Company paid $1,528,000 as part of the settlement of the case, Carlos Garcia v. Fabrica International, Inc. et al. On November 16, 2018 the Superior Court of the State of California granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the matter of Carlos Garcia v. Fabrica International, Inc. et al Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2017-00949461-CU-OE-CXC. The court further approved the procedures for Settlement Class Members to opt-out of or object to the Settlement. The terms of the settlement provide that Fabrica, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, has agreed to pay $1,514,000 (the "Gross Settlement Amount") to fully resolve all claims in the Lawsuit, including payments to Settlement Class Members, Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses, settlement administration costs, and the Class Representative's Service Award. The amount of the proposed settlement was recorded during the quarter ended June 30, 2018. The deadline for class members to opt-out was February 1, 2019. The deadline for the plaintiff to file a motion for final approval of the class action settlement was March 29, 2019. The final fairness hearing took place on April 12, 2019 with final approval being granted. On October 28, 2019 payment was made in the amount of $1,528,000 previously approved court settlement. The Dixie Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells floor covering products for residential and commercial applications primarily in the United States. The company was founded in 1920 and is based in Dalton, Georgia. DOLE FOOD: Bid to Vacate 2013 Dismissal Order in Chaverri Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Andrea L. Rocanelli of the Superior Court of Delaware denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate the November 2013 Dismissal Order in the case captioned EDUARDO ALVARADO CHAVERRI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., etal., Defendants, C.A. No. N12C-06-017 ALR (Del. Super.). The Plaintiffs' claims arise from alleged exposure to the pesticide 1, 2, dibromo 3, chloropropane by persons employed on various banana farms throughout Central America, including Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Panama. Six years ago, the Court dismissed the case on grounds of forum non conveniens under Delaware's McWane Doctrine ("November 2013 Dismissal Order"). The basis for the dismissal of the action was that the claims made in the Delaware Superior Court had already been filed in in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. By the time the Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss at issue, the Louisiana District Court had already dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims on statute of limitations grounds and the U.S. of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had already affirmed the Louisiana District Court's dismissal on those grounds. The Delaware Supreme Court, sitting en banc, adopted the Superior Court's reasoning and affirmed the November 2013 Dismissal Order on Oct. 20, 2014. Accordingly, the lawsuit was dismissed because the Plaintiffs had first pursued their claims in another court even though the claims in that other court had already been dismissed. While the Delaware state-court litigation ended in 2014 in the Dow Chemical Corp. v. Blanco and Chaverri cases, the parties to the two actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware continue to litigate their claims to this day. Now, the Plaintiffs have moved to vacate the November 2013 Dismissal Order pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) on the basis that "three groundbreaking rulings" issued since the November 2013 Dismissal Order have so radically disrupted the legal foundations of the Court's November 2013 Dismissal Order that the dismissal can no longer stand. The first of these rulings is the Third Circuit's Decision in Chavez v. Dole. While a Third Circuit panel initially affirmed the District Court's decision, the en banc Third Circuit vacated the District Court's order on Sept. 2, 2016. The Third Circuit concluded that federal courts exercising discretion under the federal first-filed rule, in the vast majority of cases, should stay or transfer a second-filed suit. The Third Circuit therefore held that, based on the facts of the Chavez case and the federal law governing the federal first-filed rule, the District Court abused its discretion by dismissing the case with prejudice. The other two rulings are the two decisions in Marquinez v. Dole Food Co.: (i) the Delaware Supreme Court's tolling decision, and (ii) the Third Circuit adopting the Delaware Supreme Court's Opinion. On March 15, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court issued its answer to the Third Circuit's certified question, finding Delaware's statute of limitations continued to toll after the Texas District Court dismissed the Texas Federal Action in 1995. In reaching this conclusion, the court adopted the rule that cross-jurisdictional class action tolling ends only when a sister trial court has clearly, unambiguously, and finally denied class action status. It observed that this approach is consistent with the Blanco Decision's rationale of avoiding wasteful and duplicative litigation. The Third Circuit also issued the Plaintiffs' final so-called groundbreaking decision on May 29, 2018 -- seven months before the Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Vacate. First, the court adopted the Delaware Supreme Court's answer to the Third Circuit's certified question and vacated the Delaware District Court's Tolling Decision. Next, the court vacated the Delaware District Court's First-Filed Decision, citing its decision in Chavez and noting that the circumstances in Chavez were "materially identical" to those in the lower court's First-Filed Decision. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' Motion. In consideration of the three decisions issued in federal cases involving different plaintiffs allegedly affected by DBCP, Rocanelli finds that the Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed filing their Motion to Vacate and failed to set forth any extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The Plaintiffs waited up to two years and, at minimum, seven months to file their Motion, even though the Plaintiffs' Texas counsel also represented the plaintiffs in each of the federal cases the Plaintiffs cite. In addition, even if seven months did not constitute an unreasonable delay, the purported extraordinary circumstances to which the Plaintiffs point are decisions issued in federal cases, involving irrelevant and non-controlling law. Therefore, the Judge denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate. A full-text copy of the Superior Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/0cwjmh from Leagle.com. Andrew C. Dalton, Esquire -- adalton@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton & Associates, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Scott M. Hendler, Esquire , Hendler Flores, PLLC, Austin, Texas, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Somers S. Price, Jr., Esquire -- sprice@potteranderson.com -- Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Andrea Neuman, Esquire, Thomas Manakides, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Standard Fruit Company, and Standard Fruit and Steamship Company. Adam Orlacchio, Esquire -- orlacchio@blankrome.com -- Brandon McCune, Esquire -- bmccune@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendants Chiquita Brands International, Inc., Chiquita Brands, LLC, and Chiquita Fresh North America, LLC. Donald E. Reid, Esquire -- dreid@mnat.com -- Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Michael L. Brem, Esquire, Shirrmeister, Diaz-Arrastia, Brem, LLP, Houston, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Dow Chemical Company. Timothy Jay Houseal, Esquire -- thouseal@ycst.com -- Jennifer M. Kinkus, Esquire -- jkinkus@ycst.com -- William E. Gamgort, Esquire, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Occidental Chemical Corporation. John C. Phillips, Esquire, Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant AMVAC Chemical Corporation. Kelly E. Farnan, Esquire -- farnan@rlf.com -- Katharine L. Mowery, Esquire, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Craig Stanfield, King & Spalding, LLP, Houston, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Shell Oil Company. James Semple, Esquire -- jsemple@coochtaylor.com -- Cooch & Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc. DT CHICAGOLAND: McQueen Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark McQueen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. D.T. CHICAGOLAND EXPRESS, INC. d/b/a, CXI TRUCKING, Case No. 2019CH14669 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought against the Defendant to stop its unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class' sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised - biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data, in violation of BIPA, the Plaintiff alleges. Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate BIPA because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues not to: properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used, as required by BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; receive a written release from the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use their fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; and obtain consent from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information to a third party as required by BIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Illinois. Defendant CXI Trucking is an Illinois corporation with places of business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: 314-833-4825 Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com DXC TECHNOLOGY: Faces Palm Tran Securities Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- PALM TRAN, INC. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 1577 PENSION PLAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. DXC TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, RISHI VARMA, TIMOTHY C. STONESIFER, JEREMY K. COX, MUKESH AGHI, AMY E. ALVING, DAVID HERZOG, SACHIN LAWANDE, J. MICHAEL LAWRIE, JULIO A. PORTALATIN, PETER RUTLAND, MANOJ P. SINGH, MARGARET C. WHITMAN, ROBERT F. WOODS and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 49CV359073 (Cal. Super., Nov. 25, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing false and misleading representations in the registration statement filed in connection with the merger transaction that formed DXC. The case is a class action brought on behalf of all persons and entities that acquired DXC common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the April 2017 transaction by which HPE's Enterprise Services segment was spun off and merged with Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) to form DXC. In May 2016, HPE announced plans for a tax-free spin-off of its Enterprise Services operating unit, which was merged with and into CSC in a stock-for-stock transaction to form DXC, an end-to-end information technology services company. The combined company had been valued at over $20 billion. To secure shareholder support for the Merger, on November 2, 2016, DXC filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4 with the SEC, which, after several amendments, was declared effective on February 27, 2017. That same day, DXC filed a Prospectus for the Merger on Form 424B3, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement. The Registration Statement was used to solicit investors to purchase DXC shares and to convince CSC shareholders to vote in favor of the Merger, pursuant to which they would exchange their CSC shares for DXC shares. Key to the recommendation that shareholders approve the Merger was the representation in the Registration Statement that the combined Company would achieve $1 billion in synergies in its first year of operation through "workforce optimization," with a run rate of $1.5 billion by the end of year one. Other purported strategic benefits of the tie-up portrayed in the Registration Statement included DXC's increased sales, complementary market access and capabilities, and enhanced earnings and revenue growth. The Plaintiff alleges that the representations in the Registration Statement were materially false and misleading when made. Specifically, the Plaintiff says, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: -- the so-called "workforce optimization" necessitated crippling the Company's workforce infrastructure; -- DXC planned to lay off thousands on a destructively expeditious timeline, including the Company's most highly skilled and longest-tenured employees; -- the layoffs were designed to artificially inflate short-term earnings and revenues at the expense of the Company's long-term business prospects; -- behind the scenes, senior executives had voiced concerns that synergy targets would be unachievable without causing massive damage to the Company's customer relationships; and -- as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. On August 8, 2019, DXC issued a press release announcing its first quarter 2020 financial results. The Company again provided deeply disappointing financial results. The Company stated that diluted EPS for the quarter had declined 22% year over year to $0.61 and revised downward its already disappointing 2020 revenue targets by $500 million. By the commencement of this action, DXC stock was trading at less than $30 per share, a 50% decline from the price of DXC stock at the time of the Merger. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's stock, the Plaintiff asserts it and other members of the Class have suffered significant losses and damages. Palm Tran, Inc. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan acquired DXC shares directly in the Merger and pursuant and traceable to the Registration Statement for the Merger. HPE is an information technology company based in northern California. HPE offers a wide range of products and services, including computer hardware, software, data management, and financial and enterprise services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James I. Jaconette, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: 619 231-1058 Facsimile: 619 231-7423 E-mail: jamesj@rerdlaw.com bcochran@rerdlaw.com - and - Robert A. Sugarman, Esq. Pedro A. Herrera, Esq. SUGARMAN & SUSSKIND, P.A. 100 Miracle Mile, Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: 305 529-2801 Facsimile: 305 447-8115 E-mail: sugarman@sugarmansusskind.com pherrera@sugarmansusskind.com E-TRADE SECURITIES: Rupnow Balks at Charging of Hidden Interests ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA RUPNOW, PETER SZOSTAK, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. E-TRADE SECURITIES, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10942 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2019), is brought on behalf of customers of eTrade, who were charged undisclosed interest on short sales of "hard-to-borrow" securities between November 26, 2013, and October 15, 2019, alleging breach of contract. Pursuant to the contract between securities broker-dealer eTrade, and its brokerage customers (the "Agreement"), eTrade promises to disclose prior to executing a short sale an indicative interest rate for the short sale of hard-to-borrow securities in the preview trade window. In violation of its express contractual obligation, eTrade did not, until October 15, 2019, disclose that the security being shorted was hard-to-borrow, and did not disclose before the trade was placed, what the estimated interest rate would be, the Plaintiffs allege. As customers discover only after placing the trade, the interest rate in many instances is shockingly high, the Plaintiffs say. When annualized, the rates have at times exceeded hundreds of percent. The charged interest is automatically deducted from customer accounts, and is much higher than the fee schedule that eTrade makes available online to its customers, which is what customers agree to pay, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiffs and the Class members were damaged by having extra-contractual interest taken directly from their brokerage accounts. The Plaintiffs and the Class seek relief on behalf of all eTrade customers in the United States who were charged interest on hard-to-borrow securities, but who did not receive an estimated interest rate prior to the trade being executed, in breach of an express contractual provision. The Plaintiffs have investment account on the Defendant's platform. eTrade is an online-focused broker-dealer and has over 30 brick-and-mortar locations across the United States. It also offers other financial products and services including online banking.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrei V. Rado, Esq. Kent Bronson, Esq. MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1920 New York, NY 10119-0165 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Facsimile: (212) 868-1229 E-mail: arado@milberg.com kbronson@milberg.com - and - Scott Silver, Esq. SILVER LAW GROUP 11780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL Telephone: (954) 755-4799 Facsimile: (954) 755-4684 E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com EDWARD JONES: 2nd Amended Securities Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in IN RE EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:18-cv-00714-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal.). In March 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a federal securities and state breach of fiduciary duty putative class action against investment firm Edward Jones, as well as a set of companies and individuals related to the investment firm. The Plaintiffs contend the Defendants improperly moved their Edward Jones commission-based accounts into fee-based accounts. They allege this account conversion violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; and state common law. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The Court granted their motion, dismissing all of the Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice. The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), in which they attempted to cure their claims' deficiencies and raised several new claims. Once again, the Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims under California and Missouri state law remain preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA"). Judge Mendez agrees. For the same reasons articulated in the Court's first dismissal order, SLUSA bars the Plaintiffs' state law fiduciary duty class claims. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims under California and Missouri Law (Counts I and II). The Judge finds amendment to these claims is futile and dismissed them with prejudice. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint introduces new breach of contract claims. However, they fail to show these allegations are not likewise premised on misstatements or omissions, the Court notes. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's contract claims are repackaged versions of the Rule 10b-5 claims, because they assert false promises or promissory fraud. While the does not agree that the breach of contract claims repackage the Plaintiffs' specific securities claims, the Judge does find that these claims repackage the elements of a security claim, generally. By the Plaintiffs' own terms, these newly-raised breach of contract claims rests upon the old idea that the Defendants misrepresented what they were promising. The Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims undeniably coincide with a securities transaction, since they allege the Defendants' breach was partly due to them not placing its "clients' interests first" and "profiting at client expense." The Judge therefore finds SLUSA also bars the Plaintiffs' state law breach of contract claims. He finds amending these claims is futile and dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint also added an unjust enrichment claim. They contend this claim rests upon the same allegations supporting their breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties claims. The Judge finds the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions are a factual predicate of this claim. Accordingly, SLUSA bars this claim and deprives the Court of jurisdiction. The claim is thus dismissed with prejudice. The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' 10b-5(b) claims, since they failed to allege the prima facie elements of these claims. The Plaintiffs reassert their Rule 10b-5(b) claims in the Second Amended Complaint. The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs have once again failed to satisfy the heightened pleading standards applicable to their 10b-5(b) claims. The Judge agrees. The Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any element in their Rule 10b-5(b) claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and PSLRA. He therefore dismisses these claims with prejudice. The Plaintiffs also attempt to revive their 10b-5(a) and (c) claim, this time alleging the Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud by converting their assets from commission-based accounts into fee-based ones without first conducting a suitability analysis and by not providing financial advisors with a computer system containing suitability analysis tools. The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs fail to add anything beyond their 10b-5(b) claim and fail to allege adequate particularized factual allegations suggesting the Defendants committed a manipulative or deceptive act. Judge Mendez agrees. He finds that the Defendants conducted a suitability analysis; they simply did not conduct one through the computer program the Plaintiffs endorse. Their failure to conduct a suitability analysis through a non-existent computer program did not have the principal purpose and effect of creating a false appearance. The Judge further finds Pthe laintiffs have failed to properly allege the standard elements of a 10(b) violation: reliance, scienter, and loss causation. He therefore dismisses the Plaintiffs' scheme liability claim under Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) (Count VII) with prejudice. To establish a cause of action under Section 20(a), the Plaintiff must first prove a primary violation of underlying federal securities laws, such as Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5, and then show that the Defendant exercised actual power over the primary violator. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a primary violation under Section 10(b). Their Section 20(a) control person claim (Count VIII) therefore fails and is dismissed with prejudice. Finally, in their Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs raised Investment Adviser Act claims for the first time. The Defendants argue these claims fail as a matter of law. Rather than respond to this argument in their Opposition to the Motion, the Plaintiffs withdrew these claims in a one sentence footnote. Judge Mendez treats a failure to respond to an argument as a concession. The Judge therefore dismisses these claims with prejudice. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mendez granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/hfMlKZ from Leagle.com. Edward Anderson, Raymond Keith Corum, Jesse Worthington & Colleen Worthington, Plaintiffs, represented by Ivy T. Ngo -- ngoi@fdazar.com -- Franklin D. Azar and Associates, P.C., Brian Hanlin -- HanlinB@fdazar.com -- Franklin D. Azar and Associates, P.C., pro hac vice, Franklin D. Azar, Franklin D. Azar and Associates, PC, 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014, pro hac vice, Joshua E. Moyer -- moyerj@fdazar.com -- Franklin D. Azar & Associates, Michael D. Murphy, III, Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC, 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014, pro hac vice & John Randolph Garner -- john@garner-associates.com -- Garner & Associates. Janet Goral, Plaintiff, represented by Ivy T. Ngo, Franklin D. Azar and Associates, P.C., Joshua E. Moyer, Franklin D. Azar & Associates & Michael D. Murphy, III, Franklin D. Azar & Associates, PC, pro hac vice. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., The Jones Financial Companies, LLLP, EDJ Holding Company, Inc., James D. Weddle, Penelope Pennington, Daniel J. Timm, Kenneth R. Cella, Jr., Brett A. Campbell, Kevin D. Bastien, Norman L. Eaker, Vincent J. Ferrari, Timothy J. Kirley, James A. Tricarico, Jr., Olive Street Investment Advisors, LLC, Passport Holdings, LLC & Passport Research, LTD., Defendants, represented by Alexander Kosta Mircheff -- amircheff@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Meryl Lyn Young -- myoung@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Julie LeAnn Taylor -- julie.taylor@kyl.com -- Keesal, Young & Logan. ELDORADO RESORTS: Continues to Defend Elberts Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Eldorado Resorts, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Elberts v. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-18230-SRC-CLW. On September 23, 2019, the Company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and captioned as Elberts v. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-18230-SRC-CLW. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the Company made material misstatements and/or omissions during the period from March 1, 2019 through September 2, 2019. The allegations relate to the subpoenas that certain of the Company's directors and officers received from the SEC, which have been previously disclosed in the proxy statement/prospectus filed by the Company relating to the pending transaction with Caesars. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the Company's securities during the period from March 1, 2019 through September 2, 2019. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., a Nevada corporation, is a gaming and hospitality company that owns and operates gaming facilities located in Ohio, Louisiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The Company's primary source of revenue is generated by its gaming operations, but the Company uses its hotels, restaurants, bars, entertainment, racing, retail shops and other services to attract customers to its properties. ELDORADO RESORTS: Faces 8 Caesars Merger-Related Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Eldorado Resorts, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that as of November 6, 2019, eight putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the Company's merger with Caesars Entertainment Corporation (Caesars). On June 24, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 15, 2019, and as it may be further amended from time to time, the "Merger Agreement") with Caesars pursuant to which a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company will merge with and into Caesars, with Caesars surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger"). The Company has been named as a party in three of such actions: Stein v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01656, United States District Court for the District of Delaware (9/5/2019), Romaniuk v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al, Civil Action No 1:19-cv-17871, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (9/11/2019), and Biasi v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-08547, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (9/13/2019). In general, the complaints assert claims under sections 14(a), 20(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 challenging the adequacy of certain disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection with the Merger. In addition, one of the complaints, in which the Company has not been named a party, alleges state law breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Caesars directors. The complaints seek, among other relief, an injunction preventing consummation of the Merger, damages in the event that the Merger is consummated and attorneys' fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., a Nevada corporation, is a gaming and hospitality company that owns and operates gaming facilities located in Ohio, Louisiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The Company's primary source of revenue is generated by its gaming operations, but the Company uses its hotels, restaurants, bars, entertainment, racing, retail shops and other services to attract customers to its properties. EXPRESS ENERGY: Smith Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB SMITH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. EXPRESS ENERGY SERVICES OPERATING, LP, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-04636 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 26, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from Express Energy under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendant violated the FLSA by employing the Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than 40 hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [hey are or were employed, the Plaintiff contends. Jacob Smith resides in Midland, Texas, and has been employed by the Defendant within the last three years. The Defendant has been employed Smith as a floor hand from February 2019 to the present at their Odessa location. Express Energy is an oilfield services company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 FABRICATION AND MAINTENANCE: Solenberg Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dewayne Solenberg, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. FABRICATION and MAINTENANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-01048-A (N.D. Tex., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and other workers like him regularly worked for FMS in excess of 40 hours each week, but these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, according to the complaint. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, FMS improperly classified the Plaintiff and those similarly situated as independent contractors, and these workers received an hourly rate for each hour worked without overtime compensation. The Plaintiff received the same hourly rate regardless of whether the time they worked was less than 40 hours or more than 40 hours during the workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiff Solenberg worked for FMS as a Mechanic/Field Technician. FMS provides equipment rebuilds and field service support to the oil and gas industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Stoy, Esq. HUTCHINSON & STOY 505 Pecan Street, Suite 101 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817) 820-0100 Email: cesservice@hsjustice.com - and - Lewis B. Gardner, Esq. Robert W. Frankhouser, Esq. GARDNER FRANKHOUSER, LLP 7418 Brighton Road, Suite 211 Pittsburgh, PA 15202 Phone: (412) 903-7720 Email: lgardner@gfemploymentlaw.com rfrankhouser@gfemploymentlaw.com FIAT CHRYSLER: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (NYSE: FCAU) from February 26, 2016 and November 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Fiat investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Fiat class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1732.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fiat employed a bribery scheme to obtain favorable terms in its collective bargaining agreement with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America; (2) high-ranking Fiat officials were aware of and authorized the scheme; and (3) due to the foregoing, defendants' statements about Fiat's receivables, business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 31, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1732.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] FRESH FARMS: Yarger Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danyale Yarger, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. FRESH FARMS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02767 (D. Kan., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought for damages resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, which violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placed unsolicited automated text messages to the Plaintiff's and the putative class members' cellular phone in violation of the TCPA. The Defendant has violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system to bombard consumers' mobile phones with non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without prior express written consent as is required under the law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual, who resided in Goodland, Kansas. Fresh Farms is a wholesaler that, according to its Web site, delivers fruit and vegetables to customers nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq. Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq. BOULWARE LAW LLC 1600 Genessee, Suite 416 Kansas City, MO 64102 Tele/Fax: (816) 492-2826 Email: brandon@boulware-law.com jeremy@boulware-law.com GABRIEL BROTHERS: Skaggs Seeks OT Pay for Assistant Managers ------------------------------------------------------------ DEBORAH SKAGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GABRIEL BROTHERS, INC. d/b/a GABE'S, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02032-JPW (M.D. Pa., Nov. 26, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and all relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are current and former "Assistant Managers" ("Ams"), who work (or worked) at any of the Defendant's stores in the United States of America during the relevant time period. They seek to recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the FLSA and PMWA. Although Gabe's considers its AMs to be "managers," AMs are not responsible for true management functions. To the contrary, AMs spend the vast majority of their time performing the same duties as non-exempt employees, including helping customers, ringing up customers on the cash register, unloading trucks, processing freight, moving merchandise, taking orders, and cleaning the store, the lawsuit says. Gabe's systematic failure and refusal to pay the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated AMs for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek violates the FLSA and PMWA, according to the complaint. Ms. Skaggs resides in Hanover, Pennsylvania (York County). Between August 2014 and March 2017, she was employed by Gabe's as an AM at a store in York, Pennsylvania (York County). Gabe's owns and operates more than 100 stores throughout the United States. The Company's Web site is at https://www.gabesstores.com/about-gabes/.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL, LLC 1700 Market Street, Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 278-4782 Facsimile: (215) 278-4807 E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com GATE GOURMET: Stokes Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics --------------------------------------------------------------- LASHAUNE STOKES, ANTHONY RAY and ANTHONY DOUGHTY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GATE GOURMET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH13755 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 27, 2019), seeks to redress and curtail the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiffs' sensitive biometric data, in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant enrolled employees, including the Plaintiffs, in an employee database maintained by Defendant to monitor the time worked by hourly employees. While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked or accessing a building (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), the Defendant has its employees scan their fingerprints on a biometric timekeeping device to clock in and out. Within the applicable time period, Defendant also had its employee scan their handprints on a biometric device for building access. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--fingerprints and handprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. The Plaintiffs are long-time employees, who have worked for Defendant in the state of Illinois. The Plaintiffs contend they have continuously and repeatedly been exposed to the risks and harmful conditions created by the Defendant's alleged violations of BIPA. Gate Gourmet is a Swiss airline catering company with a location in Schiller Park, Illinois. Gate Gourmet caters to American Airlines and Aer Lingus at O'Hare Airport.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312 233 1550 Facsimile: 312 233 1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com GODADDY INC: Settlement in Bennett Suit Awaits Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- GoDaddy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the settlement in the class action suit entitled, Jason Bennett v. GoDaddy.com, still awaits court approval. On June 13, 2019, the company entered into an agreement in principle to settle the class action complaint, Jason Bennett v. GoDaddy.com (Case No. 2:16-cv-03908-DLR)(U.S.D.C.)(D.AZ), filed on June 20, 2016. The complaint alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. On September 23, 2019, the parties fully executed a written settlement agreement, which is still subject to Court approval. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company would make available a total of up to $35.0 million to pay: (i) class members, at their election, either a cash settlement or a credit to be used for future purchases of products from the company, (ii) an incentive payment to the class representative, (iii) notice and administration costs in connection with the settlement, and (iv) attorneys' fees to legal counsel representing the class. GoDaddy said, "If approved, we would receive a full release from the settlement class (other than from those class members who timely elect to opt out of the settlement) concerning the claims asserted, or that could have been asserted, with respect to the claims released in the settlement agreement." During the three months ended June 30, 2019, the company recorded an estimated loss provision of $18.1 million to general and administrative expense, which represents its best estimate of the total settlement costs, inclusive of attorneys' fees to be paid to legal counsel representing the class in connection with the settlement agreement. The company made no changes to its estimated loss accrual during the three months ended September 30, 2019. The company's legal fees associated with this matter have been recorded to general and administrative expense as incurred and were not material. GoDaddy said, "We have denied and continue to deny the allegations in the complaint. Nothing in the settlement agreement shall be deemed to assign or reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability, or of the appropriateness of a class action in such litigation." * * * In an Oct. 3, 2019 order, Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver granted the case parties' motion to stay the proceedings. The hearing set for Oct. 4, 2019, is vacated and this case is stayed pending further Order by the Court. The parties have been directed to seek clarification from the Southern District of Alabama whether it believes transfer of this case would be appropriate. The parties shall file a statement in this Court within three days of learning whether the Southern District of Alabama believes transfer is appropriate. If this case has not been transferred to the Southern District of Alabama as of March 6, 2020, the parties shall file a joint status report on that date. GoDaddy Inc., incorporated on May 28, 2014, is a technology provider to small businesses, Web design professionals and individuals. The Company delivers cloud-based products and personalized customer care. The Company operates a domain marketplace, where its customers can find the digital real estate that matches their idea. The company is based in Scottsdale, Arizona. GOOGLE LLC: Lefkowitz ADA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Google LLC removed the case captioned as YISROEL LEFKOWITZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 523387/2019 (Filed Oct. 25, 2019), from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Nov. 29, 2019. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-06739 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims against Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. for alleged violations of Title III of the American with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that he is legally blind and that Gmail and Chrome are inaccessible to individuals with vision impairments. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief; injunctive relief; compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; fines; and attorneys' fees, expert fees, and costs. Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Mountain View, California. It was created through a corporate restructuring of Google on October 2, 2015, and became the parent company of Google and several former Google subsidiaries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Balisok, Esq. BALISOK & KAUFMAN, PLLC 251 Troy Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11213 E-mail: Joseph@LawBalisok.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael F. Fleming, Esq. Stephanie Schuster, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178-0060 Telephone: (212) 309-6000 Facsimile: (212) 309-6001 E-mail: michael.fleming@morganlewis.com stephanie.schuster@morganlewis.com HEAVY MATERIALS: Fixes Price of Ready-Mix Concrete, St. Rose Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- John St. Rose, Monrose Loctar, and Derrick James, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Heavy Materials, LLC, Spartan Concrete Products, LLC, and Warren Mosler, Case No. 3:19-cv-00117 (D.V.I., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought for treble damages and injunctive relief under the antitrust laws, including the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Virgin Islands Anti-Monopoly Law. The Defendants and their co-conspirators entered into and engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by territorially dividing the U.S. Virgin Islands' markets for ready-mix concrete and agreeing not to compete. This combination and conspiracy was per se unlawful, the Plaintiffs allege. As a result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants and their co-conspirators, the Plaintiffs and other members of the Class paid artificially inflated prices for ready-mix concrete and suffered financial injury. The Plaintiffs seek the protection of the Court, on their behalf and on behalf of the Class, to recoup overpayments and all lawful damages associated with Defendants' unlawful conduct in the U.S. Virgin Islands, including statutory penalties, treble damages, and punitive damages, according to proof. The Plaintiffs are citizens of the U.S. Virgin Islands and reside on St. Croix. Heavy Materials, LLC is a limited liability company registered in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and doing business in the Territory.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Korey A. Nelson, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 799-2845 Email: knelson@burnscharest.com mhenry@burnscharest.com - and - J. Russell B. Pate, Esq. THE PATE LAW FIRM P.O. Box 890, St. Thomas, USVI 00804 Phone: (340) 777-7283 Cellular: (340) 690-7283 Facsimile: (888) 889-1132 Email: pate@sunlawvi.com SunLawVI@gmail.com HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend S.D.N.Y. Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Hecla Mining Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 24, 2019, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Hecla and certain of the company's executive officers, one of whom is also a director. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common stock from March 19, 2018 through and including May 8, 2019, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority and control of the individual defendants, made certain material false and misleading statements and omitted certain material information regarding Hecla’s Nevada Operations unit. The complaint alleges that these misstatements and omissions artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors. A second suit was filed on June 19, 2019, alleging virtually identical claims. Hecla Mining said, "We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously." Hecla Mining Company, together with its subsidiaries, discovers, acquires, develops, and produces precious and base metal properties worldwide. The company offers lead, zinc, and bulk flotation concentrates to custom smelters and brokers; and unrefined gold and silver bullion bars to precious metals traders. Hecla Mining Company was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. HERITAGE INC: Zarrabi Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Stolen Tips ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEON ZARRABI, Plaintiff v. OCTAVIAN JURJ and BRITTANY JURJ, individuals; HERITAGE, INC., an Oregon corporation; and TILT 1 LLC, TILT 2 LLC, and TILT 3 LLC, Oregon limited liability companies, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01946-IM (D. Ore., Nov. 29, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, stolen tips, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and prejudgment interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. According to the complaint, TILT failed to pay the applicable Oregon minimum wage to its employees for their hours worked. This included paying the old minimum wage rate for all hours in a pay period during which the statutory minimum wage rate rose, when some of the pay period fell within the new higher minimum-wage rate. By collecting all tips and gratuities of all employees for the purpose of redistributing them, the Defendants became the bailor, fiduciary, and trustee of those funds, holding them in trust for the proper recipients. Further, the Defendants have a statutory duty to keep personnel files, and to track employees' time and pay records, and to produce such records to employees upon demand, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to a full accounting of the tips and gratuities received and/or paid out by the Defendants, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff and the class and collective members are employees of TILT, which are similarly situated in all relevant respects. Octavian Jurj and Brittany Jurj own and operate Heritage, Inc., Tilt 1 LLC, Tilt 2 LLC, and Tilt 3 LLC. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon M. Egan, Esq. JON M. EGAN, PC 547 Fifth Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 Telephone: (503) 697-3427 Facsimile: (866) 311-5629 E-mail: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com IMPAX LABORATORIES: Williams' Appeal From Struck Class Claims Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned EMIELOU WILLIAMS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. A155479 (Cal. App.), Judge James M. Humes of the Court of Appeals of California for the First District, Division One, dismissed Williams' appeal from the trial court's second order that struck her class allegations. Williams filed a class complaint against her former employer, Impax, alleging violations of Labor Code provisions governing wages and hours. Williams stopped working for Impax in December 2013. Almost four years later, in August 2017, she filed her original complaint, which alleged one cause of action under the unfair competition law. The cause of action identified nine types of unlawful business practices in which Impax allegedly engaged, including failing to pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods, and pay minimum wages. Williams brought the complaint on behalf of herself and a similarly situated class, proposed to consist of all individuals employed by Impax at any time during the previous four years. Impax filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint, including the class allegations. It argued that Williams was not an adequate class representative because the statute of limitations on her personal claims had already run and she therefore could not assert the types of claims reasonably expected to be raised by other members of the class -- direct claims for penalties under the Labor Code, including under the Private Attorneys General Act. In December 2017, the trial court granted Impax's motion to strike the class allegations, ruling that Williams was not an adequate class representative. The court granted Williams leave to amend the complaint to add another named Plaintiff, but instead of doing so Williams filed an amended complaint reiterating the stricken class allegations. Relying on its prior order, the court again struck those allegations. Williams now appeals from the second order, claiming the trial court erred by concluding she is not an adequate class representative. Williams also claims the order must be reversed because the court thwarted her from pursuing discovery of the class list, which she needed to name another class representative. Judge Humes holds that because the December 2017 order was appealable under the death knell doctrine and Williams did not appeal it, it necessarily follows that WIlliams is foreclosed from now attacking the dismissal of her class allegations. Since death knell orders are immediately appealable, a plaintiff who does not appeal a death knell order is precluded from attacking it in the future. Even if the September 2018 order were otherwise appealable, at this point, Williams can no longer challenge the disposition of the class allegations in the December 2017 order, which is now final. Judge Humes also concludes that the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Williams' claim related to her failure to obtain discovery of the class list. Williams contends that the trial court's refusal to allow her to bring a motion to compel is memorialized in the September 2018 order. Assuming, without deciding, that this characterization is correct, the Judge agrees with her that this ruling was not a separate, nonappealable "discovery order" and that her notice of appeal is not defective for failing to specify it separately. But she does not argue that the ruling is independently appealable, as opposed to reviewable in the context of our consideration of the ruling on Impax's motion to strike. Thus, because the Court does not have jurisdiction over the September 2018 order to the extent it struck the first amended complaint's class allegations, it also does not have jurisdiction over it to the extent it effectively denied Williams discovery of the class list. Finally, Williams asks in the alternative that the Court construes the appeal as a petition for an extraordinary writ. Williams identifies no similar circumstances. She claims only that writ review is appropriate if we conclude that an order sustaining a demurrer with leave to amend class claims is immediately appealable, since there would be conflicting case law on this point. Williams cites other decisions that have granted writ relief in the face of conflicts in the law, but they involved petitioners who sought writ review in the first instance. Thus, those decisions did not involve the issue whether to construe an appeal as a writ petition. In his view, the Judge finds that more is required than just a colorable dispute about an order's appealability to create unusual circumstances justifying the exercise of our discretion to treat an appeal as a writ petition. Accordingly, Judge Humes dismissed the appeal. The Respondent is awarded its costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Appeals Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/jAZDMy from Leagle.com. Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC, Jill J. Parker , Lawyers for Justice, PC, Counsel for Plaintiff and Appellant. Steven B. Katz -- skatz@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP, Barbara I. Antonucci -- bantonucci@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP, Philip J. Smith -- psmith@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP, Aaron M. Rutschman -- arutschman@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP, Counsel for Defendant and Respondent. INFINITE PRODUCT: Dasilva Sues Over Illegal Sale of CBD Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM DASILVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INFINITE PRODUCT COMPANY LLC, d/b/a Infinite CBD, a Colorado limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-10148 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 27, 2019), seeks to halt the Defendant's unlawful sale and marketing of its products containing cannabidiol. The CBD Products include "Absolute Zero 99% + CBD Isolate," "Freezing Point CBD Topical Cream," "Afterglow Healing Oil 100 mg CBD Total," "Nano Enhancer Pure Nano CBD," "Nano Freezing Point CBD Topical Cream," "Asteroid Gummies," "Sour Asteroid Gummies," "Sweetened Dropper," "Isolate Dropper", and "Nano Non Dairy Creamer." The CBD (cannabidiol) Product market is a multibillion-dollar business enterprise that is lucrative for its market participants and is expected to further expand into a $16 billion-dollar industry by 2025. All of the Products are promoted as products containing cannabidiol (CBD), for personal use and not for resale. The Defendant's Products, however, are illegal to sell, the Plaintiff alleges. On November 22, 2019, the United States Food & Drug Administration sent the Defendant a Warning Letter discussing numerous violations of the Products, including: Unapproved New Drugs, Misbranded Drugs, Adulterated Human Foods, Unapproved New Animal Drugs, and Adultered Animal Foods. All of these violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act make the Products illegal to sell, the Plaintiff says. According to the complaint, the Defendant breached the express warranties by selling the Products that do not and cannot provide the promised benefits. The Plaintiff and the Class Members would not have purchased the Products had they known the true nature of the Products' ingredients and benefits and what the Products contained. The Defendant's multiple and prominent systematic mislabeling of the Products form a pattern of unlawful and unfair business practices that harms the public, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff contends he and each of the Class members suffered injury caused by the false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and misleading practices, and seek compensatory damages, statutory damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells the CBD Products throughout the United States, including in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-238-1700 E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com klaukaitis@kohnswift.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 1644 Bracken Rd. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: 313 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: 865-247-0080 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com J&W GRADING: Brown, et al. Seek to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as Michael Brown, Jr., Nathan Cole, Aaron Floyd, Brandon Horton, Eric Moore, Gregory Seal, John Wilterding, Manny Rivera, Richard Padilla, Dan Vischansky, Neal Nida, Brent Reed, Kevin Shofner, Shaun Stockton, Michael Wade Yearby, Kyran Adams, Cody Piper, John Gable, Donna Turbville, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. J&W Grading, Inc., Migo IQ, Inc., Radar Apps, Inc., ECO IQ LLC, Cloud IQ, LLC, Synergy LLC, Mojo Transport, LLC, Ronnie Guthrie, Jonathon Kotthoff, Carol Leese, Jason Neilitz; Ivelisse Estrada Rivero; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01263-WGY-MBB (D.P.R.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all individuals from all over the United States who traveled to Puerto Rico at Defendants' behest to assist in debris clean- up after Hurricane Maria." The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants doing debris clean-up in Puerto Rico for twelve weeks, at least six days per week for an average of 10-14 hours per day. A subclass of Plaintiffs owned equipment that Defendants shipped to Puerto Rico and used in the debris clean-up.[CC] JETRO HOLDINGS: West Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WEST, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. JETRO HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH13681 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 25, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class' sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Illinois. While doing so, the Plaintiff was a citizen of Illinois. While most establishments and employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), the Defendant mandated and required that employees have finger(s) scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. The Plaintiff contends that he and the Class members may be aggrieved because the Defendant may have improperly disclosed employees' biometrics to third-party vendors in violation of Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by the Defendant's failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within three years of employees' last interactions with the company, the lawsuit says. Jetro Holdings operates as a holding company. The company, through its subsidiaries, wholesales dry and perishable groceries and offers beer, wine, and liquor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: 314-833-4825 E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com JUUL LABS: Frederick County Sues Over Underage Nicotine Addiction ----------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick County, Maryland, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC. and ALTRIA GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-08259 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, public nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment relating to underage nicotine addiction caused by "vaping." This action arises out of the Defendants' creation of a nationwide epidemic--based on numerous fraudulent activities--of underage nicotine addiction caused by "vaping" with JUUL's popular electronic cigarette or "e-cigarette," which has directly resulted in the Plaintiff and other municipalities, counties, and schools in New Hampshire and across the country to expend their limited resources to attempt to curb the severe public nuisance the Defendants created, and which is ongoing. The Defendants created the public nuisance by, among other things: designing the JUUL e-cigarette and its packaging to aesthetically appeal to kids and be easily concealable; selling nicotine cartridges or "JUULpods" in multiple fruity flavors that appeal to kids; designing its patented nicotine formula to be significantly more addictive than cigarettes; directly marketing the JUUL e-cigarette to children through youthful and vibrant images in print advertising and by paying "influencers" to endorse JUUL's products and by making purported "educational" presentations to ids on school campuses to falsely represented and the purported "safety" of JUUL's e-cigarette; and making false and misleading statements about the safety of the JUUL e-cigarette and downplaying or omitting disclosure of the risks of addiction associated with its use, says the complaint. Plaintiff Frederick County is a county in the State of Maryland. JUUL manufactures, markets, and sells e-cigarettes and pre-filled nicotine cartridges called JUULpods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Christopher C. Gold, Esq. Bradley M. Beall, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561/750-3000 Fax: 561/750-3364 Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com cgold@rgrdlaw.com bbeall@rgrdlaw.com KINDER MORGAN: Oates Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for Inspectors ----------------------------------------------------------------- David M. Oates, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P., Case No. 5:19-cv-01171-SLP (W.D. Okla., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant does not pay its Day Rate Inspectors overtime as required by the FLSA, the Plaintiff alleges. Instead, the Defendant pays its Day Rate Inspectors a flat daily rate for all hours worked in a workweek, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant's day rate pay plan violates the FLSA because the Day Rate Inspectors are owed overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week at the rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rates, says the complaint. Plaintiff Oates worked for the Defendant as an Inspector. Kinder Morgan is "one of the largest energy infrastructure companies in North America."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. Michael K. Burke, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com mburke@brucknerburch.com KITCHEN UNITED: Wallace Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data -------------------------------------------------------------- CARMEN WALLACE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. KITCHEN UNITED, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH13771 (Ill. Cir., Nov. 27, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class' sensitive, private, and personal biometric data, pursuant to the Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, while most establishments and employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), the Defendant mandated and required that employees have face(s) scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed--such as in the recent Equifax, Uber, Face book/ Cambridge Analytica, and Marriott data breaches or misuses--employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of this highly personal and private information. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the BIPA, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics. As an employee/worker of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was required to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having her face scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified each employee, including the Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Illinois. Kitchen United provides restaurant brands a turnkey, capital-light way to expand their reach to the off-premise diner.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: 314-833-4825 E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com LALAJA INC: Vazquez-Aguilar Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSE VAZQUEZ-AGUILAR, JUSTA HERNANDEZ-ROJO, JOSAFAT JUAREZ-CHAVEZ, SANDRA CATALINA-TORRES, and SUSANA MENDOZA-BUSTILLO, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. ARTURO GASCA, MARIA D. GASCA, and LALAJA, INC., d/b/a EL CERRO GRANDE MEXICAN RESTAURANT, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00171-FL (E.D.N.C., Nov. 29, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages, back wages and liquidated damages, attorney fees, interest, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were group of workers continuously employed on a fulltime basis at the Defendants' restaurant. They allege that they work in excess of 40 hours in the same workweek, but were not properly compensated. Arturo Gasca and his spouse Maria Gasca operated the Lalaja, Inc. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert J. Willis, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A. P.O. Box 1828 488 Thompson Street Pittsboro, NC 27312 Telephone: (919) 821-9031 Facsimile: (919)821-1763 E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com LANNETT CO: Continues to Defend Price Fixing-Related Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit related to alleged price-fixing of generic drugs. On September 25, 2018, two other alleged direct purchasers filed a purported class action complaint alleging an overreaching, industry-wide horizontal and vertical conspiracy involving the company, numerous other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, and various pharmaceutical distributors to allocate markets and fix prices generally for a variety of generic drugs. The case has been added to the multidistrict litigation. On December 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On February 21, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims. On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the defendants' joint motion to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims, but has yet to decide an individual motion filed by the Company to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims as to it. The Company believes that it acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Accordingly, the Company disputes the allegations set forth in these class actions and plans to vigorously defend itself from these claims. Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets, and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in 1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. LANNETT CO: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Feb. 7 ------------------------------------------------------------ Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the final hearing to consider approval of the settlement in a Pennsylvania class action suit has been set for February 7, 2020. In October 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its officers in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer damaged the purported class by making false and misleading statements in connection with the possible renewal of the JSP Distribution Agreement. In December 2018, counsel for the putative class filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint in January 2019. In March 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. In May 2019, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint. During May and June 2019, the parties negotiated a proposed settlement and agreed to settle the litigation, by which the Company agreed to pay the sum of $300,000 without an admission of liability and subject to the negotiation of the terms of a stipulation of settlement and approval by the Court. In July 2019, counsel for the putative class filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and on July 31, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting the motion and scheduling a hearing for final approval of the settlement for February 7, 2020. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets, and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in 1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. LANNETT CO: Suit Over Drug Pricing Methodologies Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit related to the company's drug pricing methodologies and internal controls. In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its officers in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company damaged the purported class by including in its securities filings false and misleading statements regarding the Company's drug pricing methodologies and internal controls. An amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September 2017. In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the Company’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in February 2018. In July 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In September 2018, counsel for the putative class filed a third amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in November 2018. In May 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. In July 2019, the Company filed an answer to the third amended complaint. The Company believes it acted in compliance with all applicable laws and plans to vigorously defend itself from these claims. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this time. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets, and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in 1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. LEGACY FIELD: Tipton Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Tipton, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. LEGACY FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-01472 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 19, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant required her to work more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime compensation, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers throughout the United States as exempt from overtime under the FLSA. The Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of forty in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a welding inspector. Legacy Field Services, LLC provides inspection services to the oil and gas industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Phone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com LINDT AND SPRUNGLI: Faces Desalvo ADA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit styled as Lindt and Sprungli USA Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Brett Desalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lindt and Sprungli USA Inc., a New York corporation and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10111-CJC-JPR (C.D. Cal., Nov. 26, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney. The suit demands $5 million in damages alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lindt & Sprungli a global leader in the premium chocolate sector with a long standing tradition of more than 170 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com MATCH GROUP: Appeal in Kim Class Action Pending ----------------------------------------------- Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal from the court decision approving the settlement in the class action suit entitled, Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093, is pending. On June 19, 2019, in a substantially similar putative class action asserting the same substantive claims in Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162, and pending in federal district court in California, the court issued an order granting final approval to a class-wide settlement, the terms of which are not material to the Company. Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093 (U.S. District Court, Central District of California). On June 21, 2019, the Kim court entered judgment in accordance with its prior order. Because the approved settlement class in Kim subsumes the proposed settlement class in Candelore, the judgment in Kim would effectively render Candelore a single-plaintiff lawsuit. Accordingly, on July 11, 2019, two objectors to the Kim settlement, represented by the plaintiff's counsel in Candelore, filed a notice of appeal from the Kim judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Their opening brief is due on November 20, 2019. Match Group said, "We believe that the allegations in the Candelore lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against it." Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MATCH GROUP: Bid to Appoint Lead Counsel in Crutchfield Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a securities class action suit entitled, Phillip R. Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc., Amanda W. Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C. On October 3, 2019, a Match Group shareholder, Phillip R. Crutchfield, filed a securities class action lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of Texas against Match Group, Inc., Amanda Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, on behalf of himself and as class representative for people and entities who acquired Match Group securities between August 6, 2019 and September 25, 2019, in relation to the FTC lawsuit and the allegations therein. Phillip R. Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc., Amanda W. Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C (Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division). The Complaint alleges that (i) Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company induced customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions using misleading advertisements, that the Company made it difficult for customers to cancel their subscriptions, and that, as a result, the Company was likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (ii) that the Company lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Match Group believes that the allegations in the Crutchfield lawsuit are without merit and will defend vigorously against them. * * * Motions to appoint lead counsel and lead plaintiff were filed by: -- Samir Ali Cherif Benouis; -- Stefan Bubik; and -- Phillip R. Crutchfield Bubik later withdraw his request. Judge Ada Brown said in a Dec. 12 order that the Defendants have no obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint at this time. After the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, it will set a schedule for any amended complaint and for the Defendants' response. Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MATCH GROUP: Bid to Stay Candelore Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to stay the class action suit entitled, Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162, is pending. On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed against Tinder in state court in California. Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles). The complaint principally alleged that Tinder violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging users age 30 and over a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service. The complaint sought certification of a class of California Tinder Plus subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified amount. On September 21, 2015, Tinder filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the complaint. On October 26, 2015, the court issued an opinion sustaining Tinder's demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, ruling that the age-based pricing differential for Tinder Plus subscriptions did not violate California law in essence because offering a discount to users under age 30 was neither invidious nor unreasonable in light of that age group's generally more limited financial means. On December 29, 2015, in accordance with its ruling, the court entered judgment dismissing the action. On February 1, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the judgment, and the parties thereafter briefed the appeal. On January 29, 2018, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) issued an opinion reversing the judgment of dismissal, ruling that the lower court had erred in sustaining Tinder's demurrer because the complaint, as pleaded, stated a cognizable claim for violation of the Unruh Act. Because the company believes that the appellate court's reasoning was flawed as a matter of law and runs afoul of binding California precedent, on March 12, 2018, Tinder filed a petition with the California Supreme Court seeking interlocutory review of the Court of Appeal's decision. On May 9, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied the petition. The case was then returned to the trial court for further proceedings and is currently in discovery. On September 13, 2019, Tinder filed a motion to stay the case pending the appeal of the decision to approve the Kim settlement, discussed below; the plaintiff has opposed the motion. Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MDL 2543: Declaratory Judgment Bid in GM Ignition Switch Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Langdon & Emison, LLC ("L&E")'s motion for a declaratory judgment in IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION, Case Nos. 14-MC-2543 (JMF), 14-MD-2543 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.). As a general rule, litigants in the United States are required to shoulder the costs of litigating their own cases. In the main, this is a sensible rule because it means that those who may benefit from work are responsible for its costs. In aggregate litigation, however, the value of attorney work product is often widely dispersed, benefiting not only those who hired the attorneys, but also others who are similarly situated. If only a few were made to bear the costs of legal work that benefits many, high-quality legal work would be under-incentivized and, ultimately, under-produced. Where aggregate litigation proceeds as a class action, courts solve this classic free-rider problem by permitting class counsel to recover a percentage of the common fund obtained for the class, thereby spreading the costs among those who benefited from counsel's work. But where aggregate litigation does not proceed as a class action -- as is the case in much multidistrict litigation -- solving the free-rider problem requires more creativity. In that context, many courts have entered orders imposing assessments on claimants' recoveries, which are then deposited into a "common benefit fund" and disbursed to counsel that conducted work for the common benefit. In February 2014, General Motors, LLC ("New GM") announced the recall of certain General Motors vehicles that had been manufactured with a defective ignition switch - a switch that moved too easily from the "run" position to the "accessory" and "off" positions, causing moving stalls and disabling critical safety systems. In the months that followed, New GM recalled millions of other vehicles, some for reasons relating to the ignition switch and some for other reasons. Not surprisingly, litigation followed, in both state and federal courts. The federal cases were ultimately consolidated in the New York District Court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. On March 26, 2015, in Order No. 42, the Court established the Common Benefit Fund to ensure that the parties for whose benefit legal work is performed share the costs and expenses associated with that work. Pursuant to that Order, neither the Plaintiffs nor their counsel are required to pay an up-front fee in order to receive and use work product intended to serve the the Plaintiffs' common benefit. Instead, the Order requires New GM to withhold an assessment of a specified amount from certain settlements and judgments and to deposit that sum into the Fund. More specifically, New GM is required to withhold assessments only from amounts paid in "Common Benefit Actions," which include: (1) all cases then pending, as well as any cases later filed in, transferred to, or removed to the Court and included as part of the MDL; (2) all Related Actions in which the Plaintiffs and their counsel voluntarily execute the Participation Agreement"; and (3) "all unfiled and tolled actions of clients of Participating Counsel that would be Related Actions if filed. Related Actions, in turn, are actions that involve the same subject matter as the MDL (not including shareholder derivative suits and securities class actions), whether filed in state or in federal courts. Participating Counsel is defined to include Lead Counsel and others, including counsel who have been specifically approved by this Court as Participating Counsel. In Order No. 42, the Court approved as Participating Counsel all attorneys representing Plaintiffs in Common Benefit Actions. More than four and a half years have passed since Order No. 42 was issued, and in that time, the Lead Counsel has performed a remarkable amount of work on behalf of the Plaintiffs in Common Benefit Actions. As the Lead Counsel notes, over the course of these proceedings, the Lead Counsel has conducted more than one hundred depositions of GM employees (and hundreds of other case-specific depositions), reviewed more than 20 million million pages of documents produced by New GM, generated thirty expert reports, briefed dozens of discovery disputes, and led pretrial and/or trial proceedings for 13 bellwether trials, with extensive briefing on a wide range of issues. These contributions have been tremendously valuable to individuals with claims against GM. Indeed, no doubt as a result in part of these efforts, the vast majority of claims against New GM have been settled. L&E represents clients who have claims against New GM relating to the allegedly defective ignition switches. Some of their claims have not been filed in any court; others have been asserted in state courts in Missouri, Texas, and Mexico; and, more recently, many have been filed in federal court and consolidated in the MDL. On April 23, 2015, before L&E first entered the MDL, L&E received access to MDL discovery materials. Additionally, between May and November of 2015 -- also before L&E first entered the MDL -- L&E attorneys attended more than a dozen MDL depositions of GM employees. L&E first appeared in the MDL in November 2017, and, since then, the firm has filed nearly 250 cases in the MDL while continuing to press other clients' claims in state-court actions and outside of court altogether. On Feb. 28, 2019, New GM and L&E jointly announced that they had reached a settlement agreement resolving more than 100 pre-closing personal injury and wrongful death claims, more than 40 of which were not pending in the MDL. Shortly thereafter, New GM and L&E jointly moved the Court to appoint, pursuant to Rule 53(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Special Master who would, among other things, create a Settlement Framework that identifies the criteria relevant to evaluation of claims under the settlement agreement, evaluate claims pursuant to the terms of" the settlement agreement and framework, and allocate dollar values to" the various claims. New GM and L&E also moved the Court for an order approving the creation of a settlement trust fund and retaining the Court's continuing jurisdiction and supervision over the Trust. The Court granted both motions. On April 17, 2019, New GM and L&E reached settlement on additional claims. New GM and L&E later filed requests to appoint a Special Master and approve the creation of a settlement trust fund that were, in all material respects, identical to the requests filed previously. On May 7, 2019, Court again granted both motions. L&E filed the present motion on Sept. 27, 2019. L&E, a law firm representing many individuals with claims against New GM -- some of whom have cases pending in the MDL, some of whom have cases pending in state court, and some of whom do not have cases pending in any court -- moved for a declaratory judgment clarifying that recoveries obtained by their clients with cases pending in state courts or not filed in any court are not subject to assessments pursuant to Order No. 42. The Lead Counsel -- appointed by the Court to represent the interests of all the Plaintiffs in the MDL -- opposes L&E's motion, insisting that L&E's clients are required to pay assessments into the Common Benefit Fund even if their cases are not pending in the MDL. Judge Furman holds that Order No. 42 applies to all settlements resolving claims asserted by L&E's clients that were part of the master settlement agreements submitted to the Court, without regard for whether those claims were pending in state court or no court at all. Accordingly, he denied L&E's motion for a declaratory judgment. That said, the dispute between L&E and the Lead Counsel and the new motion filed by BCH, raise the question of whether Order No. 42 should be clarified or otherwise modified (for example, to expand its application, if appropriate, to the full extent of the Court's jurisdiction and authority to impose common benefit fund assessments). The Judge did not need to resolve the disagreements between L&E and the Lead Counsel over the interpretation and scope of Order No. 42 only because L&E's clients invoked the Court's jurisdiction by voluntarily submitting their settlements to the Court. In the next dispute (perhaps BCH's), the Court may have to confront those issues -- and, in any event, counsel and parties negotiating settlements should understand whether those settlements will be subjected to a common benefit fund assessment under Order No. 42. The Counsel -- including L&E and BCH -- should confer and, within two weeks of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, submit a joint letter to the Court with respect to whether Order No. 42 should be clarified or modified and, in the event of disagreement, proposing a procedure to resolve the issue. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/myn6SB from Leagle.com. General Motors LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Baker Bloomer -- andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Arthur Jay Steinberg, King & Spalding LLP, Kyle James Kimpler, Paul Weiss, Paul Basta , Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Richard Cartier Godfrey , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Scott Ian Davidson, King & Spalding LLP & Mark J. Nomellini, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Economic Loss Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Sean R. Matt -- sean@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust Administrator, Defendant, represented by Kristin Kendra Going , McDermott Will & Emery. Certain Ignition Switch and Non-Ignition Switch Plaintiffs, Defendant, represented by Edward S. Weisfelner -- eweisfelner@brownrudnick.com -- Brown Rudnick LLP, Howard Supplee Steel, IV , Brown Rudnick LLP, Sander Esserman, Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka, P.C., pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Cabraser , Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, L.L.P., Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, L.L.P., pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Wilmington Trust Company, as Trust Administrator and Trustee for the Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust, Defendant, represented by Clay J. Pierce -- clay.pierce@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP & Marsha Jessica Indych -- marsha.indych@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP. Certain Unaffiliated Holders of the Beneficial Units of the Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust, Interested Party, represented by Daniel H. Golden, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., Naomi Moss, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP & Seamus Cotter Duffy, DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP. Designated Counsel for the Ignition Switch Plaintiffs and Certain Non-Ignition Switch Plaintiffs in the Bankruptcy Court, Interested Party, represented by Edward S. Weisfelner, Brown Rudnick LLP & Howard Supplee Steel, IV, Brown Rudnick LLP. MERCK & CO: Faces Luttrell Suit Over Sale of Defective Zostavax --------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY LUTTRELL, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05646-HB (E.D. Pa., Nov. 29, 2019), alleges that Merck failed to warn the Plaintiff and other consumers of the defective condition of Zostavax, which carry the risk of serious side effects, such as those suffered by Plaintiff and other similarly situated patients. According to the complaint, Merck failed to exercise ordinary care in making representations concerning its product and its manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control, and distribution in interstate commerce. Merck negligently and/or carelessly misrepresented and intentionally concealed the truth regarding the high risk of the product's unreasonable, dangerous and adverse side effects associated with the administration, use, and injection of the product. Merck breached its duty in representing to the Plaintiff, his physicians and healthcare providers, and the medical community that Merck's product did not carry the risk of serious side effects, such as those suffered by Plaintiff and other similarly situated patients. In September 2016, the Plaintiff was inoculated with the Defendants' Zostavax vaccine for routine health maintenance and for its intended purpose: the prevention of shingles. In February 2017, the Plaintiff presented to Liberty Medical Clinic in Liberty, Kentucky, with complaints of a rash in the top of his mouth, across his face and around his ears. The Shingles outbreak lasted several weeks. As a direct and proximate result of Merck's defective Zostavax vaccine, the Plaintiff's symptoms have resulted in physical limitations not present prior to using Merck's product. The Plaintiff also experiences mental and emotional distress due to resulting physical limitations and seriousness of the Plaintiff's condition. As a result of the manufacture, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution and/or sale of Zostavax, the Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent personal injuries. Further, as a tragic consequence of Merck's wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff suffered serious, progressive, permanent, and incurable injuries, as well as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment and injury. Zostavax was designed, developed, marketed, and sold with the intended purpose of preventing shingles, which is caused by the varicella zoster virus (VZV). Varicella zoster is a virus that causes chickenpox. Once the varicella zoster virus causes chickenpox, the virus remains inactive (dormant) in the nervous system for many years. VZV can be reactivated due to factors such as disease, stress, aging, and immune modulation caused by vaccination. When reactivated, varicella zoster replicates in nerve cells and is carried down the nerve fibers to the area of skin served by the ganglion that harbored the dormant virus. In May 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the Zostavax vaccine to be marketed and sold in the United States by Merck. Zostavax was initially indicated for "the prevention of herpes zoster (shingles) in individuals 60 years of age and older when administered as a single-dose." FDA approval was based in large part on the results of the Shingles Prevention Study (SPS) supported by Merck. The results of the SPS were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on June 2, 2005. The paper was titled "A Vaccine to Prevent Herpes Zoster and Postherpetic Neuralgia in Older Adults". N. Engl. J. Med. 2005; 352(22):2271-84. The Luttrell case is consolidated in RE: ZOSTAVAX (ZOSTER VACCINE LIVE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY MDL NO. 2848. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle, III. Merck & Co. developed, tested, designed, set specifications for, licensed, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled, packaged, processed, labeled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold the Zostavax vaccine to be administered to patients throughout the United States. Merck Sharp is a wholly owned subsidiary of Merck & Co.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea L. Sapone, Esq. Annesley H. DeGaris, Esq. Harold T. McCall, Esq. DEGARIS WRIGHT MCCALL 2 North 20 Street, Suite 1030 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 509-1817 Facsimile: (205) 588-5231 E-mail: asapone@dwmlawyers.com adegaris@dwmlawyers.com hmecall@waynewright.com MERIT MEDICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:MMSI) between February 26, 2019 and October 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Merit securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Merit Shareholder Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information concerning Merit's business and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (a) the integrations of Cianna and Vascular Insights, including their products, sales people, and R&D facilities, had caused operational disruptions and reduced sales and were months behind schedule; (b) sales of acquired company products had slowed substantially due to pre-acquisition pipeline fill, in particular for Vascular Insights products which, as late as July 2019, had zero orders during fiscal 2019; and (c) in light of the foregoing, the Company's reported financial guidance for fiscal 2019 and 2020 was made without a reasonable basis. On July 25, 2019, following the Company's second quarter 2019 financial results the Company held a conference call for analyst's and investors to discuss the results. On that call Defendants admitted that the miss and guidance reduction were in part due to the fact that ClariVein had zero orders for the first half of the year due to pipeline filling prior to the acquisition. Following these disclosures the Company's stock price fell more than 25% from a close of $54.84 per share on July 25, 2019, to a close of $41.00 per share on July 26, 2019, on volume of more than 6.2 million shares. Then, on October 30 2019, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release announcing the Company's third quarter 2019 financial results. The Company disclosed significant operational issues in all aspects of Merit's business. Defendants admitted that they were months behind in their integration of Cianna and Vascular Insights, their integration of R&D facilities was too expensive and had necessitated a 2% to 5% reduction in headcount, and that they had to take a material revenue recognition adjustment in the quarter. Following this disclosure, Merit's stock price declined more than 29%, from a close of $29.11 per share on October 30, 2019, to a close of $20.66 per share on October 31, 2019. If you purchased Merit securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/meritmedicalsystems-mmsi-shareholder-investigation-stock-fraud-lawsuit-169/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 3, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact: Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Website: https://www.bernlieb.com Tel: (877) 779-1414 Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: Cogley Sues Over Fair Debt Collection Act Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Nicole M. Cogley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-10108-CJC-JEM (C.D. Cal., Nov. 26, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit was founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short periods. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas M. Wajda, Esq. WAJDA LAW GROUP APC 6167 Bristol Parkway Suite 200 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 997-0471 Facsimile: (866) 286-8433 E-mail: nick@wajdalawgroup.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Grants Bid to Stay Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as DEBORAH MATKE and ROLAND OBARSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-1831 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order Dec. 16, 2019, granting Plaintiffs' motion to stay the class certification motion and motion for relief from the local rules. No briefing schedule is imposed, the Court added. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. To prevent defendant from mooting the action, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification and to stay that motion. See Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Campbell–Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). The Plaintiffs also moved for relief from local rules requiring every motion to be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and imposing a briefing schedule.[CC] MOJITO CLUB: Valdes FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- Mojito Club, L.L.C., et al., removed the case captioned as YULIAN VALDES, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MOJITO CLUB, L.L.C., a Florida Limited Liability Company, and HENRY A. LEACE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2019-021813-CA-01, from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Nov. 26, 2019. The Plaintiff claims that Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Mojito Club is a hospitality company based out in Miami, Florida.[BN] Mojito Club is represented by: Justin D. Edell, Esq. Rachel K. Beige, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Esperante Building 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone (561) 383-9228 Facsimile (561) 683-8977 E-mail: rachel.beige@csklegal.com justin.edell@csklegal.com NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- National Vision Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that FirstSight's motion to dismiss the class action suit before the United States District Court for the Southern District of California is still pending. On January 29, 2016, FirstSight, the company's wholly-owned specialized health maintenance organization, was named as a defendant in a proposed class action filed on behalf of all persons who paid for an eye examination from an optometrist at a Walmart location in California from November 5, 2009 through the date of the resolution of the litigation. The complaint alleges in particular that FirstSight participated in arrangements that caused the illegal delivery of eye examinations to the plaintiffs, and that FirstSight thereby violated, among other statutes, the Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws of California. In March 2017, the Court granted a motion to dismiss previously filed by FirstSight. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2017. In July 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated in part, and reversed in part, the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the district court seeking, among other claims, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees, and in November 2018, FirstSight filed a motion to dismiss. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the litigation. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. NCB MANAGEMENT: Collection Practices Violate FDCPA, Rowley Says --------------------------------------------------------------- John Rowley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NCB Management Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:19-cv-02305-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought against the Defendant under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Some time prior to June 24, 2019, an obligation was allegedly incurred by Plaintiff to Republic Bank & Trust Co. The Defendant NCB, a debt collector, purchased the Republic Bank & Trust Co debt and is collecting the alleged debt. The Defendant NCB sent the Plaintiff an initial contact notice regarding the alleged debt owed. The Plaintiff alleges that the Letter does not meet the requirements of the FDCPA, as interpreted by the Third Circuit, because it falsely omits the requirement of the "G Notice" in the first sentence by leaving out the requirement that a consumer must dispute in writing. In omitting the writing requirement, the Defendants falsely communicate the consumer's requirements under the FDCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Delaware, County of Kent. Defendant Credit Control is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy., Suite 22 Wilmington, DE 19805 Phone: (302) 722-6885 Email: ag@garibianlaw.com NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend class action suits related to its merger with C&J Energy Services, Inc. On June 16, 2019, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") among the Company, C&J Energy Services, Inc. (C&J) and King Merger Sub Corp. ("Merger Sub"). In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, one putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado by a purported C&J stockholder on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders (excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against C&J and members of the C&J board of directors, two putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by a purported C&J stockholder on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders (excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against C&J, members of the C&J board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub, one putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas by a purported stockholder of the Company on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the Company (excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against the Company and members of its board of directors, and one putative class action was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court by a purported stockholder of the Company on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the Company (excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against members of the Company's board of directors. The five stockholder actions are captioned as follows: Palumbos v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02386 (D. Colo.), Wuollet v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01411 (D. Del.), Plumley v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01446 (D. Del.), Bushansky v. Keane Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:19-cb-02924 (S.D. Tex) and Woods v. Keane Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-0590 (Del. Chan.) (collectively, the "Stockholder Actions"). In general, the Stockholder Actions allege that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, or aided and abetted in such alleged violations, because the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on July 16, 2019 in connection with the proposed Merger allegedly omitted or misstated material information. The Stockholder Actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the Merger, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. C&J, the Company and the other named defendants believe that no supplemental disclosures were required under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the Stockholder Actions delaying the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the Stockholder Actions, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, C&J and the Company filed a Form 8-K on October 11, 2019 making certain supplemental disclosures in connection with the Merger. Following those supplemental disclosures, plaintiffs in the Woods and Bushansky actions voluntarily dismissed their claims as moot on October 16, 2019 and October 29, 2019, respectively. The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to the complaints in the remaining Stockholder Actions, but the Company continues to believe that the allegations therein lack merit and no supplemental disclosures were required under applicable law, and intends to defend itself vigorously. Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. provides oilfield services. The Company offers drilling and other related solutions such as developing, delivering, management, and engineering activities. Nextier Oilfield Solutions serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Houston, Texas. NOHO HEALTH: Fischler Sues Over Web Site Inaccessible by Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. NOHO HEALTH, INC., d/b/a care/of, Case No. 1:19-cv-11656 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site, http://www.takecareof.com/,to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. According to the complaint, the Defendant denies full and equal access to its Web site. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law against the Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause the Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Fischler is blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. The Defendant is an online retailer of vitamins and other health supplements for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: 212.392.4772 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com NVR, INC: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Smith Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as Paul Smith, et al., the Plaintiff, v. NVR, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08328 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order Dec. 16, 2019, denying the motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Dec. 16, by Jan. 8, 2020, the parties shall file a status report setting forth their joint proposal or competing proposals as to expert discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. NVR, Inc. is a company engaged in home construction. It also operates a mortgage banking and title services business. The company primarily operates on the East Coast of the United States.[CC] NYC TAXI: Vicente Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- JERONIMO VICENTE, Plaintiff v. NYC TAXI GROUP, INC, and ALEKSEY MEDVEDOVSKIY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06695 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 27, 2019), alleges that the Defendants maintained a pattern and practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees at the overtime rate of one-and-one half times the regular hourly rate/applicable minimum wage rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants also failed to furnish annual wage notices and wage statements and failed to maintain an accurate record keeping of hours worked and wages paid to Mr. Vicente and similarly situated employees. Mr. Vicente was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from 2007 to May 2019 and returned to work from June 2019 to October 6, 2019. From 2007 to May 2019, Plaintiff Vicente would work from 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.(9 hours per day) six days per week, and was paid $900 per week ($16.00 per hour) in check. From June 2019 to October 6, 2019, Plaintiff Vicente would work from 4:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. (9 hours per day) six days per week, and was paid $850 per week ($15.00 per hour) in check. The Plaintiff seeks relief for the Defendants' unlawful actions, including compensation for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. NYC Taxi Group is a taxi fleet based in Brooklyn and serves all of New York City. Mr. Medvedovskiy possesses or possessed operational control and policy-making authority, an ownership interest, or significant control of Defendant NYCTG.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leopold Raic, Esq. AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 825-1400 OFFICE DEPOT: Andrews Privacy Invasion Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Depot, Inc. removed the case captioned as JAMES ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RIC1905460 (Filed Oct. 31, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 27, 2019. The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-02282-DSF-SHK on the proceeding. The Plaintiff generally alleges that Office Depot recorded telephone conversations with the Plaintiff without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff, in violation of Section 632.7 of California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative California class. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the proposed class includes thousands with statutory damages of $5,000 per member, thereby causing the aggregate amount in controversy to exceed $5 million. Office Depot Is an American office supply retailing company headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Spencer Persson, Esq. Phillip R. Ditullio, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 892-9200 Facsimile: (213) 892-9494 E-mail: spencer.persson@nortonrosefulbright.com phillip.ditullio@nortonrosefulbright.com ON THE BARRELHEAD: Soldevilla Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Diane Soldevilla Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. On the Barrelhead, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 56-02019-CA-001964, was removed from the 19th Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Nov. 27, 2019. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-14462-XXXX to the proceeding. The suit arises from personal property related issues. Founded in 2017, On The Barrelhead, LLC is engaged in manufacturing, importing and exporting business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (404) 797-9696 E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Ave. Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jacqueline Zee DerOvanesian, Esq. Ian M. Ross, Esq. STUMPHAUZER FOSLID SLOMAN ROSS & KOLAYA, PLLC One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2550 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 614-1400 E-mail: jderovanesian@sfslaw.com iross@sfslaw.com ONTO INNOVATION: Class Suits Related to Rudolph Merger Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Onto Innovation Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that the purported class action suits related to a merger deal with Rudolph Technologies, Inc. have been voluntarily dismissed. On October 25, 2019, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") among Nanometrics Incorporated ("Nanometrics"), Rudolph Technologies, Inc. ("Rudolph"), and PV Equipment Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nanometrics ("Merger Sub"), Rudolph merged with Merger Sub with Rudolph surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nanometrics. Following the announcement of the Company's proposed merger transaction with Rudolph, two purported class action complaints and three complaints were filed on behalf of Rudolph's stockholders against Rudolph and its directors; of those five complaints, three were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, one in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and one in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. One of those five complaints also names the Company and the subsidiary formed to effectuate the proposed merger transaction as defendants. A sixth complaint was filed on behalf of a Company stockholder against the Company and its directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints are captioned as follows: Stein v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., et al. (D. Del.); Rosenblatt v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., et al. (D. Del.); Stein v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., et al. (D. Del.); Parikh v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., et al. (D.N.J.); Roy v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., et al. (D. Mass.); and Bryden-Moore v. Nanometrics Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.). The Company refers to these actions collectively as the "Shareholder Actions." The complaints in the Shareholder Actions generally assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act challenging the adequacy of certain disclosures made in the version of the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on August 15, 2019, or, solely with respect to the complaint captioned Roy v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., et al. (D. Mass.), the version of the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on September 10, 2019. The complaints seek, among other relief, an injunction preventing Rudolph from holding the Rudolph special meeting or consummating the transaction, an injunction preventing the Company from consummating the transaction, damages in the event that the merger is consummated, and attorneys' fees. On October 11, 2019, plaintiffs in each of the Shareholder Actions agreed in principle to dismiss their claims in connection with the issuance of certain supplemental disclosures regarding the transaction and reserved the right to seek attorneys' fees. Onto Innovation Inc., formerly Nanometrics Incorporated, is a semiconductor equipment and software technology company. It offers a portfolio of technologies for wafer manufacturing, front-end process control and lithography technology for advanced semiconductor packaging. The company is based in Wilmington, Massachusetts. OUT-LOOK SAFETY: McMillian Seeks Unpaid Prevailing and OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Craig McMillian and Eian McMillan, individually and On Behalf of the Putative Class Members v. OUT-LOOK SAFETY LLC, RESTANI CONSTRUCTION CORP., SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, LLC, TRIUMPH CONSTRUCTION CORP. and ELECNOR HAWKEYE, LLC, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 657577/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Dec. 19, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid prevailing wages, daily overtime and supplemental benefits, which the Plaintiffs and members of the putative Class are entitled to receive for work they performed pursuant to contracts entered into between the Defendants, Con Edison and/or state or city public entities, For their work, the Defendants pay the Plaintiffs an hourly rate that does not include prevailing wages or supplemental benefits when they perform work on gas, electric, water main, and other public works projects on New York City public streets and roadways, according to the complaint. The Defendants paid the Plaintiffs at their regular hourly rate, and one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for overtime and weekend hours worked; thus, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs at the applicable New York State and/or New York City prevailing wage rates, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are construction flaggers, who work for the Defendants. Out-Look Safety has employed flaggers in the construction industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. Kristen E. Boysen, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 P&S SELECT: Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Chacon Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JOSE DIMAS GUTIERREZ CHACON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P&S SELECT FOODS, INC., P&S SELECT MEATS INC. d/b/a P&S Select Foods, RAY MILLAN SR., GARY LANGSAM, ANTHONY MILLAN, and RAY MILLAN JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01037-ER-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Clerk of Court entered the order on Nov. 20, 2019, granting the Defendants' Motion for Summary judgment. According to the order, the case is closed. PS Select distributes sea food and meat products. The Company offers beef, lamb, goat, pork, and fishes. PS Select Foods serves customers in the State of New York.[CC] PARK HOTELS & RESORT: Suits over Chesapeake Lodging Merger Closed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that litigation related to the Company's merger deal with Chesapeake Lodging Trust has been dismissed and now closed. On May 5, 2019, the Company, PK Domestic Property LLC, an indirect subsidiary of the Company ("Domestic"), and PK Domestic Sub LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Domestic ("Merger Sub") entered into a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Chesapeake Lodging Trust ("Chesapeake"). On September 18, 2019, pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Chesapeake merged with and into Merger Sub (the "Merger") and each of Chesapeake's common shares of beneficial interest, $0.01 par value per share ("Chesapeake common shares") was converted into $11.00 in cash and 0.628 of a share of the company's common stock. No fractional shares of our common stock were issued in the Merger. The value of any fractional interests to which a Chesapeake shareholder would otherwise have been entitled was paid in cash. Following the May 6, 2019 announcement that the company and Chesapeake had entered into the Merger Agreement, two purported shareholder class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware captioned: Kent v. Chesapeake Lodging Trust, et al., No. 1:19-cv-01201 (D.Del.) (filed June 25, 2019) (the "Kent Action") and Terlinden v. Chesapeake Lodging Trust, et al., No. 1;19-cv-01263 (D.Del.) (filed July 8, 2019). The complaint in each case alleged purported violations of the federal securities laws and named as defendants Chesapeake, the individual members of the Chesapeake board of trustees, the Company, Domestic and Merger Sub. The plaintiffs alleged that Chesapeake and the individual defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by providing inadequate disclosure regarding the proposed merger in the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the SEC on June 14, 2019. The plaintiffs also alleged that the individual defendants, the Company, Domestic and Merger Sub violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs sought, among other things, to enjoin or rescind the merger, an award of damages in the event the merger was consummated and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. While the company believes that these claims were without merit, in order to avoid the risk of these claims delaying or adversely affecting the Merger, to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Chesapeake agreed to amend and supplement the definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on July 26, 2019 in connection with the Merger in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on September 3, 2019. The plaintiffs in these actions subsequently dismissed each case with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only. The cases are now closed. Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. owns and operates hotels. The Company offers services and amenities such as accommodation, dining, meeting and wedding rooms, spa, and fitness center. Park Hotels & Resorts serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Tysons, Virginia. PHILADELPHIA, PA: Newsome Sues Over Bias Against Nursing Officers ----------------------------------------------------------------- JANELLE NEWSOME, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05590-MMB (E.D. Pa., Nov. 26, 2019), alleges that the Philadelphia Police Department has systematically and willfully failed to provide nursing female police officers with "reasonable break time to express breast milk for their nursing children for 1 year after the child's birth each time such employee has need to express the milk." The Plaintiff further alleges that the City failed to provide "a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coorkers and the public, which may be used by employees to express breast milk." The Plaintiff seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff also brings the action for personal relief from sex discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation costs and pre- and post-judgment interest as remedies for Defendant's violations of her rights. On December 22, 2014, Ms. Newsome started working for the PPD as a Police Officer assigned to the 18th District. In July 2018, Ms. Newsome gave birth to her child. In January 2019, Ms. Newsome returned to work from leave and was detailed to the PPD's Neighborhood Services Unit on restricted duty. She was still nursing her infant child and expected to do so until her child reached age 1 in July 2019. Upon returning to work, Ms. Newsome experienced ongoing pregnancy discrimination regarding her need to express milk at work. The Defendant denied Ms. Newsome reasonable break time to express breast milk for her nursing child for 1 year after the child's birth each time she had the need to express the milk, the lawsuit says. As a result, women employed by the PPD are kept unaware and deprived of their statutory civil rights, the Plaintiff asserts. Philadelphia City owns, operates, manages, directs and controls the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD), whose agents, servants and employees at all relevant times were acting within the course and scope of their employment under color of state law and operating pursuant to official policies, customs or practices of the City and the PPD. The PPD employs over 6300 sworn members, approximately 35% of which are women. There are eleven different ranks in the PPD in the following order, beginning at the entry level position of Police Officer and ending with Police Commissioner.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian M. Bryson, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC 1835 Market Street, Suite 2950 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 391-4790 E-mail: ian@dereksmithlaw.com PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Court Consolidates 3 Securities Fraud Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned STEVEN DOHERTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PIVOTAL SOFTWARE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03589-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles L. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (i) consolidated the securities class actions; (ii) appointed Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Police Retirement System of St. Louis as the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated action; and (iii) appointed Labaton Sucharow LLP as the lead counsel, and Wagstaffe, Von Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick LLP as the liaison counsel for the Plaintiffs in the consolidated action. The case stems from three class actions alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act and the Securities Act. The purchasers of Pivotal's securities assert that they are entitled to damages caused by Pivotal's alleged false and/or misleading statements about its financial and business condition. On June 20, 2019, Doherty filed a complaint asserting claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On the same day, Mikebeb M. Abera filed a complaint (Abera v. Pivotal Software, Inc., No. 19-cv-3601-HSG) asserting claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act. The Abera Action named the same Defendants as the Doherty Action, and included additional Defendants such as Pivotal directors and underwriters of its IPO. Doherty published notice of the action on June 20, 2019, which advised investors in Pivotal securities that they had until Aug. 19, 2019 to seek appointment as the Lead Plaintiff. The next day, on June 21, 2019, Peter Kleinman filed a complaint (Kleinman v. Pivotal Software, Inc., No. 19-cv-3605-RS) asserting claims under Section 11, Section 12(a)(2), and Section 15 of the Securities Act against the same Defendants as the Abera Action. All three actions advance substantially the same allegations. The complaints allege that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements regarding Pivotal's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, they allege that the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Pivotal was facing major problems with its sales execution and a complex technology landscape; (2) those issues resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales cycles, and diminished growth as its customers and the industry's sentiment shifted away from Pivotal's principal products because they were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with the industry-standard platform; and (3) Pivotal's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On Aug. 19, 2019, class members Dana Penza, Vasant Punjabi, Mary Anderson, Oklahoma, and the Pivotal Investor Group filed five competing motions to consolidate the related actions, appoint the Lead Plaintiff, and appoint the lead counsel. On Aug. 28, 2019, Penza withdrew his motion, conceding that he does not have the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class, as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). On the same day, Punjabi withdrew his motion for the same reason. On Sept. 3, 2019, Anderson filed a notice of non-opposition to competing motions. Movants Oklahomaoui, and Steven Doherty and the Tech Trader Fund LP continue to seek appointment as the Lead Plaintiff. Judge Breyer agrees with the parties that consolidation of the Doherty Action, the Abera Action, and the Kleinman Action is proper. No party has opposed such consolidation. That the complaints differ slightly does not impede consolidation. All three actions involve common questions of law and fact related to the Pivotal IPO, and contain similar allegations regarding Pivotal's public dissemination of false and misleading information to investors during the same time periods. Consolidation is proper because it serves the judicial interest in convenience, there is no reason to think it would increase delay, including each claim in one action will reduce confusion, and no party has articulated a concern regarding prejudice. Accordingly, Judge Breyer ordered the the three actions are consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) for all purposes including, but not limited to, discovery, pretrial proceedings and trial proceedings. The consolidated cases will be identified as: In re Pivotal Securities Litigation and the files of the action will be maintained in one file. Any other actions now pending or htereafter filed in the District which arise out of the same or similar facts and circumstances as alleged in these related actions will be consolidated for all purposes as the Court is notified of them. The parties will notify the Court of any other action which is pending or filed outside of the District which may be related to the subject matter of these consolidated actions when they become aware of such actions. Every pleading filed in the consolidated action will bear the following caption: "IN RE PIVOTAL SECURITIES LITIGATION, (TBR) Master File No., (TBD) CLASS ACTION." Two competing movants seek appointment as the Lead Plaintiff: (1) the Pivotal Investor Group and (2) Oklahoma. Judge Breyer finds that both the movants have timely moved for appointment as lead counsel in response to the PSLRA notice. Thus, both have satisfied the first PSLRA requirement. He also finds that although the Group has the largest financial interest in the litigation, it cannot plausibly allege that its shares are traceable to the Pivotal IPO, and therefore it lacks Section 11 standing. If the presumptive lead plaintiff is inadequate or atypical under Rule 23, the court must then consider the plaintiff with the next-largest financial stake and repeat the inquiry. Judge Breyer finds that Oklahoma meets the requirements under the PSLRA. Accordingly, he appointed Oklahoma as the Lead plaintiff of the consolidated action. Finally, while the appointment of the counsel is made subject to the approval of the Court, the Lead Plaintiff gets to select the lead counsel for the class. Accordingly, Judge Breyer appoints Labaton Sucharow LLP as the lead counsel and Wagstaffe, Von Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick LLP as the liaison counsel for the Plaintiffs in the consolidated action. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/18kPp1 from Leagle.com. Steven Doherty, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice. Pivotal Software, Inc., Robert Mee & Cynthia Gaylor, Defendants, represented by Andrew David Yaphe -- adyaphe@gmail.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP & Neal Alan Potischman -- neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell. Dana Penza, Movant, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Vasant Punjabi, Movant, represented by Danielle Smith, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Lucas E. Gilmore, Hagens Beman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Reed R. Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Mary Anderson, Movant, represented by Melissa Ann Fortunato, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System & Police Retirement System of St. Louis, Movants, represented by Francis P. McConville, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Wagstaffe, von Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick LLP & Alec T. Coquin, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice. The Tech Trader Fund LP, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Certification of Class & Subclasses Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JEREMY RICHARDSON and MANDY LARSON, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, J.D. POWER & ASSOCIATED, and MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00715-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class and two subclasses: Statewide Florida Class defined as: all persons and entities that have made first-party claims since October 1, 2012 under, an automobile insurance policy issued within the state of Florida by Progressive whose vehicles were declared a total loss by Progressive and were valued using J.D. Power and Mitchell's WCTL system" Condition Adjustment Subclass defined as: "all Florida insureds whose total loss claims were reduced by negative or downward condition adjustments"; and Market Value Subclass: "all Florida insureds whose vehicles received Market Value and Settlement Amounts as determined by WCTL Valuations which were less than the actual Retail Values for each vehicle as required by Fla. Stat. section 629.9743(5)(a)(2) (b), as determined by guidebooks"; 2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; 3. appointing Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Waller Law Office, PC, and Arnold Law Firm as Class Counsel; and 4. granting Plaintiffs any other and further relief which they may show themselves justly entitled to in this matter. The complaint alleges that until 2010 Progressive determined the actual cash value of total losses using the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) Guidebook, but in 2010 it switched to a Work Center Total Loss (WCTL), which uses a different methodology. Progressive uniformly adjusted Plaintiffs and Class Members' total loss claims by utilizing the WCTL throughout the class period, according to the lawsuit. The Defendants continue to employ this practice in violation of Florida law. For this reason, injunctive relief barring Defendants' continued practice of using the WCTL to value total loss claims is appropriate and necessary, the Plaintiffs asserts. Progressive Casualty Company is the parent of various Progressive subsidiaries that issue automobile policies in various states, including the Progressive Defendants in this action. Progressive American Insurance Company issued its policy to Mr. Richardson. Progressive Select issued its policy to Mr. Larson.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. Kenya J. Reddy, Esq. Ryan J. McGee, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-2434 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com jcohen@forthepeople.com - and - Jonathan H. Waller, Esq. WALLER LAW OFFICE, PC 2001 Park Place, Suite 900 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 313-7330 E-mail: jwaller@waller-law.com PROTEON THERAPEUTICS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of holders of Proteon Therapeutics, Inc. ("Proteon") (NASDAQ CM: PRTO) common stock in connection with the proposed merger of Proteon and ArTara Therapeutics, Inc. ("ArTara") announced on September 23, 2019 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Proteon, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and ArTara, is captioned Plumley v. Proteon Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-02143 (D. Del.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. On September 23, 2019, Proteon entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with ArTara. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, ArTara stockholders will own approximately 90% of the combined company, while stockholders of Proteon will own approximately 10% (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement omits material information with respect to, among other things, the Company's and ArTara's financial projections and the analyses performed by Proteon's financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Proteon common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 3, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. Contact: Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Tel: (888) 969-4242, (302) 295-5310 Fax: (302) 654-7530 Website: http://www.rigrodskylong.com Email: gms@rl-legal.com sdr@rl-legal.com [GN] QUALCOMM INC: Makes Case for Trimming Size of Patent Fees Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Freeman, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports that Qualcomm's efforts to shrink one of the largest consumer class action lawsuits ever filed received a somewhat sympathetic reception at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Ryan Nelson expressed skepticism about whether a lower court's decision to allow a class of 250 million smartphone buyers nationwide was proper— particularly in regards to imposing California law across all 50 states. Nelson was part of three-judge panel hearing Qualcomm's appeal of San Jose District Judge Lucy Koh's ruling last year to certify the huge class action case. Oral arguments were held December 2. Billions in damages could be at stake. The lawsuit covers 1.2 billion cell phone sales over eight years. It accuses Qualcomm of violating anti-trust laws to charge inflated patent royalties to smartphone makers, who passed the cost on to consumers. Qualcomm contends Judge Koh was wrong to allow such a large, diverse and unwieldy class, making it hard for the San Diego company to exercise its due process rights to challenge whether consumers were harmed. Millions of phones, for example, were subsidized by wireless operators so consumers didn't directly pay anything if they signed up for a two-year mobile plan, said Robert Van Nest, Esq., an attorney representing Qualcomm. Qualcomm and the U.S. Department of Justice also argued Koh's certification improperly imposed California law on other states. California allows indirect purchasers - say cell phone buyers - to seek damages, even though they didn't directly pay Qualcomm patent royalties. About 20 other states don't allow such pass-through claims. "The district court chose to federalize California policy and impose it on all other states," Van Nest said. "For a variety of reasons those states have drawn a different balance between consumer protection and fostering an attractive business environment." Marc Seltzer, Esq. -- mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com -- a Susman Godfrey partner representing smartphone buyers, said they have enough in common to fall under the same grouping. An expert witness performed a massive regression analysis on smartphone purchases that concluded this large group of consumers were damaged because of Qualcomm's high patent fees. Judge Koh "made a meticulous analysis of the evidence, and she took into account all of Qualcomm's arguments," Seltzer said. "She responded and showed why the evidence supported a contrary position." Van Nest countered that the expert's analysis was flawed, and said Koh didn't dig deep enough into the methodology before certifying the class. That concerned Judge Nelson, who questioned whether it was the appeals court's job to re-examine Koh's fact finding. Appeals courts typically limit their work to whether the law was properly applied, giving substantial weight to lower court rulings on the facts. "I appreciate your arguments. I think they're really strong," Nelson said to Van Nest. "But everything you're arguing, we would have to find that the district court abused its discretion, and I feel like you're re-arguing some of the same arguments you made" in district court. The panel did not make a decision on December 2. It is unclear when it will issue a ruling. Qualcomm's shares ended trading Thursday up 50 cents at $82.58 on the Nasdaq exchange. [GN] QUORUM HEALTH: Accord in Della-Maggiora Suit Awaits Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Quorum Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in the class action lawsuit styled as, Mary Della-Maggiora, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Watsonville Community Hospital, entity unknown, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Cruz), are awaiting the court's preliminary approval of their settlement. On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a purported class action alleging violations of California Labor Code Section 226(a). On May 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint contains two causes of action. The first cause of action is brought by Plaintiff in her individual capacity and as potential class representative for all other Watsonville Community Hospital employees for alleged violations of Labor Code Section 226(a), subsections (6), (8), and (9). The second cause of action is brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 by Plaintiff in her individual capacity and as "appointed" representative of the State of California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, for alleged violations of Labor Code Section 226(a), subsection (9). Plaintiff generally alleges that the paystubs issued to Watsonville employees did not include all information required by California Labor Code Section 226(a). The case was settled between the parties on July 16, 2019. A hearing on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was scheduled for November 12, 2019. Quorum Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides hospital and outpatient healthcare services in the United States. Its hospital and outpatient healthcare services include general and acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, diagnostic, obstetric, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services. The company was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee. QUORUM HEALTH: Discovery Still Ongoing in Zwick Partners Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Quorum Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that discovery is still ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Zwick Partners LP and Aparna Rao, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller and Michael J. Culotta. On September 9, 2016, a shareholder filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against us and certain of our former officers. On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint adding additional defendants, CHS, Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash. The Second Amended Complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the company between May 2, 2016 and August 10, 2016. The Complaint sought damages related to the claims. On June 23, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which Plaintiff opposed. On April 19, 2018, the Court denied the company's motion to dismiss, and the company filed its answer to the Second Amended Complaint on May 18, 2018. On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification, which Defendants opposed. On March 29, 2019, the Court granted the motion and certified the class. Defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the class certification decision with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which petition was denied on July 31, 2019. On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging additional misstatements. On October 12, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss, and, on March 29, 2019, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the new allegations. Quorum Health said, The case is in discovery, and we are vigorously defending ourselves. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter. However, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a loss. We are unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of such possible loss. Under some circumstances, losses incurred in connection with adverse outcomes in this matter could be material. Quorum Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides hospital and outpatient healthcare services in the United States. Its hospital and outpatient healthcare services include general and acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine, diagnostic, obstetric, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services. The company was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee. RAY STONE: Faces Otis Employees Suit in California Superior Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ray Stone Incorporated, et al. The case is captioned as Sean Otis, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Does 1-25, Ray Stone Incorporated, Renoir Staffing Services, Inc., Renoir Staffing, Inc., and Renoir Staffing, LLC, Case No. 34-2019-00269952-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Nov. 26, 2019). The suit alleges violation of employment related laws. Ray Stone is doing business in real estate investing and management. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq. GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 542-2100 Facsimile: (213) 542-2101 E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Swearingen Sues Over Sale of Defective Zantac ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Froehlich Swearingen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, SANOFI US SERVICES INC., CHATTEM, INC., BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and WALMART INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-11632 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2019), arises from Defendants Sanofi and Boehringer's manufacturing and Defendant Chattem's distribution of Zantac, an over-the-counter medication that contain dangerously high levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic and liver-damaging impurity. Defendant Walmart sold the defective medication to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers. Mr. Froehlich purchased and consumed Zantac manufactured, distributed, sold by the Defendants. Neither the manufacturers, distributors nor retailers ever disclosed to consumers that the drug has two critical defects: first, ranitidine, the active ingredient in Zantac, is an inherently unstable compound, which as manufactured, stored, shipped and stored causes Zantac to contain dangerously high levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA); and second, when ingested, Zantac produces in the human body even higher quantities of NDMA, according to the complaint. NDMA is a semi-volatile organic chemical, produced as by-product of several industrial processes. Mr. Froehlich contends that he and the Class were injured by the full purchase price of their Zantac medications. He asserts that these medications are worthless, as they contain harmful levels of NDMA. As the medications expose users to NDMA well above the legal limit, the medications are not fit for human consumption. The Plaintiff is further entitled to statutory damages, damages for the injury sustained in consuming high levels of acutely-toxic NDMA, and for damages related to the Defendants' conduct. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the Class for equitable relief and to recover damages and restitution for: breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, violation of New York Gen. Bus. Law, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, and fraud. The Defendants have been engaged in the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of defective Zantac in the United States, including in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antonio Vozzolo, Esq. VOZZOLO LLC 345 Route 17 South Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Phone: (201) 630-8820 Email: avozzolo@vozzolo.com SAREN RESTAURANTS: Pelka Sues Over Unlawful Use Biometric Data -------------------------------------------------------------- Tanya Pelka and Robert Pelka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAREN RESTAURANTS INC., Case No. 2019CH14664 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought against the Defendant to stop its unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class' sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiffs, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, the Plaintiffs contend. Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate BIPA because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues not to: properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used, as required by BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiffs' and other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; receive a written release from Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use their fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; and obtain consent from Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information to a third party as required by BIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant in Peru, Illinois. The Defendant is an Illinois corporation with places of business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: 314-833-4825 Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com SC ENVIRONMENTAL: Unger, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTOPHER UNGER, and DUSTIN LACH, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, vs. SC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, and JOHN K. SEARS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00125-JTN-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: 1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. and authorizing Plaintiff to send notice of the case and the proposed settlement to: "all current and former hourly employees who worked for Defendants during the recovery period"; 2. certifying the collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act; 3. designating Plaintiffs Christopher Unger and Dustin Lach as Representative Plaintiffs; and 4. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel. SC Environmental Services, LLC is headquartered in the United States. The company's line of business includes providing wrecking and demolition services.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Jeffrey S. Theuer, Esq. LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, P.C. 124 W. Allegan St., Suite 700 Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone(517) 482-2400 E-mail: jstheuer@loomislaw.com Attorneys for the Defendants are: Randall B. Kleiman, Esq. Ted W. Stroud, Esq. OADE, STROUD & KLEIMAN, P.C. 200 Woodland Pass, P.O. 1296 East Lansing, MI 48826-1296 E-mail: rkleiman@osklaw.com SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces Police Retirement System of St. Louis Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that SciPlay is defending against a class action suit initiated by the Police Retirement System of St. Louis. On or about October 14, 2019, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis filed a putative class action complaint in New York state court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, and SciPlay's underwriters with respect to its initial public offering. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons or entities who acquired Class A common stock of SciPlay pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement filed and issued in connection with SciPlay’s initial public offering on or about May 3, 2019. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks certification of the putative class; compensatory damages of at least $144.7 million, and the award of the plaintiff's and the class's reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action. Scientific Games said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, if any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them." Scientific Games Corporation develops technology-based products and services, and related content for the gaming, lottery, and interactive gaming industries worldwide. Scientific Games Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. SCIENTIFIC GAMES: SciPlay Faces Good Class Suit in Nevada --------------------------------------------------------- Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that SciPlay is facing a class action suit initiated by John Good. On or about November 4, 2019, plaintiff John Good filed a putative class action complaint in Nevada state court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, SGC, and SciPlay's underwriters with respect to SciPlay's initial public offering. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who purchased Class A common stock of SciPlay in or traceable to SciPlay's initial public offering that it completed on or about May 7, 2019. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks certification of the putative class; compensatory damages, and the award of the plaintiff's and the class's reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action. Scientific Games said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them." Scientific Games Corporation develops technology-based products and services, and related content for the gaming, lottery, and interactive gaming industries worldwide. Scientific Games Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: March 2020 Standing Trial in Anderson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the standing trial in the case, Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW,, is scheduled for March 9, 2020, after which the Court will determine if there needs to be a trial on the merits which currently is scheduled for April 27, 2020. On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW. The putative class consisted of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. The complaint (as amended) alleges causes of action under the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket and orca plush purchasers with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiffs and purported class members. The complaint seeks restitution, equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs. Based on plaintiffs' definition of the class, the amount in controversy could have exceeded $5.0 million assuming the class became certified. The liability exposure is speculative though. On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on October 30, 2017 which the Court granted in part and denied in part. On May 23, 2018, the plaintiffs represented to the Court that they will not file a motion for class certification. The case is no longer a class action. All three named plaintiffs continue to have claims for individual restitution in a nominal amount and injunctive relief. The Court bifurcated the trial of the case into two phases: the Plaintiffs' standing to sue and the merits of their claims. The standing trial is scheduled for March 9, 2020, after which the Court will determine if there needs to be a trial on the merits which currently is scheduled for April 27, 2020. Pre-trial motions and mediation proceedings are continuing. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg, Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Orlando, Florida. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Trial in Baker Suit Set for Feb. 18 ----------------------------------------------------------- SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that trial in the class action suit entitled, Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), has been scheduled to begin for February 18, 2020. On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone. On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspaedagoger and Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs, Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund, filed an amended complaint against the Company, the Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its directors, certain of its executive officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public offering and secondary public offerings. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld’s business at the time of each public statement. On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the amended complaint, in its entirety, without prejudice. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint, which, among other things, no longer names the Company's Board or underwriters as defendants and no longer brings claims based on the prospectuses and registration statements. On September 30, 2016, the Court denied the renewed motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On May 19, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the Court granted on November 29, 2017. On December 13, 2017, Defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the Court's class certification order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on June 28, 2018. Discovery is now complete and, on April 15, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on April 15, 2019, Defendants filed motions to exclude each of Plaintiffs' three expert witnesses and Plaintiffs filed motions to exclude two of Defendants’ expert witnesses. On November 6, 2019 the Court issued a ruling on the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and the parties' motions to exclude, denying most of the motions, including that for summary judgment. The trial has been scheduled to begin on February 18, 2020. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg, Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Orlando, Florida. SEIU LOCAL 1000: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Hamidi Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned KOUROSH KENNETH HAMIDI, et al., AND THE CLASS THEY SEEK TO REPRESENT, Plaintiffs, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1000, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-00319 WBS KJN. (E.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi et al., and the class they represent (Employees) brought the class action against defendants Service Employees International Union Local 1000 ( SEIU Local 1000) and the California state controller, alleging that Local 1000's opt-out system for collecting optional union fees violates the Employees' First Amendment rights. In light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018), requiring employees' affirmative consent prior to any collection of union fees, the district court is now presented with the (1) parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, (2) defendant's motion to decertify the class, and (3) plaintiffs' motion to amend the class certification order. Plaintiff seeks repayment of all fees, both germane and non-germane to collective bargaining, collected from non-members prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus. Defendant does not contest that Local 1000's opt-out system to collect agency fees from non-members violates nonmembers' First Amendment rights under Janus. Defendant instead asserts a good faith defense to Section 1983 liability because the law at the time of Local 1000's collection of agency fees permitted such a system. District Judge William Shubb notes that the Supreme Court in Janus itself did not specify whether the plaintiff was entitled to retrospective monetary relief for conduct the Supreme Court had authorized for the previous forty years. The controlling law in the Ninth Circuit, however, recognizes a good faith defense in shielding private defendants from liability in Section 1983 actions. Judge Shubb finds that Local 1000 is entitled to the good-faith defense because its opt-out system complied with then-valid Supreme Court precedent. Prior to Janus, the California district court specifically found that Local 1000's opt-out procedure was consistent with both Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court decisions on agency fee collection. When plaintiffs filed suit, it was well established that unions may require non-members to pay the portion of the fair share fees that are used to fund expenditures germane to collective bargaining. Local 1000's Subjective Belief Plaintiffs contend that defendant did not in fact act in good faith because they should have known that the Court would overturn Abood. Plaintiffs are correct that unions have been on notice for years regarding the Court's misgivings about Abood. But reading the tea leaves of Supreme Court dicta has never been a precondition to good faith reliance on governing law. To find otherwise would force defendants to engage in constitutional gambling and decide if they truly agree with the Supreme Court's reasoning to avoid future liability. Local 1000's compliance with what was then the law is sufficient for a finding of good faith, the District Court finds. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, Judge Shubb rules. The district court's ruling here resolves plaintiffs' "sole remaining claim." Defendant's motion to decertify the class and plaintiffs' motion to amend the class certification order are therefore moot. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 24, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yylo86oy from Leagle.com Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi, Kim McElroy, Dawn P. Ammons, William L. Blaylock, Christopher Browne, Ryan Christensen, Kelli Giles, Madeline L. Lopez, Clint Miller, Gary W. Morrish, Virginia Ollis, Olayemi Sarumi, Cecilia Stanfield, Antonia Toledo & Diane C. Tutt, Plaintiffs, represented by W. James Young , National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc, 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160, pro hac vice & Steven R. Burlingham , Gary, Till, Burlingham & Lynch, 1380 Lead Hill Blvd Ste 200, Roseville, CA 95661-2997 Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, Defendant, represented by Anne M. Giese , Service Employees International Union, 1800 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036, Eve H. Cervantez- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com - Altshuler Berzon LLP, Jeffrey B. Demain - jdemain@altshulerberzon.com - Altshuler Berzon LLP, Patrick Casey Pitts -cpitts@altshulerberzon.com - Altshuler Berzon, LLP & York Jiann Chang -ychang@cta.org - SIRIUS XM: Nazario Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ EVEIANA NAZARIO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07844 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 27, 2019), seeks redress for the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Sirius XM's outbound telemarketing efforts include the use of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to solicit consumers nationwide and within Illinois. Sirius XM's outbound dialing system has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers. On October 8, 2019, the Plaintiff received a phone call from Sirius XM. The Plaintiff answered the phone call and informed the Sirius XM representative that she was not interested in Sirius XM's services and requested that the solicitation calls cease. Despite Plaintiff's request that the calls cease, Sirius XM continues to place marketing calls to Plaintiff's cellular phone. At no time did the Plaintiff provide her cellular phone number to Sirius XM or otherwise consent to receiving phone calls from Sirius XM. Consequently, Sirius XM shifts the burden of wasted time to consumers with unsolicited calls and messages, the lawsuit says. Sirius XM provides radio-broadcasting services to consumers nationwide on a subscription fee basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. Joseph S. Davidson, Esq. Victor T. Metroff, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575 8180 Facsimile: (630) 575 8188 E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com SMC CORP: Palomar Seeks to Recover Illegally Deducted Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- ALBERT PALOMAR, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04693-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., Nov. 26, 2019), seeks to recover all unpaid wages, including illegally deducted wages, and liquidated damages owed to the Plaintiff and others under the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. Mr. Palomar is a former employee of SMC Corporation. He began his employment with SMC Corporation in April 2018 and worked until he voluntarily resigned his employment on August 7, 2019. SMC Corporation of America manufactures pneumatic and electric automation equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert F. Hunt, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC 1905 South New Market St., Ste. 220 Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (317) 743-0614 Facsimile: (317) 743-0615 E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com rfh@indianawagelaw.com - and - Robert P. Kondras, Jr. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 E-mail kondras@hkmlawfirm.com SPARK THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Gomez Suit over Roche Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Spark Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Gomez v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-02487, in relation to its merger with Roche Holdings, Inc. On February 22, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Roche Holdings, Inc. (Roche) and 022019 Merger Subsidiary, Inc. (Merger Sub). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and upon the terms and subject to the conditions thereof, Merger Sub has commenced a cash tender offer (the Tender Offer) to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company's common stock at a price per share of $114.50, net to the seller of such shares in cash, without interest, subject to any withholding of taxes required by applicable law. On March 7, 2019, a complaint, Wang v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-00479, or the Wang Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by purported company stockholder Elaine Wang against the company and its directors in connection with the merger. On March 11, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint, Kent v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-00485, or the Kent Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by purported company stockholder Michael Kent against the company, its directors, the Merger Sub, and Roche in connection with the merger. On March 18, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint, Newman v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-00528, or the Newman Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by purported company stockholder Arthur Newman against the company and its directors in connection with the merger. On March 20, 2019, a complaint, Gomez v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-02487, or the Gomez Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by purported company stockholder Zarrin Gomez against the company and its directors in connection with the merger. The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint and the Gomez Complaint allege that the Schedule 14D-9 filed on March 7, 2019 in connection with the merger omitted certain supposedly material information. The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint and the Gomez Complaint assert claims against all the defendants for violation of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act, and against the company's directors, and in the case of the Kent Complaint, Roche, and in the case of the Gomez Complaint, the company, for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint and the Gomez Complaint also assert claims against all defendants for violation of Section 14(d) of the Exchange Act. The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint and the Gomez Complaint seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On September 5, 2019, the Kent Complaint and the Wang Complaint were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On October 31, 2019, the Newman Complaint was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice to the alleged class. On April 18, 2019, a complaint, Grant v. Bennett, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02615, or the Grant Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against certain trustees at the University of Pennsylvania, the company and Roche, alleging intellectual property infringement and false claims by the trustees and seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the licensing of all adeno-associated virus patents by the University of Pennsylvania to the company's and the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. On June 25, 2019, the court dismissed the Grant Complaint with prejudice for lack of prosecution of the case due to plaintiff's failure to respond. Spark said, "We, and our board, believe that the Gomez Complaint is without merit and we, our board, the Merger Sub, and Roche intend to defend vigorously against such claim. Additional similar cases may also be filed in connection with the tender offer or the merger." Spark Therapeutics, Inc. focuses on the development of gene therapy products for patients suffering from debilitating genetic diseases. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. SPECIALIZED LOAN: Joseph Sues Over Improper Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------- Joseph V. Joseph, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, Case No. 0:19-cv-63121-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, for the benefit of Florida consumers, who have been subjected to improper debt collection efforts by the Defendant. The Defendant sent initial written communications to those consumers demanding payments on alleged debts, threatening foreclosure proceedings, and indicating that the consumers' alleged debts will be assumed valid, generally, absent their dispute of the debts, according to the complaint. It is important to consider that Congress enacted the FDCPA in 1977 to "eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors." This case centers on the Defendant providing insufficient and improper validation notices to Florida consumers by advising them that their alleged debts would be assumed valid--potentially by anyone, including creditors or courts of law--unless the consumers disputed the debts within 30 days. These same notices constituted misleading collection efforts in leading consumers to believe that persons or entities other than the Defendant would assume their debts to be valid, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who is obligated, or allegedly obligated, to pay a debt owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, a creditor other than the Defendant. The Defendant is a part of Computershare Loan Services, "a leading international third party mortgage services provider."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Phone: (561) 826-5477 Fax: (561) 961-5684 Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Matis H. Aberbanel, Esq. LOAN LAWYERS 3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312 Phone: (954) 523-4357 Email: matis@fight13.com STANDARD INDUSTRIES: Imburgia Sues Over False Master Elite Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Imburgia and Sarah Mabry, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. STANDARD INDUSTRIES, INC. DBA GAF MATERIALS COPRORATION, Case No. 2019CH14672 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought to remedy a deceptive marketing scheme that GAF directs at the public, enriching itself at the expense of homeowners, who hire and pay more for roofing contractors based on a largely worthless "Master Elite" certification GAF bestows upon them. GAF holds out its "Master Elite" program as a way that it provides "peace of mind" to homeowners in choosing qualified roofing contractors. GAF claims that to become "certified" as "Master Elite," contractors must meet stringent standards which provide assurance that such contractors are professional and dependable. GAF further claims that only 2% of all roofing contractors meet this standard. In reality, GAF's Master Elite program is little more than a licensing agreement between GAF and nominally independent roofing contractors through which GAF calls them "Master Elite" and allows them to sell certain warranties from GAF in exchange for those contractors committing to use predominantly GAF products, the Plaintiffs allege. This makes GAF's "certification" unreliable and far from objective. Moreover, the Plaintiffs say, GAF does not disclose to homeowners that to obtain a Master Elite certification, a roofing contractor must commit to using predominantly GAF products. GAF's largely worthless certification allows "Master Elite" contractors to charge a significant premium for their services and to win business from homeowners who might otherwise hire other contractors, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of Illinois. GAF is a leading manufacturer of roofing products and sells a wide range of roofing products, including residential roofing systems and shingles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth Yohalem, Esq. Adam Waskowski, Esq. Daniel R. Johnson, Esq. WASKOWSKI JOHNSON YOHALEM LLP 954 West Washington Boulevard, Suite 322 Chicago, IL 60607 Phone: 312-278-3153 STOVER DIAGNOSTICS: Bid for Conditional Certification Withdrawn --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as AMBER JONES and VICTORIA LUGO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STOVER DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORIES, INC., et al, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00740 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered an order directing Clerk to withdraw Plaintiff's motion for condition certification and the issuance of court-supervised notice. On December 13, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Conditional Certification and the Issuance of Court-Supervised Notice.[CC] STOVER DIAGNOSTICS: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as AMBER JONES and VICTORIA LUGO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. STOVER DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORIES, INC., STOVER vMEDICAL LOGISTICS, INC., and STOVER MEDICAL PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19−cv−00740 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of potential opt-ins under the Fair Labor Standards Act: "all mobile phlebotomists who, at any time since [3 years prior to the date the parties' filed their Stipulation Regarding Conditional Certification], have resided in Tennessee and worked for Defendants"; 2. approving distribution of Parties' agreed proposed Notices of the action to be sent via U.S. mail and electronic mail, to potential opt-ins consistent with the Order; 3. directing Defendants to provide Plaintiffs' Counsel the name, last known mailing address(es), and e-mail address(es) for each member of the above-referenced class, within 14 days from the entry of the Order; 4. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to send the Court-approved Notice to each member of the class via U.S. Mail, accompanied by a Consent Form and pre-addressed, pre-paid return envelope addressed to Plaintiffs' counsel, and the Court-approved Notice that is attached to the Parties' Joint Motion via e-mail, accompanied by a Consent Form, within seven days from the receipt of the names, mailing address(es), and email address(es) for class members from Defendants; 5. directing Plaintiffs that all signed Consent Forms must be postmarked or submitted electronically to Plaintiff's Counsel within 60 days from when the Notices and Consent Forms are sent by U.S. mail and electronic mail to putative 216(b) Opt-In Plaintiffs who meet the class definition; and 6. directing Counsel for Plaintiffs to file with the Court upon receipt, and no later than 21 days after the close of the Notice Period, all signed consents to join that are timely postmarked or submitted electronically to Plaintiffs' Counsel within the Notice Period.[CC] TANDY LEATHER: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Tandy Leather Factory, Inc. between March 7, 2018 and August 15, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important January 6, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tandy investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Tandy class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1717.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, the defendants' statements throughout the Class Period were false and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain costs of inventory had been improperly valued and expensed; (2) Tandy's financial results for certain periods were misstated; (3) Tandy lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; (4) there was a material weakness in Tandy's internal control over financial reporting; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements regarding Tandy's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 6, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1717.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] TEGNA INC: Bid to Dismiss Clay Massey Suit over Ad Rates Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tegna Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the defendants' motion to dismiss in the class action suit entitled, Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc. et al., is pending. In the third quarter of 2018, certain national media outlets reported the existence of a confidential investigation by the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) into the local television advertising sales practices of station owners. On November 13 and December 13, 2018, DOJ and seven broadcasters settled a DOJ complaint alleging the exchange of competitively sensitive information in the broadcast television industry. On June 17, 2019, the company and four other broadcasters entered into a substantially identical agreement with DOJ. The settlement contains no finding of wrongdoing or liability and carries no penalty. It prohibits the company and the other settling entities from sharing certain confidential business information, or using such information pertaining to other broadcasters, except under limited circumstances. The settlement also requires the settling parties to make certain enhancements to their antitrust compliance programs; to continue to cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation and to permit DOJ to verify compliance. The company do not expect the costs of compliance to be material. Since the national media reports, numerous putative class action lawsuits were filed against owners of television stations (the Advertising Cases) in different jurisdictions. Plaintiffs are a class consisting of all persons and entities in the United States who paid for all or a portion of advertisement time on local TV provided by the defendants. The Advertising Cases assert antitrust and other claims and seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against the allegedly wrongful conduct. These cases have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc. et. al., filed on July 30, 2018. At the court's direction, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 3, 2019, that superseded the original complaints. Although the company was named as a defendant in sixteen of the original complaints, the amended complaint did not name TEGNA as a defendant. After TEGNA and four other broadcasters entered into consent decrees with the Department of Justice in June 2019, the plaintiffs sought leave from the court to further amend the complaint to add TEGNA and the other settling broadcasters to the proceeding. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on September 9, 2019. On October 8, 2019, the defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the matter. Tegna said, "We deny any violation of law, believe that the claims asserted in the Advertising Cases are without merit, and intend to defend ourselves vigorously against them." Tegna Inc., incorporated on February 23, 1972, is a media company. The Company provides stories, investigations and marketing services. It operates 47 television stations in 39 United States markets and owns four network affiliates. It also provides services to advertisers through solutions, including its over the top (OTT) local advertising network, Premion. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Spinney Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Opioids ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW SPINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Israel, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02030-APG-VCF (D. Nev., Nov. 22, 2019), arises from opioid epidemic allegedly caused by the Defendants' deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of deception. The Defendants include Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Cephalon, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Johnson & Johnson, a New Jersey corporation; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; Endo Health Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Allergan PLC f/k/a Actavis PLC, a public limited company incorporated under the laws of the State of Ireland; Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Actavis, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Actavis, Inc., a Delaware limited liability company; Watson Laboratories, Inc., a Nevada corporation; McKesson Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Cardinal Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Amerisourcebergen Corporation, a Delaware corporation. The lawsuit seeks to recompense for compensatory damages, emotional distress; loss of enjoyment of life; lost earning capacity and loss of income; loss of filial consortium; loss of spousal consortium; anguish; sorrow; solace, including companionship, comfort, guidance, kindly offices, advise, services, protection, care, and assistance; services for medical care, including any necessary rehabilitation; and/or funeral and burial expenses. The Plaintiff alleges that for years, the Defendants misrepresented the risks posed by the opioids they manufacture and sell, misleading susceptible prescribers and vulnerable patient populations. As families and communities suffered from the scourge of opioid abuse, the Defendants earned billions in profits as a direct result of the harms they inflicted. According to the complaint, prescription opioids have devastated communities across the country and in the State of Nevada. In addition to the tragic loss of life and the heartbreaking impact on children and loved ones, some estimates state that the opioid crisis is costing governmental entities and private companies as much as $500 billion per year. The Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute prescription opioids, which are highly addictive narcotic painkillers. The Defendants have engaged in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors and patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the Defendants falsely minimized the risks of opioids, overstated their benefits, and generated far more opioid prescriptions than there should have been. The Defendants' false and misleading statements deceived doctors and patients about the risks and benefits of opioids and convinced them that opioids were not only appropriate, but necessary to treat chronic pain, according to the complaint. The Defendants targeted susceptible prescribers, like family doctors, and vulnerable patient populations, like the elderly and veterans. The class action is a potential tag-along action and, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 1407 should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to be included in In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804, the lawsuit added.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William R. Urga, Esq. Bruce L. Woodbury, Esq. Brian E. Holthus, Esq. JOLLEY URGA WOODBURY HOLTHUS & ROSE 330 S. Rampart Blvd., Suite 380 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone: 702 699 7500 Facsimile: 702/699-7555 E-mail: wru@juwlaw.com blw@juwlaw.com beh@juwlaw.com - and - Ashley Keller, Esq. Travis Lenkner, Esq. Seth Meyer, Esq. Keller Lenkner LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 5100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312 506.5641 E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com tdl@kellerlenkner.com sam@kellerlenkner.com - and - William S. Consovoy, Esq. Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq. CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: 703 243 9423 E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com tom@consovoymccarthy.com TEXARKANA BEHAVIORAL: Withrow Seeks Overtime Wages for Nurses ------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE WITHROW, KATHERINE YOUNTS and CONNIE MEADORS, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. TEXARKANA BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES, L.C., and ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-05220-TLB (W.D. Ark., Dec. 2, 2019), accuses the Defendants of failing to pay the Plaintiffs and others lawful overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as nurses within the three years preceding the filing of the complaint. The nurses encompass Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, and Certified Nurse Assistants. The Defendants' primary business purpose is to provide psychiatric and mental health treatment. The Defendants employ nurses to accomplish this goal.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: 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 TRANS UNION: Tanaka Sues in Hawaii Alleging Violation of FCRA ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans Union, LLC. The case is captioned as Paanaakala Tanaka, on behalf of herself and all consumers similarly situated v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00642-LEK-RT (D. Haw., Nov. 27, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Trans Union was formed in order to issue notes to finance future working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, and other general business purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 7 Waterfront Plaza 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 400 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 543-1122 E-mail: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com U.S. SUGAR: Faces Class Suit Over Sugar Field Burns in Poor Towns ----------------------------------------------------------------- For residents of the Glades, a string of poor, predominantly African American rural towns dotting the southern shore of Florida's Lake Okeechobee, the beginning of the annual sugar cane harvest in October means the arrival of "black snow." "You'd hate to come down here when it's snowing," said Kaniyah Patterson, an asthmatic 12-year-old who lives with her mother and grandmother in a housing project surrounded by several large sugar cane fields in the Palm Beach County community of Pahokee. "That black stuff irritates me," Kaniyah said, sighing. "Sometimes I can't breathe." The "snow" is an airborne byproduct of the disputed practice of burning sugar fields before harvests. Kaniyah says it "stuffs up" her nose and stains her clothes. At times, she says, the poor air quality makes it difficult to keep up with her friends when playing outside. For generations, Florida's sugar cane farmers have legally set fire to their fields prior to the harvest, leaving only the cane, a practice that reduces transportation costs because they ship the cane without the surrounding vegetation. In the Glades community alone, home to more than 40,000 people, cane growers burned more than 1.5 million acres (2 million hectares) of sugar cane between 2008 and 2018 - a land mass about the size of Delaware - according to state data. In several major sugar-producing countries such as Brazil, the practice is being phased out due to health concerns. The fires can produce sooty plumes of smoke that hover over the surrounding communities and dust the area with burnt flakes of plant matter. Research in Florida on the potential health consequences of sugar cane burning has produced conflicting results: A 2015 study funded by the U.S. Education Department concludes that residents of areas such as the Glades that are frequently exposed to large burns experience a greater amount of "respiratory distress." The Environmental Protection Agency has said residents are exposed to hazardous air pollutants on par with some urban areas. But an analysis last year by the American Lung Association and data compiled by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection both concluded that air quality in Palm Beach County was up to code. A class-action lawsuit filed in June against nearly a dozen sugar companies in the region - which leads the nation in sugar production - claims the burns reduce property values and compromise air quality with toxic carcinogens. The two other states where sugar is grown are Texas and Louisiana. In Florida, 75% of sugar is grown in the Glades region of Palm Beach County. The rest is harvested in the adjacent counties of Hendry, Glades and Martin. Patrick Ferguson, who is leading an anti-burn campaign for the Sierra Club, called the matter a lopsided "environmental justice issue" that disproportionately affects poor communities of color. U.S. Sugar, one of the companies listed in the lawsuit, stands by the practice of burning. It contends that its methods are safe, closely monitored and highly regulated, and that the overall well-being of its workers and the greater community is "vitally important" to the company. Opponents of burning argue cleaner, safer alternatives exist. The Sierra Club and local activists are urging growers to switch to a practice known as green harvesting, a burn-free process that is already the industry standard in Brazil. They argue that instead of burning, sugar producers could repurpose plant waste into mulch, bioplastics or a clean energy source. In Florida, the method is sometimes employed by local growers at times when they are not able to burn. But a full switch to green harvesting could mean a massive and costly overhaul of production infrastructure for sugar producers. U.S. Sugar, for one, has yet to find a large-scale use for the massive amounts of leaf material left over after a harvest, company spokesman Judy Sanchez said. In the past, the company has said those who oppose sugar field burning are attacking the very industry that supports the local economy. Activist Kina Phillips, 44, a mother of three from South Bay whose husband works for one of the local sugar companies, said that is not the case. "We don't want the sugar mill to close down," Phillips said. "Why would I take food out of my own mouth?" But Phillips said she believes green harvesting would be healthier while potentially bringing more jobs to the poor area. She calls the burning season a "battle," especially for her 5-year-old grandson Jamal Tillman, whose immune system suffers and asthma worsens. Philips declared that it's time for locals to "step up and stop turning a blind eye" to a powerful industry that she says is poisoning her community. Florida law requires sugar companies to take into account wind directions at the start of a burn to avoid populated areas, but residents say that because their communities are so close to the sugar crops, they get the smoke anyway. Last month, Florida Department of Agriculture Commissioner Nicole "Nikki" Fried announced that while sugar cane burning would remain legal, she would implement a series of rule changes, including working with producers to encourage green harvesting and potentially shortening burn seasons. In Pahokee, Kaniyah Patterson's 64-year-old grandmother Annie Young, who also has asthma, said she is doubtful anything will change. "I got to deal with it," she said. "I don't have another place to stay." [GN] UNITED SERVICES: Undervalues "Total Loss" Vehicles, Ruby Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN RUBY, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-02922-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., Nov. 26, 2019), arises from the Defendants' systemic and intentionally wrongful under-valuation of total losses involving the vehicles of USAA first party insureds. According to the complaint, USAA has spent tens of millions of dollars to market itself as a fair and honest insurance company. However, USAA is not fair and honest in providing valuations to USAA insureds whose vehicles have been involved in an accident and are determined to be a total loss. Through its auto insurance policy contracts, USAA has agreed to provide, inter alia, collision coverage for losses resulting from damage to insureds' vehicles. When the costs of repairs exceed a specified percentage of the vehicle's value, USAA declares the vehicle a total loss and must fairly adjust that total loss claim by properly valuing the insured vehicle. USAA has contracted with CCC to receive Market Valuation Reports to determine the "Base Vehicle Value" of a total loss vehicle and the "Adjusted Value" after any "Condition Adjustment" and applicable deductible. Through this agreement with CCC, USAA and CCC have engaged in a scheme to artificially deflate the value of the total loss claims with the specific intent to pay first party insureds less than the actual pre-loss value of total loss vehicles by making improper downward adjustments for the "condition" of the total loss vehicle, the purported comparable vehicles, or both. When it entered into the policies at issue in this case with Plaintiff and Class Members, USAA was aware, but failed to disclose to the Plaintiff and the Class, that CCC's Reports would wrongfully under-value total loss vehicles and that USAA would intentionally underpay total loss claims based on those Reports, according to the complaint. Through this scheme, the Plaintiff asserts, USAA and CCC have engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of Florida law, and their respective contractual obligations and have, thereby, uniformly damaged USAA insureds in Florida in a readily ascertainable dollar amount. Capt. Brian Ruby was the owner of a 2014 BMW 3 Series 328i RWD. USAA issued its Automobile Policy No. 03476518371028 (the "Policy") to the Plaintiff which insured the Vehicle. The Policy was effective from December 21, 2015, to the present. Following an automobile accident with another vehicle operated by a third party, on July 25, 2019, USAA determined that the Plaintiff's Vehicle was a "total loss." The terms of USAA's Policy issued to the Plaintiff are not individualized, unique or specific to Capt. Ruby. The Plaintiff's Policy is the same standard form used by USAA in Florida. On July 26, 2019, USAA provided the Plaintiff a CCC Report purporting to state a "Base Value" in the amount of $12,352.00, and an "Adjusted Value" of $12,520.00 after a positive condition adjustment in the amount of $168.00. On October 2, 2019, USAA provided Plaintiff with a revised CCC Report purporting to state a "Base Value" in the amount of $13,127.00, and an "Adjusted Value" of $13,295.00 after a positive condition adjustment in the amount of $168.00. USAA ultimately paid the Plaintiff the amount of $13,295.00 for the purported "actual cash value" of his Vehicle. USAA concealed from the Plaintiff that its purported total loss valuations were based upon the statistically invalid and unlawful CCC Valuation Methodology, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have been damaged by USAA's systemic underpayment of total loss claims. This underpayment results from USAA's intentional failure to fairly and properly determine Actual Cash Value and its knowingly improper downward Condition Adjustments. The Plaintiff and the putative Class are USAA automobile insurance policy holders whose vehicles USAA determined to be a total loss, and who have been subject to USAA and CCC's scheme to artificially deflate the value of their total loss claims by making such improper downward condition adjustments. USSA is a foreign corporation operating under the laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas. USAA issued automobile liability insurance policies, including coverage for property damage and first-party total loss claims, to the Plaintiff and Class Members, and many thousands of other insureds who have not incurred a total loss in Florida. CCC Information Services, Inc., is a foreign corporation operating under the laws of the state of Illinois with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. CCC has entered into a contract with USAA to prepare and provide all USAA total loss insureds with purported valuations for total loss vehicles in the form of CCC Reports throughout the class period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-2434 E-mail: jcohen@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Jonathan H. Waller, Esq. WALLER LAW OFFICE, PC 2001 Park Place, Suite 900 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 313-7330 E-mail: jwaller@waller-law.com UNITED STATES: Young Balks at Mich. Medicaid's Work Requirements ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA YOUNG, MARIA YAKOVCHIK, JAMIE ARDEN, Homeless, KATINA PETROPOULOS, Plaintiff v. ALEX M. AZAR, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES in his official capacity; SEEMA VERMA, ADMINISTRATOR, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES in her official capacity; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; and CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03526 (D.D.C., Nov. 22, 2019), asks the Court to declare that the Defendants' issuance of the Dear State Medicaid Director Letter and the approval of the Michigan HMP Amended Extension Application, which set out certain work requirements for Healthy Michigan Plan enrollees, violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the Social Security Act and the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants from implementing the practices purportedly authorized by Dear State Medicaid Director Letter and the approval of the Michigan HMP Amended Extension Application. On January 11, 2018, Defendant CMS issued a letter to State Medicaid Directors titled "Opportunities to Promote Work and Community Engagement Among Medicaid Beneficiaries." The nine-page document "announc[es] a new policy" that allows states to impose "work and community engagement" requirements on certain Medicaid recipients--specifically, "non-elderly, non-pregnant adult Medicaid beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicaid on a basis other than disability." In June 2018, the Michigan Legislature passed a law directing the State to request permission under Section 1115 to condition Medicaid eligibility for the expansion population on mandatory work requirements and, for a subset of the expansion, on heightened and mandatory premiums. The State submitted the corresponding Section 1115 waiver application on September 10, 2018 as an amendment to a pending application to extend the Healthy Michigan Plan waiver ("HMP amended extension application"). The Secretary approved the amended extension application on December 21, 2018, with Special Terms and Conditions. On February 8, 2019, as required by the state law, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer accepted the Special Terms and Conditions, noting that between 61,000 and 183,000 individuals will lose health coverage as a result of the work requirements. Michigan will begin implementing the work requirements on January 1, 2020. The State will begin suspending the coverage of individuals who have not met the work requirements on May 1, 2020. Under the Secretary's approval, Healthy Michigan Plan enrollees, including the Plaintiffs, aged 19 to 62 must engage in specified work or work-related activities for 80 hours per month. The work requirements do not apply to pregnant women, medically frail individuals, or individuals with a disability or other condition that prevents them from working, as verified by a licensed medical professional. In addition, enrollees who meet certain other criteria are exempt from the requirements, such as being a full-time student, serving as the primary caregiver for a child under age six, caring for an individual with a disability, having been incarcerated within the last six months, or current receipt of unemployment benefits. Enrollees, who are not exempt must report their work activities monthly. Enrollees who do not report the required hours for three months in a 12-month period will lose coverage at the end of the fourth month, unless during the fourth month, the individual completes 80 hours of qualifying activities or demonstrates that they qualify for a good cause or other exemption. There is one good cause exemption: individuals who are unable to meet the requirement for reasons related to their own or an immediate family member's disability or serious illness. An individual who is dis-enrolled at the end of the fourth month is not permitted to re-enroll for one month. Thereafter, an individual can re-enroll by completing 80 hours of qualifying activities in one month. The Plaintiffs contend that the Secretary's approval will harm them and other individuals throughout the State--teachers, social workers, students, and caregivers--who need a range of health services, including treatment for heart conditions, asthma, high blood pressure, sleep apnea, cancer, arthritis, migraines, and mental health services. Without access to Medicaid coverage, people across Michigan will be forced to forgo treatment for their conditions or will incur significant medical debt when their conditions become so severe that they have no choice but to seek treatment in acute care and emergency department settings, the Plaintiffs add. HHS is a federal agency with responsibility for overseeing implementation of provisions of the Social Security Act, of which the Medicaid Act is a part. CMS is the agency within HHS with primary responsibility for overseeing federal and state implementation of the Medicaid Act as required by federal law.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jane Perkins, Esq. Sarah Somers, Esq. Sarah Grusin, Esq. NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM 200 N. Greensboro Street, Suite D-13 Carrboro, NC 27510 Telephone: 919 968-6308 E-mail: perkins@healthlaw.org somers@healthlaw.org grusin@healthlaw.org - and - Kelly L. Bidelman, Esq. Linda A. Jordan, Esq. CENTER FOR CIVIL JUSTICE 436 S. Saginaw Street, Suite 400 Flint, MI 48502 Telephone: 810-244-8044 E-mail: kbidelman@ccj-mi.org ljordan@ccj-mi.org - and - Lisa Ruby, Esq. MICHIGAN POVERTY LAW PROGRAM 15 S. Washington Ypsilanti, MI 48197 Telephone: 734-998-6100 ext.617 E-mail: lruby@mplp.org UNITI GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Alerts of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a motion to serve as lead plaintiff in a securities class action on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Uniti Group Inc. ("Uniti" or the "Company") (UNIT) between April 20, 2015 and February 15, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Uniti securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Uniti Shareholder Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint alleges that Uniti made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Uniti's financial results were not sustainable because its customer Windstream had defaulted on its unsecured notes; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Uniti's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On February 15, 2019, United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman released his finding of facts and conclusions of law declaring that Windstream breached the indenture and awarded Aurelius a monetary judgment of $310,459,959.10 plus interest. On this news, the price of Uniti's common stock fell $7.47 from a close of $19.98 per share of Uniti common stock on February 15, 2019, to a close of 12.51 per share of Uniti common stock on February 19, 2019. A drop of approximately 37.39% If you purchased Uniti securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/unitigroupinc-unit-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-211/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 30, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact: Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Website: https://www.bernlieb.com Tel: (877) 779-1414 Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] UNITI GROUP: Safadi Putative Class Action Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Uniti Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Ibrahim E. Safadi. On October 25, 2019, Ibrahim E. Safadi filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against the Company and certain of its officers alleging violations of federal securities laws. The putative class action seeks to represent investors who acquired the Company's securities between April 20, 2015 and February 15, 2019. The lawsuit asserts violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging that the Company made materially false and misleading statements by allegedly failing to disclose that the Spin-Off and entry in the Master Lease violated certain debt covenants of Windstream. The lawsuit seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other relief. Uniti said, "We intend to defend this matter vigorously, and, because it is still in its preliminary stages, have not yet determined what effect this lawsuit will have, if any, on our financial position or results of operations." Uniti Group Inc. operates as a real estate investment trust. The Company provides wireless infrastructure solutions for communications industry. Uniti Group serves customers in the United States and Latin America. The company is based in Little Rock, Arkansas. UNO RESTAURANT: Gift Cards Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- YONY SOSA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. UNO RESTAURANT HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND UNO RESTAURANTS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10960 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille and to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift cards, and, therefore, denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the Plaintiff contends. He adds that because the Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Store Gift Card is an electronic promise, plastic card, or other device that is redeemable at a single merchant or an affiliated group of merchants that share the same name, mark or logo. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit cards, etc. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its store gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant owns, operates and/or controls Uno Restaurant restaurants across the United States. Several of these restaurants are located in the Southern District of New York. These restaurants constitute places of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212 228 9795 Facsimile: 212 982 6284 - and - Zare Khorozian, Esq. ZARE KHOROZIAN LAW LLC 1047 Anderson Avenue Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: 201.957.7269 Facsimile: 201.224.9841 E-mail: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com USA: Denial of Writ of Habeas Corpus in Aguilar ICE Suit Endorsed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, OSCAR ALEXIS GONZALEZ AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. KEVIN McALEENAN, MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, WILLIAM P. BARR, JOSE M. CORREA, DEAN KING, and CHAD MILLER, Respondents, Case No. 19-cv-0412 WJ/SMV (D. N.M.), Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico recommended that the Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed on May 3, 2019, be denied. The Petitioner is a 22-year-old transgender woman from Honduras. She fled Honduras at age 12 after suffering abuse due to her gender identity. She travelled to Mexico where she was held captive in a Mexican bar, and forced to engage in sex work for about five years. When she was 17, the Petitioner presented herself to immigration officials at the U.S.-Mexico border and requested asylum. She had no valid entry documents. She was detained and sent to the San Diego Juvenile Coordinator. On July 9, 2014, the Petitioner was released from custody on an Order of Release on Recognizance. In August 2017, the Petitioner was arrested in Louisiana and charged with prostitution and crimes against nature. The Louisiana authorities transferred her to Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") custody. ICE revoked her Order of Release on Recognizance and detained her under 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) as an alien seeking admission into the United States. The Petitioner has remained in custody since 2017. She is detained at the Cibola County Correctional Center in Milan, New Mexico. The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") has repeatedly denied her requests for parole or to be released on her own recognizance. In May 2018, an immigration judge denied her asylum claim and ordered her removed from the United States to Honduras. She appealed that decision. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal and affirmed her order of removal. The Petitioner appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and filed an emergency motion to stay her removal pending judicial review. The Tenth Circuit granted Petitioner's motion to stay her removal, finding that she had made a strong showing that she is likely to succeed on the merits. Her removal is stayed pending the Tenth Circuit's decision on her appeal. The Petitioner filed the instant Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on May 3, 2019. She brings her Petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. She argues that her continued detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Petitioner asserts that the Court should order the Respondents to release her from DHS custody because her prolonged and potentially indefinite detention violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Alternatively, the Petitioner requests that the Court orders the Respondents to release her within 30 days unless Respondents schedule a bond hearing before an immigration judge and establish that she presents a flight risk or danger to the community. The Respondents raise a number of arguments against the Petition. First, they argue that because Petitioner is an arriving alien who has not yet been admitted to the United States, she has no statutory or Fifth Amendment right to a bond hearing or immediate release. Second, they contend that even if the Fifth Amendment protects her from indefinite detention, that right is not implicated because her detention will not continue indefinitely. Third, the Respondents argue that Congress has plenary power of immigration regulation, and Petitioner has received all the process that Congress has provided her. Fourth, the Respondents argue that if the Court were inclined to require a bond hearing, the government should not bear the burden of proving that the Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community. Finally, the Respondents contend that only Warden Chad Miller -- the person with custody of Petitioner -- is a proper Respondent. Because Magistrate Judge Vidmar finds that the DHS is currently detaining Petitioner under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) after her arrest in the United States for prostitution. Though she requests to be released, the text of Section 1225(b)(2) mandates her continued detention. Neither does the text of Section 1225(b) require a bond hearing. The Plaintiff does not argue that any other statute authorizes her release. The Petitioner's case therefore turns on whether the Fifth Amendment permits her continued detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). The Magistrate Judge must determine (1) whether the Petitioner has received the process provided by the relevant statutes, and (2) whether her continued detention violates the substantive-due-process component of the Fifth Amendment. First, the Magistrate Judge finds that as an arriving alien who has not yet entered the United States, the Petitioner is not entitled to be released or entitled to a bond hearing because the relevant statutes do not provide for that relief. The Petitioner is an applicant for admission detained under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). hough the government released her on her own recognizance prior to her most recent detention, she had not yet been admitted to the United States and is still considered an arriving alien. Therefore, she is legally considered to be detained at the border. Next, the Magistrate Judge turns to the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Any substantive-due-process claim that the Petitioner could have raised is waived because she has failed to sufficiently brief one. Though she does not expressly state whether she brings her habeas petition under the substantive or procedural component of the Due Process Clause, the Petitioner devotes all her briefing to the argument that the United States has continued to detain her pursuant to an unconstitutional procedure -- specifically, the lack of a bond hearing. Such an argument may raise procedural-due-process concerns, but not a substantive-due-process claim. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Petitioner's Petition. The Petitioner requests her costs and reasonable attorney fees in this action under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). EAJA only permits an award of costs and reasonable attorney fees to a "prevailing party," however. Because he recommends denying the Petitioner's Petition, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying her request for EAJA fees as she is not the prevailing party. For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Vidmar recommended that the Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2019 Findings & Recommended Disposition is available at https://is.gd/I4jlau from Leagle.com. Oscar Alexis (Kelly) Gonzalez Aguilar, Petitioner, represented by Katherine Elizabeth Goettel, National Immigrant Justice Center, Leon F. Howard, III, ACLU-NM & Tania P. Linares Garcia, National Immigrant Justice Center. Kevin McAleenan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Matthew T. Albence, in his official capacity as Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, William P Barr, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Floyd Sam Farmer, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director, El Paso Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Dean King, in his official capacity as Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Cibola County Correctional Center & Chad Miller, in his official capacity as Warden of the Cibola County Correctional Center, Respondents, represented by Tiffany L. Walters, U.S. Attorney's Office. WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Court Tosses Motion for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Jenilee Johnson, et al., the Plaintiff, v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07818 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Martha M. Pacold entered an order dismissing Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk, status hearing and motion hearing was held on Dec. 16, 2019. Defendant, U.S. Asset Mangement's motion to compel arbitration is voluntarily withdrawn. Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification and defendant Weltman, Weinberg & Reis' joinder to the motion to compel arbitration are dismissed Th Plaintiffs were given until Dec. 23, 2019 to file a new motion for class certification. Responses to the motion for class certification will be due on Jan. 24, 2020. By Jan. 24, 2020, the parties are to work out the deposition schedule and file a stipulation in regards to an appropriate date for Plaintiffs to file a reply brief in support of the motion for class certification, the Court added.[CC] WHITE STONE: Faces Phelps Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH PHELPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHITE STONE DEVELOPMENTS LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-24897-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 26, 2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. On August 12, 2019, and October 22, 2019, the Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 3245. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling the Plaintiff construction services. The Defendant is a south west Florida developer and general contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com WILL COUNTY, IL: Walsh, et al. Seek to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the case, DEREK WALSH, SHANE MITCHELL, TERRELL HILL, BRIAN ENGELSMAN, and WILLIAM HINTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MIKE KELLEY, in his official capacity as sheriff of Will County, Illinois, and WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05405 (N.D. Ill.), Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting a motion for class certification of: "all individuals presently or in the future detained in the Will County Adult Detention Facility (the jail) who are subjected to the restrictions on reading materials and unreasonable delays in their incoming and outgoing mail challenged in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint"; and 2. appointing Plaintiffs' attorneys as class counsel. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: 847-361-3869 - and - Mark G. Weinberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Ave. Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: 773 283-3913 X FINANCIAL: Faces Ningappa Securities Suit Over IPO Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- SHIVAKUMAR NINGAPPA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. X FINANCIAL, YUE TANG, JIE ZHANG, SHAOYONG CHENG, DING GAO, SHENGWEN RONG, ZHENG XUE, LONGGEN ZHANG, RICHARD ARTHUR, COLLEEN A. DEVRIES, COGENCY GLOBAL INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INTERNATIONAL PLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., CHINA EVERBRIGHT SECURITIES (HK) LIMITED, CHINA MERCHANTS SECURITIES (HK) CO., LTD. and AMTD GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 657033/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Nov. 26, 2019), is brought on behalf of all persons or entities, who purchased X Financial American Depositary Shares in or traceable to the Company's September 19, 2018 initial public offering seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. In August 28, 2018, the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a registration statement on Form F-1 for the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective on September 18, 2018. On September 19, 2018, the Company filed a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement. The Registration Statement was used to sell to the investing public more than 11.7 million X Financial ADSs (including the exercise of the underwriters' overallotment option) at $9.50 per ADS. The Defendants generated more than $111 million in gross offering proceeds from their sale of X Financial ADSs in the IPO. The Plaintiff alleges that 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 adequate disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing the preparation of such documents. On May 21,2019, during X Financial's earnings call to discuss the Company's first quarter 2019 results, Defendant Tang admitted that X Financial was unlikely to achieve significant loan or revenue growth because its preferred loan business had failed "over the last year" and that the Company was shelving the entire business. On November 22, 2019, X Financial's ADSs closed at $1.74 per ADS. This price represented an 80% decline from the price at which X Financial's ADSs had been sold to the investing public in the IPO. The Plaintiff purchased ADSs traceable to the IPO and has been damaged thereby. X Financial is a financial technology company based in Shenzhen, China, that provides an online lending and borrowing marketplace. Yue was X Financial's CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors at the time of the IPO. He is also the Company's founder. Prior to the IPO, Defendant Tang owned more than 101 million X Financial ordinary shares, or approximately 36% of the Company's total outstanding shares. The Underwriter Defendants are investment banking houses that specialize in, inter alia, underwriting public offerings of securities. They served as the underwriters of the IPO and shared over $7.3 million in fees collectively for their services. The Underwriter Defendants determined that in return for their share of the IPO proceeds, they were willing to solicit purchases of X Financial ADSs in the IPO.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Russello, Esq. Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. Kenneth J. Black, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South S. Drive Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: 631 367-7100 Facsimile: 631 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com jrussello@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com kennyb@rgrdlaw.com - and - Ralph M. Stone, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 1700 Broadway, 41st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: 212 292-5690 Facsimile: 212 292-5680 E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com ZARA USA: Fouts Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Nafisa Fouts, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. ZARA USA, INC., a New York corporation, Case No. 2019CH14680 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Dec. 19, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and to obtain redress for persons injured by its conduct. The BIPA provides, inter alia, that private entities, such as the Defendant, may not store an individual's biometric information, such as fingerprints and hand scans, or any biometric information, including any data regardless of the manner from which it was converted unless they first: inform that person in writing that biometric identifiers or biometric information will be stored; inform that person the specific purpose of the length of term for which such biometric identifier or biometric information is being stored; receive a written release from the person for the storage of their biometric identifier or biometric information; and publish publicly available retention guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information. This case concerns the misuse of individuals' biometrics by the Defendant. Using biometric enabled technology, the Defendant is capturing, collecting, disseminating, or otherwise using the biometrics of the Plaintiff and other Class members, without their informed written consent as required by law, in order to track their time at work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a resident of the state of Illinois, who worked at one of the Defendant's store locations in Chicago, Illinois. The Defendant is a major national retailer of men's and women's clothing, shoes and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jad Sheikali, Esq. Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Email: jsheikali@mcgpc.com tkingsbury@mcgpc.com ZERO OTTO: Hoxha Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hermes Hoxha and Besart Mjeku, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ZERO OTTO NOVE INC. d/b/a TRATTORIA ZERO OTTO NOVE and ROBERTO PACIULLO, Case No. 1:19-cv-11652 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, misappropriated gratuities, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants began to pay the Plaintiffs and its waitstaff $7.50 per hour for weekly hours worked up to forty, but failed to pay proper overtime at one-and-one-half times the employees' regular rate of pay for weekly hours worked over forty, failed to compensate their employees for all of their hours worked, and allowed a manager to participate in the waitstaff tip pool and to retain portions of the tips that customers left for the waitstaff, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as busboys, also allege that the Defendants also failed to pay its waitstaff spread-of-hours pay and failed to provide the Plaintiffs and its waitstaff with wage notices upon hiring and whenever there was a change to their respective rate(s) of pay. The Defendants own, operate and do business as Trattoria Zero Otto November, an Italian restaurant located in, Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Gregory S. Slotnick, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 583-9500 Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com slotnick@pechmanlaw.com ZILLOW GROUP: Bid for Class Cert. in Consolidated Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action suit, Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al., are seeking certification of a class. U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in December approved the case parties' Stipulation and Order re Class Certification Briefing Schedule . Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' class certification motion shall be filed no later than February 21, 2020. Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their class certification motion shall be filed no later than April 6, 2020. Plaintiffs' class certification motion is renoted for April 6, 2020. In August and September 2017, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its executive officers, alleging, among other things, violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the company's common stock between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017. One of those purported class actions, captioned Vargosko v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The other purported class action lawsuit, captioned Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaints allege, among other things, that during the period between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017, the company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding its business practices. The complaints seek to recover, among other things, alleged damages sustained by the purported class members as a result of the alleged misconduct. In November 2017, an amended complaint was filed against the company and certain of its executive officers in the Shotwell v. Zillow Group class action lawsuit, extending the beginning of the class period to November 17, 2014. In January 2018, the Vargosko v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and consolidated with the Shotwell v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit. In February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, and in April 2018, the company filed its motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In October 2018, the company's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, and in November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which the company moved to dismiss in December 2018. On April 19, 2019, the company's motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint was denied, and the company filed its answer to the second amended complaint on May 3, 2019. On October 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Zillow Group said, "We have denied the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend the claims in this lawsuit. We do not believe a loss related to this complaint is probable." Zillow Group, Inc. operates real estate and home-related brands on mobile and the Web in the United States. Zillow Group, Inc. was incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. ********* 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 2020. 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 ***