/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200106.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 6, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 4 Headlines 99 CENTS: Faces Martinez Suit in California Over Violation of ADA AMERICAN AIRLINES: Mohammed Labor Suit Remanded to State Court AMERICOLD REALTY: Contreras Class Cert. Hearing Set for April AMERIMEX COMMUNICATIONS: Hernandez Labor Suit Moved to E.D. Cal. ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Wong Suit Underway ASSISTANCE BY IMPROV: Faces Rodriguez Class Suit in New York ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Retirement System Suit Pending AUTO-OWNERS MUTUAL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Lammert Suit AVEDRO INC: Continues to Defend Glaukos Merger-Related Suits AXA EQUITABLE: Continues to Defend Brach Family Foundation Suit AXA EQUITABLE: Continues to Defend O'Donnell Class Action AXON ENTERPRISE: Bid to Dismiss Richey Consumer Class Suit Pending BANC OF CALIFORNIA: MOU Reached in California Securities Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Suarez Wage & Hour Suit Survives Dismissal BERKSHIRE HILLS: Accrues $3MM Related to Depositor's Suit BERKSHIRE HILLS: Wants Suit by SI Financial Shareholder Tossed BEST BUDZ: Colorado District Dismisses Lee FLSA Suit with Prejudice BLACKROCK INC: Appeal in iShares ETFs Investors Suit Still Pending BLACKROCK INC: Bid to Certify Plan and CTF Classes Pending BRAMER'S BRAZILIAN: Pereira Seeks to Recover OT Wages for Cooks CAMC HEALTH: A. H. Insurance Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia CAPITAL ONE: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Nayab FCRA Lawsuit CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Suit over Offsite Contamination Underway CENTRUS ENERGY: Pritchard Suit over Offsite Contamination Underway COMMUNITY CARE: Vitasek Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts CV SCIENCES: Colette Sues Over Unlawful Sale of CBD Products DELTA AIR: Donoff Seeks to Certify Class DROPBOX INC: Faces 6 Class Suits over IPO ECOLAB INC: Andrews Liability Suit Removed to C.D. California EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Rodriguez Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK FAT BRANDS: Response to 2nd Amended Suit in "Vignola" Due Jan. 14 FAT BRANDS: Status Conference in Rojany Suit Set for Jan. 9 FIFTH THIRD: Awaits Court's Final Approval of Settlement FIFTH THIRD: Bid for Class Certification Due February 28 FIRST BANCORP: Torres Class Suit Tossed FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Still Ongoing GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Transient Tax-Related Suit Pending GOPRO INC: Settlement of 2016 Shareholder Suit Has Final OK HARRIS, TX: Stauber Seeks Overtime Pay for Nonexempt Employees HOUSTON BAPTIST: Compelled to Reply to Discovery Sought in Hicks IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal in Timm Class Action Ongoing INFINITE PERSONAL: Faces De Varona Suit Alleging FLSA Violation J2 GLOBAL: Davis Neurology Class Action Ongoing JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Court Dismisses Ponzo Suit Without Prejudice JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit over Race Bias Ongoing JONES FINANCIAL: Watson et al. Labor Suit in Calif. Still Ongoing JR ENGINEERING: Conditional Certification of Roberts Suit Ruled On K & E RESOURCES: Simmons Seeks Overtime Pay for General Laborers KENCO LOGISTIC: Cal. App. Reversed Dismissal of Young Lawsuit LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Cert. Bid in Miller Energy Litig. Pending LADENBURG THALMANN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing This Month LENDINGCLUB CORP: Court Dismisses Derivative Stockholders Suit LOUISIANA HEALTH: Denial of Bid to Intervene in OGHA Suit Affirmed MARQUEZ CONSTRUCTION: Patai Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA MATRIX MEDICAL: Mizrahi Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls MAXIM HEALTHCARE: $300K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Moodie FCRA Suit MDL 2543: Balhoff Named Mediator in New GM Ignition Switch Suit MERCHANT EXCHANGE: Cal. App. Flips Demurrer to O'Grady Complaint METROSTAFF INC: Williams Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data MICHAEL PAGE: Jordan Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement MILACRON HOLDINGS: Faces Hillenbrand Merger-Related Suits MORTON GOLF: Faces Cavanaugh Employment Class Suit in California MSC MERCHANT: Faces Abante Rooter Suit Over Auto-Dialed Calls NANTHEALTH INC: Bucks County Employee Fund's Suit Underway NANTHEALTH INC: Settlement Reached in Deora Class Suit NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Decision Still Pending NATERA INC: Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Denied NCAA: Rucker Sues Over Disregard of Student-Athletes' Safety NCAA: Stallworth Sues Over Disregard of Student-Athletes' Safety NCL CORP: Appeal on Dismissal in Phillips Suit Pending NCS PEARSON: Schacke Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS: GTx Merger-Related Suits Dismissed PFIZER INC: Consolidated Class Suit v. Array BioPharma Ongoing PFIZER INC: Dropped from Adalimumab Biosimilars Litigation PFIZER INC: Still Defends EpiPen Consolidated Class Suit PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Harbison et al. Seek to Certify Class PHILLIPS CHEVROLET: Snyder Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Texts POPULAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in Camacho Class Suit Pending POPULAR INC: Motion for Reconsideration in Maura Class Suit Pending POPULAR INC: Unit Still Faces Torres Class Action in Puerto Rico PRA GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Calif. PROSHARES TRUST II: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending PT CHICAGO: Fails to Provide RLTO Separate Summary, Olabisi Says QUIKTRAK INC: Wallace Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California RANCHHODRAI INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Arosemena Says RBC CAPITAL: 8th Cir. Appeal in Luis Securities Suit Pending RECRO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Suit Related to IV Meloxicam Pending RIPPY'S INVESTORS: Miller Seeks OT Wages for Tip-Credited Staff ROBINSON NURSING: Arbitration Denial in Phillips Suit Reversed SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Cal. App. Flips Dismissal of Carroll FEHA Suit SANDBOX TRANSPORTATION: Calhoun Suit Moved to N.D. West Virginia SCIPLAY CORP: Continues to Defend Fife Class Action SCIPLAY CORP: Continues to Defend Good Class Action SCIPLAY CORP: Police Retirement System of St. Louis Suit Ongoing SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California SKECHERS USA: Appeal in Steamfitters Local 449 Suit Ongoing SKECHERS USA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending SKECHERS USA: Hearing This Month on Bid to Compel Arbitration SKECHERS USA: Mediation in Wilk Class Suit Set for Jan. 27 SMASHBURGER IP: Court Issues Protective Order in Galvan Suit ST. JOHN'S COMMUNITY: Ware Seeks OT Pay for Service Specialists STONEMOR PARTNERS: Appeal in Anderson Class Action Denied SWEPI LP: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal in Rogers Suit THRASHER BUSCHMANN: Court Dismisses Amended Gunn FDCPA Suit TRILOGY WAREHOUSE: McClellan Sues Over Collection of Biometrics TRIPOLI GOURMET: Rojas Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Employees TUSCAWILLA REALTY: Pitts Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts TWO RIVER: Parshall Class Suit Filed over OceanFirst Merger UBIQUITI INC: Settlement Reached in NY Securities Suit UNDER ARMOUR: Appeal in Securities Class Suit in Maryland Pending UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Patel Class Action in Maryland UNDER ARMOUR: Suit over MyFitnessPal Data Breach Ongoing UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Relyea Says UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek to File 2nd Amended Complaint UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Underpays Security Guards, McElroy Claims UNLOCKED BUSINESS: Abante Rooter Sues Over Auto-Dialed Calls USF REDDAWAY: Rivera Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California VIRTU FINANCIAL: Agreement in Principle Reached in CCERF Suit WIWI 1 NAIL: Li FLSA Suit Transferred From S.D. to N.D. New York WRIGHT MEDICAL: 76 Unresolved Suits over PROFEMUR Pending YELP INC: Securities Suit Wins Class Certification ZIMMER BIOMET: Court Stays Karl Labor Class Suit ********* 99 CENTS: Faces Martinez Suit in California Over Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC. The case is captioned as Marisa Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-10198-GW-SK (C.D. Cal., Dec. 2, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George H. Wu. The suit alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. 99 Cents is an American price-point retailer chain based in Commerce, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jae Kook Kim, Esq. Eric David Zard, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 117 East Colorado Blvd., Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (626) 550-1250 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: ekim@carlsonlynch.com ezard@carlsonlynch.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Mohammed Labor Suit Remanded to State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned HASIM A. MOHAMMED, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01540-EJD (N.D. Cal.) to state court. On Feb. 19, 2019, the Plaintiff initiated the lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the Defendant and certain unnamed Doe Defendants, alleging violations of California Labor Code sections governing meal and rest breaks, recordkeeping and timeliness of wage payments, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Plaintiff resides in California. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation doing business in California. The "Relevant Time Period" is defined as beginning four years prior to the filing of the action until judgment is entered. The Complaint defines an "Hourly Employee Class" of all persons employed by Defendants and/or any staffing agencies and/or any other third parties in hourly or non-exempt positions in California during the Relevant Time Period. There are also four sub-classes: (1) a Meal Period Sub-Class of all Hourly Employee Class members who worked in a shift in excess of five hours during the Relevant Time Period; (2) a Rest Period Sub-Class of all Hourly Employee Class members who worked a shift of at least three and one-half hours during the Relevant Time Period; (3) a Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class of all Hourly Employee Class members employed by the Defendants in California during the period beginning one year before the filing of the action and ending when final judgment is entered; and (4) a Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class of all Hourly Employee Class members who separated from their employment with Defendants during the period beginning three years before the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is entered. There is also a UCL Class defined as all Hourly Employee Class members employed by the Defendants in California during the Relevant Time Period. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee from approximately Jan. 17, 2000 through Feb. 28, 2018. On many occasions, the Plaintiff and the putative class members were not provided meal periods due to (1) the Defendant's policy of not scheduling each meal period as part of each work shift; (2) chronically understaffing each work shift; (3) imposing so much work that it made it "unlikely" that an employee would be able to take breaks; and (4) no formal written meal period policy that encouraged employees to take meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff and the putative class members were provided meal periods when they were not otherwise occupied with job duties; however, they were required to interrupt their meal periods and to perform job duties when a plane arrived. They were neither instructed nor required to clock out for meal periods as the Defendant had a policy of automatically deducting one hour from their hours worked. In other words, the Defendant scheduled the Plaintiff and the putative class members to work nine hours but deducted an hour for purported meal periods in order to avoid having to pay the class members overtime. The Defendant seldom, if ever, provided the Plaintiff and the putative class with a one-hour uninterrupted, duty-free meal period. As a result of the Defendant's policy, the Plaintiff and the putative class were regularly not provided with uninterrupted meal periods. Moreover, the Plaintiff and the putative class "were regularly not provided" with rest periods of at least 10 minutes for each four-hour work period for the same reasons they were not provided meal periods. The Plaintiff and the putative class were provided rest periods only to the extent they were not occupied with their jobs. They worked through their rest periods in order to complete their assignments on time. They were not provided with accurate wage statements as mandated by California Labor Code section 226. The statements that were provided were inaccurate because they failed to include overtime, as well as meal and/or rest period premiums. Plaintiff asserts six causes of action: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay hourly and overtime wages; (4) failure to provide accurate written wage statements; (5) failure to pay timely final wages; and (6) violation of the UCL by engaging in unlawful business practices. The Defendant removed the action to the California District Court on the basis of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). The Plaintiff now moves to remand the action, asserting that the Defendant has failed to establish the requisite amount in controversy. Judge Davila finds that the Defendant has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement for CAFA jurisdiction has been met in the case. The Defendant's calculations are based upon the number of ramp agents currently employed in California. It is unclear, however, whether the number of ramp agents currently employed is below, above, or equal to the number of employees encompassed in the proposed "Hourly Employee Class," defined as all persons employed by the Defendants and/or any staffing agencies and/or any other third parties in hourly or non-exempt positions in California during the Relevant Time Period. There is no evidence in the record to substantiate the Defendant's assertion. The Defendant's amount-in-controversy calculation is also flawed because it uses the lowest base hourly wage for a ramp agent under the current collective bargaining agreement ($14.18 per hour) instead of the hourly wage for the class members during the Relevant Time Period, Judge Davila finds. There is no evidentiary basis upon which to assume $14.18 per hour is a reasonable estimate of what putative class members were paid throughout the Relevant Time Period, which extends back four years to February of 2015. The Defendant's calculation is not adequately supported by real evidence or reasonable assumptions based upon that evidence. Lastly, the Defendant invites the District Court to consider the Plaintiff's additional causes of action, which it contends further increases the amount in controversy above the jurisdictional minimum. More specifically, by its calculation, a 20% violation rate for just the third cause of action for failure to pay hourly and overtime wages raises the amount in controversy by approximately $4,894,836.96. Judge Davila declines to consider the new calculation because it was not included in the Defendant's Notice of Removal and the time to amend has expired. For the reasons set forth, Judge Davila granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand. A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/PM7wh4 from Leagle.com. Hasim A. Mohammed, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & William Matthew Pao -- william@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group. American Airlines, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert Alan Siegel -- rsiegel@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP; Susannah Kelly Howard -- showard@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP; & Adam P. KohSweeney -- akohsweeney@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. AMERICOLD REALTY: Contreras Class Cert. Hearing Set for April ------------------------------------------------------------- Americold Realty Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court overseeing the class action suit initiated by Jose Contreras has set a class certification hearing for April 27, 2020. On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Contreras (a former employee) filed a putative class action against the Company in the San Bernardino County Superior Court asserting that the Company: (1) failed to pay minimum wages; (2) failed to pay overtime wages; (3) failed to pay all vacation wages; (4) failed to provide meal periods; (5) failed to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failed to pay wages timely to terminated employees; and (7) violated California unfair business practices. On April 10, 2019, the Company filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response to the complaint and successfully removed the case to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On May 2, 2019, plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit for civil penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") in the San Bernardino Superior Court against the Company, Case No. CIV-DS-1913525 based on similar factual allegations that are asserted in the complaint. The Company successfully obtained a dismissal of the San Bernardino Superior Court Action. On June 18, 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint in the pending federal court action to add a rest period violation claim and PAGA penalty claims based on similar allegations that are asserted in the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel later dismissed plaintiff's vacation wages claim from his first amended complaint. The Company denies the plaintiff's claims and denies that plaintiff and the putative class members have been damaged in any respect or in any amount as a result of any act or omission by the Company. The Company also denies that this case is appropriate for class treatment and further asserts, among other grounds, that this case is unmanageable as a PAGA representative action. The court has set a class certification hearing for April 27, 2020. The parties agreed to mediate the case. Americold said, "The Company believes the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse impact on its condensed consolidated financial statements." Americold Realty Trust is a leading provider of cold storage services headquartered in Atlanta, and is organized as a real estate investment trust. The firm is focused on the ownership, operation, development and acquisition of temperature-controlled real estate. Americold also provides additional services including warehouse handling and value-add logistics services to manage the entire temperature-controlled supply chain. AMERIMEX COMMUNICATIONS: Hernandez Labor Suit Moved to E.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as KARINA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIMEX COMMUNICATIONS CORP., a Georgia corporation, d.b.a. SAFETYNET WIRELESS, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BCV-19-103076, was removed from the Kern County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno) on Dec 2, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01689-LJO-JLT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. The suit alleges violation of the California Labor Code. AmeriMex provides an e-commerce portal for Hispanic merchants to sell telecom-related products to their customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP 2815 Townsgate Rd., Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com Defendant AmeriMex is represented by: Kimberly C. Carter, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 438-1298 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: kimberly.carter@ogletreedeakins.com - and - Tahir Lynn Boykins, Esq. KELLEY DRYE AND WARREN LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 712-6100 E-mail: tboykins@kelleydrye.com ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Wong Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------- In the case, Wong v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00372 (C.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order dated December 19, 2019, granting with leave to amend, the Defendants' motion to dismiss Lead Plaintiff's amended complaint. Arlo Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that beginning on December 11, 2018, purported stockholders of Arlo Technologies, Inc. filed six putative securities class action complaints in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, and one complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its executives and directors. Some of these actions also name as defendants the underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (IPO) and NETGEAR, Inc. The actions pending in state court are Aversa v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 18CV339231, filed Dec. 11, 2018; Pham v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19CV340741, filed January 9, 2019; Patel v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV340758, filed January 10, 2019; Perros v. NetGear, Inc., No. 19CV342071, filed February 1, 2019; Vardanian v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV342318, filed February 8, 2019; and Hill v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19CV343033, filed February 22, 2019. The action pending in federal court is Wong v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19-CV-00372, filed January 22, 2019. The complaints generally allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse sales trends ahead of its IPO, violating the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased Arlo common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering documents. In the six state court actions, the court initially issued an order deeming the cases complex and temporarily stayed discovery. The six state actions were then consolidated by the court, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 1, 2019. On June 21, 2019, the court stayed the State Action pending resolution of the Federal Action, given the substantial overlap between the claims. The court set a case management conference for January 17, 2020 so the parties can provide an update regarding the status of the Federal Action. In the Federal Action, four investors filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. On May 6, 2019, the court appointed a shareholder named Matis Nayman to serve as lead plaintiff and the law firm of Keller Lenkner LLC as lead counsel. On June 7, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by failing to adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse sales trends surrounding the Company's IPO. The amended complaint also names as defendants the underwriters in the IPO and NETGEAR, Inc. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 6, 2019. Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss on September 6, 2019, and defendants filed a reply on October 4, 2019. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for December 5, 2019. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), discovery is stayed until the court rules on the motion to dismiss. Arlo Technologies, Inc. provides smart connected devices to monitor the environments in real-time with a Wi-Fi or a cellular network Internet connection in the Americas, Europe, the Middle-East and Africa, and the Asia Pacific regions. Arlo Technologies, Inc. was incorporated in 2018 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. ASSISTANCE BY IMPROV: Faces Rodriguez Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assistance By Improv II, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as RAMON RODRIGUEZ, MEGAN COMPTON COMPTON, INDIVIDUALLY, REPRESENTATIVELY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. ASSISTANCE BY IMPROV II, INC., JOSEPH WRIGHT, HAMOOD H. MAALIK, JAMES ATKINS AND TODD WRIGHT, Defendants, Case No. 26875/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Dec. 2, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Eddie J. McShan. Assistance by Improv II is a non-profit organization whose mission was to provide quality of life services to displaced individuals. The Plaintiffs are represented by: DANIEL SZALKIEWICZ & ASSOC 325 W 38th Street, Suite 810 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 796-1007 ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Retirement System Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Astec Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00024-PLR-CHS, is pending. The Company and certain of its current and former executive officers have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on February 1, 2019, as amended on August 26, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The action is styled City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00024-PLR-CHS. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading statements and that the individual defendants are control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's stock between July 26, 2016 and October 22, 2018 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on October 25, 2019. The Company is unable to determine whether or not a future loss will be incurred due to this litigation, or estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time. Astec Industries, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and markets equipment and components for the road building, aggregate processing, geothermal, water, oil and gas, and wood processing industries in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1972 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. AUTO-OWNERS MUTUAL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Lammert Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denied Auto-Owners' Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Class Allegations in GREGORY J. LAMMERT, JAMIE LAMMERT, LARRY REASONS, and SUSAN REASONS, Plaintiffs, v. AUTO-OWNERS (MUTUAL) INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00819 (M.D. Tenn.). The litigation arose out of Auto-Owners' practice of depreciating portions of labor cost when determining replacement costs under actual cash value homeowner and dwelling insurance policies. These include policies purchased by Plaintiffs Gregory and Jamie Lammert, and Larry and Susan Reasons. The debatable propriety of that practice led the Court to deny without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and Auto-Owners' Motion to Dismiss in favor of certifying the following question to the Tennessee Supreme Court: Under Tennessee law, may an insurer in making an actual cash value payment withhold a portion of repair labor as depreciation when the policy (1) defines actual cash value as the cost to replace damaged property with new property of similar quality and features reduced by the amount of depreciation applicable to the damaged property immediately prior to the loss, or (2) states that actual cash value includes a deduction for depreciation? That court graciously accepted the request, and answered the question that the insurance company cannot withhold a portion of the labor costs as depreciation under either the Lammert's or the Reasons' policy. At the time the Court certified the question, the Amended Complaint contained a straight-forward breach of contract claim that sought compensatory and punitive damages, plus declaratory and injunctive relief. They also putatively represented a class containing all other similarly situated insureds who received 'actual cash value' payments from Auto-Owners for direct physical loss to a dwelling or other structure located in Tennessee in which the cost of repair or replacement labor was depreciated. After the favorable ruling from the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Plaintiffs again amended their complaint. The Second Amended Complaint retained the breach of contract claim and request for punitive damages, but also added a statutory bad faith claim. It also arguably expanded the proposed class period. Now, before the Court is Auto-Owners' fully-briefed Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Class Allegations. In the motion, Auto-Owners argues that the Plaintiffs' bad faith, fraudulent concealment, and punitive damages claims have failed to state causes of action for which relief can be granted; and that the Plaintiffs' class allegations should be stricken to the extent they relate to the bad faith claim and to the extent the Plaintiffs seek to define a class period that extends beyond the one-year contractual limitations period contained in Auto-Owners' policies. Judge Crenshaw holds that Auto-Owners believes that the Plaintiffs' claims for fraudulent concealment, bad faith, and punitive damages distract from the core issues left in the case, which is whether Auto-Owners breached its contracts with the Plaintiffs, and whether that question is suitable for class resolution. To get back on track, Auto-Owners submits that the Court should dismiss these claims now, pare back the class allegations, and focus the case on issues properly in dispute. Auto-Owners may have a point, but it has chosen improper vehicles (Rules 12(b)(6) and (f)) to steer the case back on course, if it is indeed going down the wrong path. For now, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs are at the controls. That said, any forthcoming motion to certify the case as a class action should be informed by the observations the Court has made in the Memorandum Opinion. Leaving aside the alleged procedural deficiencies claimed by the Plaintiffs, the Judge agrees with many of the points raised by Auto-Owners, but its request for dismissal or to strike is premature. Accordingly, Judge Crenshaw denied Auto-Owners' Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Class Allegations. A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/CGiPEc from Leagle.com. Gregory J. Lammert, Jamie Lammert, Larry Reasons & Susan Reasons, Plaintiffs, represented by David McMullan -- dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com -- Don Barrett, P.A., Don Barrett -- donbarrettpa@gmail.com -- Don Barrett, P.A., J. Brandon McWherter, Gilbert McWherter Scott & Bobbitt PLC & T. Joseph Snodgrass -- jsnodgrass@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Charles C. McLaurin -- cmclaurin@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, John S. Hicks -- jhicks@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Peter J. Schwingler -- peter.schwingler@stinson.com -- Stinson LLP, Timothy P. Griffin -- timothy.griffin@stinson.com -- Stinson LLP, Todd A. Noteboom -- todd.noteboom@stinson.com -- Stinson LLP & Zane Gilmer -- zane.gilmer@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP. AVEDRO INC: Continues to Defend Glaukos Merger-Related Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Avedro, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 8, 2019, that the company is facing four lawsuits related to its merger with Glaukos Corporation. On August 7, 2019, Avedro, Inc., a Delaware corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Glaukos Corporation, a Delaware corporation and Atlantic Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Glaukos ("Merger Sub") pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into Avedro, with Avedro continuing as the surviving corporation (the "Merger"). Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement and as of the date of this Form 8-K, four lawsuits have been filed by alleged Avedro stockholders challenging the Merger. The first and fourth lawsuits, putative class action complaints, are captioned Kent v. Avedro, Inc., et. al, No. 1:19-cv-01845-UNA (D. Del. filed Oct. 1, 2019) and Thompson v. Avedro, Inc., et al, No. 1:19-cv-02075 (D. Del. filed Oct. 31, 2019). The second and third lawsuits, brought by plaintiffs individually, are captioned Payne v. Avedro, Inc., et al, 1:19-cv-02019 (D. Del. filed Oct. 24, 2019) and Bushansky v. Avedro, Inc. et al, 1:19-cv-10015 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 29, 2019). The Payne and Bushansky complaints name as defendants Avedro and each member of the Avedro Board. The Kent and Thompson complaints additionally name as defendants former Avedro directors Dr. Gilbert H. Kliman and Thomas W. Burns, as well as Glaukos and Merger Sub. Avedro, Inc. is a commercial-stage ophthalmic medical technology company focused on treating corneal ectatic disorders and improving vision to reduce dependency on eyeglasses or contact lenses. The company's proprietary Avedro Corneal Remodeling Platform is designed to strengthen, stabilize and reshape the cornea utilizing corneal cross-linking in minimally invasive and non-invasive outpatient procedures to treat corneal ectatic disorders and correct refractive conditions, which are caused by changes in the shape of the eye that prevent light from focusing on the retina, causing blurred vision. The company's Avedro Corneal Remodeling Platform is comprised of the company's KXL and Mosaic systems, eachof which delivers ultraviolet A, or UVA, light, and a suite of proprietary single-use riboflavin drug formulations, which, when applied together to the cornea, induce a biochemical reaction called corneal collagen cross-linking, or corneal cross-linking. Its KXL system in combination with its Photrexa drug formulations, which the company launched in the United States in September 2016, is the first and only minimally invasive product offering approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, indicated for the treatment of progressive keratoconus and corneal ectasia following refractive surgery. The company is based in Waltham, Massachusetts. AXA EQUITABLE: Continues to Defend Brach Family Foundation Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all owners of universal life ("UL") policies subject to AXA Equitable's COI rate increase. In early 2016, AXA Equitable raised COI rates for certain UL policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both issue ages 70 and above and a current face value amount of $1 million and above. A second putative class action was filed in Arizona in 2017 and consolidated with the Brach matter. The current consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations by AXA Equitable in violation of Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section 349; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Elder Abuse Statute. Plaintiffs seek; (a) compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and post-judgment interest; (b) with respect to their claim concerning Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the plaintiffs and the putative class; and (c) injunctive relief and attorneys' fees in connection with their statutory claims. Five other federal actions challenging the COI rate increase are also pending against AXA Equitable and have been coordinated with the Brach action for the purposes of pre-trial activities. They contain allegations similar to those in the Brach action as well as additional allegations for violations of various states’ consumer protection statutes and common law fraud. Three actions are also pending against AXA Equitable in New York state court. AXA Equitable is vigorously defending each of these matters. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides insurance, financial advisory, and investment management products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1859 and is headquartered in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of AXA Equitable Financial Services, LLC. AXA EQUITABLE: Continues to Defend O'Donnell Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Richard T. O'Donnell. In August 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial Division of New Haven entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons who purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable, which were subsequently subjected to the volatility management strategy and who suffered injury as a result thereof. Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract alleging that AXA Equitable implemented the volatility management strategy in violation of applicable law. In November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court transferred this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2017, the Southern District of New York granted AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss the complaint. In April 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In April 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the trial court's decision with instructions to remand the case to Connecticut state court. In September 2018, the Second Circuit issued its mandate, following AXA Equitable's notification to the court that it would not file a petition for writ of certiorari. The case was transferred in December 2018 and is pending in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford. AXA Equitable said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides insurance, financial advisory, and investment management products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1859 and is headquartered in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of AXA Equitable Financial Services, LLC. AXON ENTERPRISE: Bid to Dismiss Richey Consumer Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Axon Enterprise, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by Douglas Richey is still pending. The company is a defendant in a consumer class action lawsuit previously filed and dismissed in California in 2018 and now refiled in the District of Nevada on April 9, 2019 (Case No. 3:1-cv-00192) by consumer weapon purchaser Douglas Richey. The case alleges the TASER Pulse, X2 and X26P CEWs have a faulty safety switch based on Richey's Pulse allegedly discharging inside its neoprene case in a jacket pocket without injury. Any such discharge was likely due to static electricity, as disclosed in the company's consumer warnings. Axon said, "We will vigorously defend this claim and the propriety of any class certification. Our motion to dismiss is pending." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Axon Enterprise, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells conducted electrical weapons (CEWs) worldwide. The company operates through two segments, TASER Weapons, and Software and Sensors. Axon Enterprise, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. BANC OF CALIFORNIA: MOU Reached in California Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Banc of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a memorandum of understanding has been entered into by the parties in the class action suit entitled, In re Banc of California Securities Litigation, Case No. SACV 17-00118 AG, consolidated with SACV 17-00138 AG. On September 16, 2019, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the lead plaintiff to settle class action lawsuits that were previously consolidated in the United District Court for the Central District of California under the caption In re Banc of California Securities Litigation, Case No. SACV 17-00118 AG, consolidated with SACV 17-00138 AG. Under the terms of the MOU, the Company's insurance carriers would pay $19.75 million, which would be distributed to shareholders who purchased Company stock between April 15, 2016 and January 20, 2017, after payment of attorney's fees and costs, to be determined by the Court. The Company would not be required to contribute any cash to the settlement payments. Pursuant to the settlement, the action against the Company would be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff would also dismiss its claims against the Company's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Steven Sugarman. While the Company does not believe the plaintiff's claims are meritorious, the Company believes that ending the costs and distraction of the litigation is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. The settlement and the dismissals are subject to approval by the Court and meeting certain conditions, and there are no assurances that Court approval will be obtained or that those conditions will be satisfied. If the Court preliminarily approves the settlement, members of the class will be provided notice and an opportunity to object or opt out. Following the notice and opportunity for objections and opt outs, the Court will schedule a fairness hearing at which the Court will determine whether the settlement shall be finally approved. The foregoing description of the settlement does not purport to be complete and is subject to, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the complete text of the settlement stipulation that will be filed with the Court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Banc of California, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for Banc of California, National Association that provides banking products and services in the United States. The company offers deposit products, including checking, savings, money market, retirement, and interest and noninterest-bearing demand accounts, as well as certificates of deposit. The company was formerly known as First PacTrust Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name to Banc of California, Inc. in July 2013. Banc of California, Inc. was founded in 1941 and is headquartered in Santa Ana, California. BANK OF AMERICA: Suarez Wage & Hour Suit Survives Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned ARIANNA SUAREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01202-LB. (N.D. Cal.). Under the putative class action, named plaintiff Arianna Suarez sued her former employer, Bank of America, for state-law wage-and-hour violations. Ms. Suarez did not review her final pay check or wage statements and was unaware that her final paycheck included a sum equivalent to 124.17 hours of vacation pay. She concedes that she was paid her unused accrued wages when she was terminated. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) has the following class claims: (1) claim one, charging a failure to compensate for all hours worked (including work "off the clock" and overtime wages), in violation of the California Labor Code; (2) claim two, charging a failure to pay minimum wage, in violation of the California Labor Code; (3) claim three, charging a failure to provide meal-and-rest breaks, in violation of the California Labor Code; (4) claim five, charging a failure to pay vacation time at termination, in violation of the California Labor Code; (5) claim six, charging a failure to pay final wages on time, in violation of the California Labor Code; (5) claim eight, charging a failure to provide accurate wage-and-hour statements, in violation of the California Labor Code; and (6) claim twenty, charging unfair business practices, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Bank of America moved for partial summary judgment on two of the class claims - Claims Six and Eight. Claim Six: Failure to Pay Final Wages on Time In claim six, the plaintiff claimed that Bank of America willfully failed to pay her final wages when it terminated her, in violation of sections 201-203 of the California Labor Code. Bank of America moved for summary judgment on the ground that the claim is predicated on the plaintiff's claim for unpaid vacation wages (individual claim five), which she now concedes were paid fully, and because she has not produced admissible evidence that shows there is a genuine issue of material fact that Bank of America acted willfully when it did not pay her for the meal-and-rest breaks (class claim three). The plaintiff does not dispute the unpaid-vacation-wages argument but counters that there are material fact disputes about whether Bank of America acted intentionally when it did not pay for her meal-and-rest breaks. Judge Beeler grants the motion to the extent that it is predicated on unpaid vacation leave and otherwise denies the motion. Claim Eight: Inaccurate Wage Statements In claim eight, the plaintiff claimed that Bank of America did not provide an accurate itemized statement for each pay period that reflected actual hours worked, in violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 226. Bank of America moved for summary judgment on four grounds: (1) the plaintiff's claim for statutory penalties is barred by a one-year statute of limitations; (2) she did not suffer injury, which is a necessary element for any claim for damages under section 226(e); (3) the reporting requirement in section 226(a) of the Labor Code applies only to wages that were actually paid (not wages that a suing party thinks should be paid), and the wage statements here are accurate; and (4) Bank of America's violations were not knowing and intentional, which is a necessary element under section 226(e). Judge Beeler grants the motion only on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for statutory penalties is barred by the one-year statute of limitations and otherwise denies the motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxnhctdn from Leagle.com Arianna Suarez, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Noel Ilg - silg@ilglegal.com - ILG Legal Office, PC, Frank Joseph Zeccola - frank.zeccola@gmail.com - Ilg Legal Office, P.C., George L. Lin , ILG Legal Office, PC, & Tracy Scanlan , Ilg Legal Office, P.C.,1001 Bayhill Dr Fl 2, San Bruno, CA, 94066-3061 Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Sylvia Jihae Kim -skim@mcguirewoods.com - McGuire Woods LLP, Kerri H. Sakaue - ksakaue@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP & Michael David Mandel - mmandel@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP. BERKSHIRE HILLS: Accrues $3MM Related to Depositor's Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company had an accrual of $3 million as of September 30, 2019, related to the class action suit initiated by a Berkshire Bank depositor. On April 28, 2016, the Company and the Bank were served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Springfield Division. The complaint was filed by an individual Berkshire Bank depositor, who claims to have filed the complaint on behalf of a purported class of Berkshire Bank depositors, and alleges violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and certain regulations thereunder, among other matters. On July 15, 2016, the complaint was amended to add purported claims under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. On January 4, 2019, the Parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter on a class-wide basis. Among other terms, the agreement in principle provides that the Company will pay a total of $3.0 million in exchange for the dismissal with prejudice and release of all claims that have been or could have been asserted in the lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class Members. On April 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the Parties' fully-executed Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement") with the Court together with her unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. On July 24, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement, and issued an Order that notice of the Settlement be given to all Settlement Class Members. The Company had an accrual of $3 million as of September 30, 2019, in anticipation of the completion of the Settlement sometime during the first quarter of 2020. Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for Berkshire Bank that provides various banking products and services. It offers various deposit accounts, including demand deposit, NOW, regular savings, money market savings, time certificates of deposit, and retirement deposit accounts; and loans, such as commercial real estate, commercial and industrial, consumer, and residential mortgage loans. Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. BERKSHIRE HILLS: Wants Suit by SI Financial Shareholder Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the joint motion to dismiss the class action initiated against SI Financial Group, Inc., is still pending. On February 9, 2019, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut by a purported SI Financial Group, Inc. shareholder. On June 26, 2019, the Company received notice of a verified consolidated amended complaint in this action, which was filed after consolidation and elimination of two additional suits filed in the same Court by other former shareholders of SI Financial. The lawsuit purports to be filed as a putative class action lawsuit against SI Financial, the individual former members of the SI Financial board of directors, and the Company, in connection with the Company's announced intention to acquire and merge with SI Financial. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly-situated SI Financial shareholders, generally alleges that the registration statement filed with the SEC on February 4, 2019 contains materially misleading omissions or misrepresentations in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to SI Financial shareholders and were unjustly enriched by the subject merger transaction. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Of note, SI Financial merged with and into the Company on May 17, 2019, and ceased to have any further independent legal existence at that time. The Company and the individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in the verified consolidated amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. On July 26, 2019, the Company and the individual Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss all claims in this litigation. Berkshire said, "There are no other active cases proceeding against the Company or the individual Defendants in regard to the SI Financial merger on May 17, 2019." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for Berkshire Bank that provides various banking products and services. It offers various deposit accounts, including demand deposit, NOW, regular savings, money market savings, time certificates of deposit, and retirement deposit accounts; and loans, such as commercial real estate, commercial and industrial, consumer, and residential mortgage loans. Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. BEST BUDZ: Colorado District Dismisses Lee FLSA Suit with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned COURTNEY LEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BEST BUDZ LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, and TYSON RINGSTROM, an individual, Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-cv-02430-KMT (D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted in part and denied in part the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Dismiss Action with Prejudice. Generally, in an FLSA action, if settlement approval is required, the court must review the proposed settlement to ensure (1) the litigation involves a bona fide dispute, (2) the proposed settlement is fair and equitable to all parties concerned, and (3) the proposed settlement contains a reasonable award of attorneys' fees. In the District, however, the law with respect to requiring court approval of FLSA actions is somewhat in flux. Indeed, as the parties correctly observe, several recent opinions have held that, absent special circumstances, FLSA settlements do not require court approval. Magistrate Judge Tafoya agrees that the peculiar opt-in nature of an FLSA collective action anticipates that all parties who settle are actively participating and are represented by counsel. However, this does not necessarily mean that all opt-ins are readily available to give consent to a settlement. There is no question that a collective action under the FLSA is distinct from a Rule 23 class, which is an opt-out scenario where judicial review of compromises is necessary because the parties affected -- the class members or the incompetent persons -- are not directly before the court nor have they necessarily participated in the decision to settle. The case involves a putative collective composed of two persons, the Plaintiff and her boyfriend, the one opt-in, Michael Somma, against their employers, the Defendants. While the parties have requested that the Court reviews the settlement agreement, they have not provided the Court with any in depth analysis of the Lynn's Foods factors. Nevertheless, the Magistrate Judge can ascertain from the Confidential Settlement Agreement that both the Plaintiff and the one opt-in member participated directly in settlement negotiations. The Agreement involves payment to to Plaintiff, the one opt-in, and their attorney. Significantly, there does not appear to be a defect, in either the Agreement, itself, or in the settlement process, that would require an inquiry as to whether the dispute is bona fide. Thus, the case sits squarely in the camp of cases that do not require judicial approval of the settlement. Accordingly, there is no need to review the merits of the Agreement in the case, and the Magistrate Judge therefore, declines to do so. For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Tafoya granted in part and denied in part the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Dismiss Action with Prejudice. The Magistrate Judge denied the request for the Court to approve the Confidential Settlement Agreement, and granted the request to dismiss the action with prejudice, based on the parties' successful settlement negotiations. The case is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/ljzjRG from Leagle.com. Courtney Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn -- mkuhn@lks.law -- Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Paul Forrest Lewis -- plewis@lks.law -- Lewis Kuhn Swan PC & Andrew Edward Swan -- aswan@lks.law -- Lewis Kuhn Swan PC. Best Budz, LLC, a Colorado limited liablilty company & Tyson Ringstrom, an individual, Defendants, represented by Stuart Frederick Knight -- Stuart.Knight@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder LLP. BLACKROCK INC: Appeal in iShares ETFs Investors Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ BlackRock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that plaintiffs' appeal from the court's order of dismissal in the iShares ETF-related suit is still pending. On June 16, 2016, iShares Trust, BlackRock, Inc. and certain of its advisory subsidiaries, and the directors and certain officers of the iShares ETFs were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in California state court. The lawsuit was filed by investors in certain iShares ETFs (the "ETFs"), and alleges the defendants violated the federal securities laws by failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses issued by the ETFs the risks to the ETFs' shareholders in the event of a "flash crash." The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and rescission damages. The plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in December 2016 and on January 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On April 27, 2017, the court partially granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing certain of the plaintiffs' claims. On September 18, 2017, the court issued a decision dismissing the remainder of the lawsuit after a one-day bench trial. On December 1, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit, which remains pending. The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without merit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BlackRock, Inc. provides investment management services to institutional clients and to retail investors through various investment vehicles. The Company manages funds, as well as offers risk management services. BlackRock serves governments, companies, and foundations worldwide. The company is based in New York, New York. BLACKROCK INC: Bid to Certify Plan and CTF Classes Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- BlackRock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that plaintiffs' motion to certify the Plan and Collective Trust Funds (CTF) classes remains pending. On April 5, 2017, BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. ("BTC"), the BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee and various sub-committees, and a BlackRock employee were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought in the US District Court for the Northern District of California by a former employee on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries in the BlackRock employee 401(k) Plan from April 5, 2011 to the present. The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants breached their duties towards Plan participants in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by, among other things, offering investment options that were overly expensive, underperformed unaffiliated peer funds, focused disproportionately on active versus passive strategies, and were unduly concentrated in investment options managed by BlackRock. On October 18, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which, among other things, added as defendants certain current and former members of the BlackRock Retirement and Investment Committees. The Amended Complaint also included a new purported class claim on behalf of investors in certain Collective Trust Funds ("CTFs") managed by BTC. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that BTC, as fiduciary to the CTFs, engaged in self-dealing by, most significantly, selecting itself as the securities lending agent on terms that the plaintiffs claim were excessive. The Amended Complaint also alleged that BlackRock took undue risks in its management of securities lending cash reinvestment vehicles during the financial crisis. On August 23, 2018, the court granted permission to the plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint which added as defendants the BlackRock, Inc. Management Development and Compensation Committee, the Plan's independent investment consultant and the Plan’s Administrative Committee and its members. On October 22, 2018, BlackRock filed a motion to dismiss the SAC, and on June 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify both the Plan and the CTF classes. On September 3, 2019, the court granted BlackRock's motion to dismiss part of the plaintiffs' claim seeking to recover alleged losses in the securities lending vehicles, but denied the motion to dismiss in all other respects. Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Plan and CTF classes remains pending. The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without merit. BlackRock, Inc. provides investment management services to institutional clients and to retail investors through various investment vehicles. The Company manages funds, as well as offers risk management services. BlackRock serves governments, companies, and foundations worldwide. The company is based in New York, New York. BRAMER'S BRAZILIAN: Pereira Seeks to Recover OT Wages for Cooks --------------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL T. PEREIRA, and other similarly situated individuals v. BRAMER'S BRAZILIAN CUISINE INC, WESLEY HELGERT, and LUCIMARA HELGERT, Case No. 9:19-cv-81615-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act The Plaintiff was employed as a cook performing the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated cooks whom the Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week allegedly without overtime compensation. Founded in 2018, Bramer's Brazilian Cuisine provides classic and delicious Brazilian food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com CAMC HEALTH: A. H. Insurance Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia --------------------------------------------------------------- The case titled A. H. and Adriana Flemming, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMC Health System, Inc. doing business as: Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc.; Vandalia Insurance Company; Zurich American Insurance Company, Beazley Insurance Company, Inc., and RSUI Indemnity Company, Defendants, Case No. 19-C-987, was removed from the Kanawha County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston) on Dec. 4, 2019. The Southern District of West Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00858 to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of insurance related laws. CAMC is a kidney transplant center in West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Benjamin Salango, Esq. PRESTON & SALANGO P. O. Box 3084 Charleston, WV 25331 Telepone: (304) 342-0512 Facsimle: (304) 342-0513 E-mail: bsalango@wvlawyer.com - and - David H. Carriger, Esq. CALWELL LUCE DITRAPANO Law and Arts Center West 500 Randolph Street Charleston, WV 25302 Telephone: (304) 343-4323 Facsimile: (304) 344-3684 E-mail: dcarriger@calwelllaw.com - and - Holly G. DiCocco, Esq. Robert V. Berthold , Jr. BERTHOLD LAW FIRM P. O. Box 3508 Charleston, WV 25335 Telephone: (304) 345-5700 Facsimile: (304) 345-5703 E-mail: hgd@bertholdlaw.com rvb@bertholdlaw.com - and - L. Dante DiTrapano, Esq. CALWELL LUCE DITRAPANO Law and Arts Center West 500 Randolph Street Charleston, WV 25302 Telephone: (304) 343-4323 Facsimile: (304) 344-3684 E-mail: dditrapano@cldlaw.com - and - Marvin W. Masters, Esq. THE MASTERS LAW FIRM 181 Summers Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 342-3106 Facsimile: (304) 342-3189 E-mail: mwm@themasterslawfirm.com - and - P. Rodney Jackson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON 106 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-7330 E-mail: prodjackson27@yahoo.com The Defendants are represented by: Charles R. Bailey, Esq. Josef A. Horter, Esq. BAILEY & WYANT P. O. Box 3710 Charleston, WV 25337-3710 Telephone: (304) 345-4222 Facsimile: (304) 343-3133 E-mail: cbailey@baileywyant.com jhorter@baileywyant.com - and - Joseph M. Ward, Esq. William M. Swann, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD Laidley Tower-Suite 401 500 Lee Street, East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-0111 Facsimile: (304) 345-0115 E-mail: jward@fbtlaw.com wswann@fbtlaw.com CAPITAL ONE: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Nayab FCRA Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion reversing a trial court order granting dismissal of the case captioned FRESHTA Y. NAYAB, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-55944, (9th Cir.). Freshta Nayab appealed the district court's order which dismissed her Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim with prejudice and without leave to amend for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. The case presents two issues of first impression for the Ninth Circuit: (1) whether a consumer suffers a concrete Article III injury in fact when a third-party obtains her credit report for a purpose not authorized by the FCRA and (2) whether the consumer-plaintiff must plead the third-party's actual unauthorized purpose in obtaining the report to survive a motion to dismiss. The Appellate Court holds that a consumer suffers a concrete injury in fact when a third-party obtains her credit report for a purpose not authorized by the FCRA. The Appellate Court also holds that a consumer-plaintiff need allege only that her credit report was obtained for a purpose not authorized by the statute to survive a motion to dismiss, the defendant has the burden of pleading it obtained the report for an authorized purpose. The Appellate Court opines that Nayab has standing to vindicate her right to privacy under the FCRA when a third-party obtains her credit report without a purpose authorized by the statute, regardless, whether the credit report is published or otherwise used by that third-party. Moreover, the Appellate Court opines that the district court erred in holding that Nayab, as the plaintiff, has the burden of pleading the actual purpose behind Capital One's procurement of her credit report. A plaintiff need allege only facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that the defendant obtained his or her credit report in violation of Section 1681b(f)(1) to meet their burden of pleading. Requiring otherwise would create an often insurmountable legal barrier to the protection of the interests the FCRA sought to protect. Capital One, as the defendant, has the burden of pleading it had an authorized purpose to acquire Nayab's credit report. Because Nayab did not have the burden of pleading Capital One's actual unauthorized purpose, and because she has alleged facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable inference that Capital One obtained her credit report in violation of Section 1681b(f)(1), Nayab stated a plausible claim for relief and the District Court erred in holding otherwise, the Appellate Court opines. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's October 31, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3ha5e9r from Leagle.com Alex Asil Mashiri - alexmashiri@yahoo.com - (argued), Mashiri Law Firm, San Diego, California; Tamim Jami - tamim@jamilaw.com - The Jami Law Firm P.C., San Diego, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Hunter R. Eley - heley@dollamir.com - (argued), Lloyd Vu - lvu@dollamir.com - and Chelsea L. Diaz - cdiaz@dollamir.com - Doll Amir & Eley LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee. CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Suit over Offsite Contamination Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham. On May 26, 2019, the Company, its subsidiary United States Enrichment Corp., and five other Department of Energy ("DOE") contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth, Ohio, Gaseous Diffusion Plant site (including, in the case of the Company, the American Centrifuge Plant site located on the premises (the "Portsmouth GDP" site) were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham, in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. The Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of (i) all current or former residents within a 7-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site and (ii) all students and their parents at the Zahn's Corner Middle School from 1993-present. The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations. Further the Company believes that any such liability should be covered by our indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. CENTRUS ENERGY: Pritchard Suit over Offsite Contamination Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Ray Pritchard and Sharon Melick. On June 28, 2019, the Company, its subsidiary Enrichment Corp. and four other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ray Pritchard and Sharon Melick in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. The Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of all current or former residents within a 7-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site. The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s regulations. Further the Company believes that any such liability should be covered by our indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. COMMUNITY CARE: Vitasek Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts ------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Vitasek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Community Care Health Network, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05722-SPL (D. Ariz., Dec. 3, 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. As part of its business, the Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards prospective customers with no regard for consumers' privacy rights, the lawsuit says. The Defendant caused thousands of pre-recorded messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. On November 18, 2019, the Defendant allegedly called the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 9845 with a prerecorded message. Despite having asked the Defendant to stop calling her, on November 22, 2019, On November 25, 2019 and December 2, 2019, Defendant again called her, Ms. Vitasek asserts. Through the action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and Class Members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants. The Defendant is a healthcare company providing in-home and mobile health care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 786-496-4469 E-mail: IJHiraldo@IJHLaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954 400 4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com CV SCIENCES: Colette Sues Over Unlawful Sale of CBD Products ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELENE COLETTE and LETICIA SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CV SCIENCES, INC., a California Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-10227 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 3, 2019), seeks to halt the Defendant's unlawful sales and marketing of cannabidiol products. The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells the CBD Products throughout the United States, including in the State of California and Arizona. The Products contain numerous different flavors and dosages. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's Products are illegal to sell. On November 22, 2019, the United States Food & Drug Administration sent roughly 15 Warning Letters discussing numerous violations of CBD products, including Dietary Supplement Labeling, 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 CBD products illegal to sell, the Plaintiffs contend. With knowledge of growing consumer demand for CBD Products, the Defendant has intentionally marketed and sold illegal CBD products. Defendant's multiple and prominent systematic mislabeling of the Products form a pattern of unlawful and unfair business practices that harms the public, the Plaintiffs argue. The Plaintiffs are all consumers, who purchased the Defendant's "CBD Sprays", "CBD Oil Drops", "CBD Gummies", "CBD Capsules", and "CBD Softgels", all of which are promoted as products containing cannabidiol (CBD), for personal use and not for resale. The Plaintiffs assert they and each of the Class members have suffered an injury in fact caused by the Defendant's false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and misleading practices, and seek compensatory damages and injunctive relief.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 DELTA AIR: Donoff Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JUDITH MARILYN DONOFF, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-81258-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying this proposed Class: "all Florida citizens who purchased a trip insurance policy on Delta’s website in Florida within the applicable limitations period"; 2. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Leon Cosgrove and Robbins Geller as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff and the Class were all victims of identical conduct through Delta Air Lines, Inc.'s deceptive practice of falsely representing the cost of trip insurance on its website as a "pass through" charge, when in fact Delta receives a hidden 50% commission on a per policy basis. Delta Air Lines, is doing business in domestic and international travel, offering airline tickets & flights to over 300 destinations in 60 countries.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are: Alec H. Schultz, Esq. Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq. John R. Byrne, Esq. LEON COSGROVE, LLP 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: 305 740 1986 Facsimile: 305 437 8158 E-mail: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com aschultz@leoncosgrove.com jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, 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 E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com cgold@rgrdlaw.com bbeall@rgrdlaw.com DROPBOX INC: Faces 6 Class Suits over IPO ----------------------------------------- Dropbox, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is defending against six class action suits related to its initial public offering (IPO). Four putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed on August 30, 2019, September 5, 2019, September 13, 2019, and October 3, 2019, in the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County, against the company , certain of its officers and directors, underwriters of the company's initial public offering (IPO), and Sequoia Capital XII, L.P. and certain of its affiliated entities. On October 4, 2019, two putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed against the Dropbox Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The six lawsuits each make the same or similar allegations of violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements in, or omitting material information from, the company's IPO registration statement. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Dropbox said, "We do not currently believe that this matter is likely to have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or our financial position. However, any litigation is inherently uncertain, and any judgment or injunctive relief entered against us or any adverse settlement could materially and adversely impact our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects." Dropbox, Inc. designs and develops document management software. The Company offers a platform that enables users to store and share files, photos, videos, songs, and spreadsheets. Dropbox serves customers worldwide. The company is based in San Francisco, California. ECOLAB INC: Andrews Liability Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The Permanente Medical Group, Inc., et al., removed the case captioned as SHELLY ANDREWS and PAULA DETERDING, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ECOLAB, INC.; THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.; KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS; KAISER PERMANENTE ORANGE COUNTY - ANAHEIM MEDICAL CENTER; KAISER PERMANENTE SOUTH BAY MEDICAL CENTER; KAISER PERMANENTE ROSEVILLE MEDICAL CENTER; and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No. 19STCV37373 (Filed Oct. 21, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, on Dec. 4, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-10338 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges causes of action, including strict liability--design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, violations of California Unfair Competition Law, and violations of California False Advertising Law. The Plaintiffs seek restitution in an amount exceeding the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interests and costs. Ecolab Inc., headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, is an American global provider of water, hygiene and energy technologies and services to the food, energy, healthcare, industrial and hospitality markets. The Permanente Medical Group is the largest medical group in the United States--and one of the most distinguished.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Vickie E. Turner, Esq. Meryl C. Maneker, Esq. Kirsten F. Gallacher, Esq. Elizabeth C. Rein, Esq. WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 236-9600 Facsimile: (619) 236-9669 E-mail: vturner@wilsonturnerkosmo.com mmaneker@wilsonturnerkosmo.com kgallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com erein@wilsonturnerkosmo.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Rodriguez Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JESSE RODRIGUEZ, for himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. and ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Civil Case No. 2:15-cv-01224-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), Judge Richard A. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditionally Certifying Proposed Settlement Class, Approving Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and granting Incentive Award. On March 25, 2019, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement, resulting in certification of the following provisional Settlement Class: All natural persons residing in the United States whose consumer report as defined by 15 U.S.C. Section 1681a(d) was obtained by AllianceOne, from Experian, for the purpose of collecting a debt arising out of any vehicle parking violation in the United States. The class excludes all persons who have filed for bankruptcy. No objections have been made, timely or otherwise, pursuant to the Class Notice sent to the Settlement Class members, nor did any objectors appear at the time of the hearing. The matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the Order of the Court dated March 25, 2019, for approval of the settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release. Having considered all papers filed and proceedings had therein, Judge Jones finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and that the Settlement satisfies the standards and applicable requirements for final approval of the class action settlement under California law. Accordingly, the Settlement is finally approved in all respects, and the Parties are directed to implement and consummate the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions, Judge Jones rules. Upon entry of the Order, compensation to the participating Settlement Class Members will be effected pursuant to the terms of the Settlement. In addition to any recovery that the Plaintiffs may receive under the Settlement, and in recognition of the Plaintiffs' efforts and risks taken on behalf of the Settlement Class, Judge Jones approved the payment of a Service Award to the Plaintiff, in the amount of $5,000. Judge Jones approved the payment (i) of attorneys' fees and costs to the Class Counsel in the sum of $733,333; and (ii) in an amount commensurate with KCC's actual costs, and not to exceed $75,000 to KCC for performance of its settlement claims administration services. Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the Parties will file a declaration setting forth that claims have been paid and that the terms of the Settlement have been completed. The Judgment is intended to be a final disposition of the action in its entirety, and is intended to be immediately appealable. A full-text copy of Judge Jones' Nov. 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/BJ7Dlp from Leagle.com. Jesse Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Marcus -- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC, pro hac vice, Gabriel Posner -- gabe@posnerlawpllc.com -- POSNER LAW LLC, pro hac vice, Todd Friedman -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C., pro hac vice & Ryan Matthew Pesicka -- ryan@condordlawseattle.com -- CONCORD LAW, P.C. AllianceOne Receivables Management Inc, Defendant, represented by David William Cramer, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, & Christopher E. Hawk, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, 121 SW Morrison St., Suite 1575, Portland, OR 97204. FAT BRANDS: Response to 2nd Amended Suit in "Vignola" Due Jan. 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Adam Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-07469 (C.D. Cal.), Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order dated January 2, 2020, approving a stipulation among the parties extending the time for the Defendants to respond to the second amended complaint. The deadline for defendants Fat Brands, Inc., Andrew A. Wiederhorn, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, and TriPoint Global Equities, LLC to answer the Second Amended Complaint is extended to January 14, 2020. There's a pending Motion to Certify Class filed by Lead Plaintiffs Charles Jordan, David Kovacs. The Motion is set for hearing March 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Gutierrez. In a December 17, 2019 ruling, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the Defendants' motion to dismiss. According to Judge Gutierrez, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted without leave to amend as to the first cause of action as to Defendants FCCG and Roe; and as to the first cause of action to the extent it relies on the alleged omission of FCCG's first delisting from NASDAQ. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to the first cause of action as to the remaining Defendants and as to the alleged omission of the 2009 bankruptcies and delisting; and it is denied as to the second cause of action. FAT Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that on August 24, 2018, plaintiff Adam Vignola, a putative investor in the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc., Tripoint Global Equities, LLC and members of the Company's board of directors, entitled Vignola v. FAT Brands Inc., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:18-cv-07469. The complaint asserted claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the defendants are responsible for false and misleading statements and omitted material facts in connection with the Company's initial public offering, which resulted in declines in the price of the Company’s common stock. The plaintiff alleged that he intended to certify the complaint as a class action and is seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On October 23, 2018, Charles Jordan and David Kovacs (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs") moved to be appointed lead plaintiffs, and the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion on November 16, 2018. On January 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint against the Defendants, thereby removing Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger, Silvia Kessel and Jeff Lotman as defendants, asserting allegations and claims for relief substantively identical to those asserted in the FAC filed in Rojany. On March 18, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC or, in the alterative, to stay the action in favor of Rojany. On June 14, 2019, the Court denied the motion to stay and granted the motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. On August 5, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint reducing the scope of the allegations previously asserted. On September 9, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. The hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss the SAC was set for December 16, 2019. All discovery and other proceedings in this action remain stayed by operation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company and other defendants dispute the allegations of the lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. FAT Brands said, "The Company is obligated to indemnify its officers and directors to the extent permitted by applicable law in connection with the above actions, and has insurance for such individuals, to the extent of the limits of the applicable insurance policies and subject to potential reservations of rights. The Company is also obligated to indemnify Tripoint Global Equities, LLC under certain conditions relating to the Rojany and Vignola matters. These proceedings are in their early stages and the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. There can be no assurance that the defendants will be successful in defending against these actions." FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires, markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. FAT BRANDS: Status Conference in Rojany Suit Set for Jan. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------- FAT Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the status conference in the class action suit entitled, Rojany v. FAT Brands Inc., in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC708539, has been scheduled on January 9, 2020. On June 7, 2018, plaintiff Eric Rojany, a putative investor in the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc., Tripoint Global Equities, LLC and members of the Company's board of directors, entitled Rojany v. FAT Brands Inc., in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC708539. The complaint asserted claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the defendants were responsible for false and misleading statements and omitted material facts in connection with the Company's initial public offering, which resulted in declines in the price of the Company's common stock. Plaintiff alleged that he intended to certify the complaint as a class action and sought compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On August 2, 2018, plaintiff Daniel Alden, another putative investor in the Company, filed a second putative class action lawsuit against the same defendants, entitled Alden v. FAT Brands, Inc., in the same court, Case No. BC716017. On September 17, 2018, Rojany and Alden were consolidated under the Rojany case caption and number. On October 10, 2018, plaintiffs Eric Rojany, Daniel Alden, Christopher Hazelton-Harrington and Byron Marin filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint ("FAC") against the Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. and Tripoint Global Equities, LLC (collectively, "Defendants"), thereby removing Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger, Silvia Kessel and Jeff Lotman as defendants. The FAC asserted the same claims as asserted in the original complaint. On November 13, 2018, Defendants filed a demurrer to the FAC. On January 25, 2019, the Court sustained Defendants' demurrer to the FAC, with leave to amend in part. On February 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint ("SAC") against Defendants. On March 27, 2019, Defendants filed a demurrer to the SAC. On July 31, 2019, the Court overruled in part and sustained in part Defendants' demurrer to the SAC, with leave to amend. On September 20, 2019, Plaintiffs served an initial set of requests for production of documents. At a status conference held on October 28, 2019, Plaintiffs indicated that they would not file a further amended complaint, and instead would rely upon the SAC as the operative complaint. The deadline for Defendants to file an answer to the SAC is November 12, 2019. The Court scheduled a status conference for January 9, 2020, at which time the parties shall present a proposed pretrial schedule for the case. The Company and other defendants dispute the allegations of the lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires, markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. FIFTH THIRD: Awaits Court's Final Approval of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties are awaiting final court approval of the settlement of the Plaintiff Damages Class in the case, In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-MD-1720. In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is currently also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement. On January 14, 2014, the trial court entered a final order approving the class settlement. A number of merchants filed appeals from that approval. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held a hearing on those appeals and on June 30, 2016, reversed the district court's approval of the class settlement, remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to review the Second Circuit's decision. Pursuant to the terms of the overturned settlement agreement, the Bancorp had previously paid $46 million into a class settlement escrow account. Approximately 8,000 merchants requested exclusion from the class settlement, and therefore, pursuant to the terms of the overturned settlement agreement, approximately 25% of the funds paid into the class settlement escrow account had been already returned to the control of the defendants. The remaining approximately 75% of the settlement funds paid by the Bancorp are currently maintained in the escrow account. More than 500 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. These individual federal lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. While the Bancorp is only named as a defendant in one of the individual federal lawsuits, it may have obligations pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements noted above. On June 5, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action reached an agreement to settle in principle with the proposed plaintiffs' class seeking monetary damages (the "Plaintiff Damages Class"). On September 17, 2018, those parties signed a settlement agreement (the "Amended Settlement Agreement") superseding the original settlement agreement entered into in October 2012. The Amended Settlement Agreement included, among other terms, a release from participating class members for liability for claims that accrue no later than five years after the Amended Settlement Agreement becomes final. The Amended Settlement Agreement provided for a total payment by all defendants of approximately $6.24 billion, composed of approximately $5.34 billion held in escrow plus an additional $900 million in new funds. However, the Settlement Agreement also provided that if between 15% and 25% of class members (by payment volume) opted out of the class, up to $700 million of the additional settlement funds would be returned to the defendants. It has now been determined that more than 25% of the class members have elected to opt out of the Amended Settlement Agreement, and, therefore, $700 million of the additional $900 million will be returned to the defendants. In either event, the Bancorp's allocated share of the putative settlement is within existing reserves. The Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement on January 24, 2019 and scheduled a hearing on final approval of the settlement for November 7, 2019. Fifth Third said, "The putative settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs' class seeking injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who have opted out of the proposed class settlement and are pursuing, or may in the future decide to pursue, private lawsuits." Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. FIFTH THIRD: Bid for Class Certification Due February 28 -------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion for class certification in the class action suit entitled, In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation, is currently due February 28, 2020. On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v. Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances within 30 days. On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-00851). On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA. On January 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the immediate appeal of the dismissal of their breach of contract claim. On March 28, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and stayed the TILA claim pending that appeal. On April 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal for the breach of contract claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiffs' claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract claim exceed $280 million. Under the Court's scheduling order, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is currently due February 28, 2020. No trial date has been set Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. FIRST BANCORP: Torres Class Suit Tossed --------------------------------------- First BanCorp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court overseeing the case, Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., has entered judgment dismissing the Complaint and Third-Party Complaint as requested by the parties. FirstBank was named a defendant in a punitive class action complaint entitled, Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed in February 2017 at the Court of First Instance in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Complaint sought damages and preliminary injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against FirstBank, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and other financial institutions with insurance agency subsidiaries in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants had been unjustly enriched by failing to reimburse them for "good experience" commissions allegedly paid by Antilles Insurance Company and Puerto Rico Home Insurance Company. In March 2017, FirstBank filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Third-Party Complaint against Antilles Insurance Company and the Insurance Commissioner's Office. All of the other Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive relief. Antilles Insurance Company filed a motion against the Third-Party Complaint filed by FirstBank, which FirstBank opposed. The Insurance Commissioner's Office filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. In July 2017, the Court issued a Judgment granting the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants and dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, except the Third-Party Complaint filed by FirstBank, which was dismissed without prejudice. In August 2017, Plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals and FirstBank and the other Defendants filed their Oppositions to Plaintiffs' appeal. In March 2018, the Court of Appeals entered a Judgment revoking the lower court's Judgment. One Defendant filed for reconsideration, which was denied, and all the other Defendants filed their respective Petitions of Certiorari before the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which also denied review. Defendants subsequently filed for reconsideration. All Motions for Reconsideration were denied, and the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance for the continuation of proceedings. A Class certification hearing scheduled for May 2, 2019 was changed to a status hearing. Parties discussed their respective positions, specifically that prior to any other hearing, it was imperative that the Court resolved FirstBank’s motion seeking Declaratory Judgment. Memorandums of law regarding the validity of the Antilles Insurance policy endorsement were filed on June 3, 2019 in compliance with a court order. A preliminary injunction hearing was held in September 2019. Following the hearing, Plaintiffs sought to voluntarily dismiss the Complaint against FirstBank and FirstBank Insurance Agency with prejudice and FirstBank agreed to voluntarily dismiss its Third-Party Complaint against Antilles Insurance Company and the Insurance Commissioner's Office without prejudice. Joint motions for the voluntary dismissal of said complaints were filed. On September 12, 2019, the Court entered judgment dismissing the Complaint and Third-Party Complaint as requested by the parties. First BanCorp. is a diversified financial holding company headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico offering a full range of financial products to consumers and commercial customers through various subsidiaries. First BanCorp. is the holding company of FirstBank Puerto Rico ("FirstBank" or the "Bank") and FirstBank Insurance Agency. The company is based in Santurce, Puerto Rico. FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Five Point Holdings, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself against a putative class action suit initiated by the residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood. In May 2018, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood in San Francisco filed a putative class action in San Francisco Superior Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc., an independent contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing and remediation of toxic radiological waste at The San Francisco Shipyard, Lennar and the Company as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation efforts. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and have requested an injunction to prevent the Company and Lennar from undertaking any development activities at The San Francisco Shipyard. Since July 2018, a number of lawsuits have been filed in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of homeowners in The San Francisco Shipyard, which name Tetra Tech, Lennar, the Company and the Company's CEO, among others, as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that environmental contamination issues at The San Francisco Shipyard were not properly disclosed to them before they purchased their homes. They also allege that Tetra Tech and other defendants (not including the Company) have created a nuisance at The San Francisco Shipyard under California law. They seek damages as well as certain declaratory relief. All of these cases have been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the allegations in all of these cases and may have insurance and indemnification rights against third parties, including related parties, with respect to these claims. Five Point said, "Given the preliminary nature of these claims, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters." Five Point Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiary, Five Point Operating Company, LP, plans, develops, and owns mixed-use communities in California, the United States. The company operates through four segments: Newhall, San Francisco, Great Park, and Commercial. The company was formerly known as Newhall Holding Company, LLC and changed its name to Five Point Holdings, LLC in May 2016. Five Point Holdings, LLC was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Transient Tax-Related Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that plaintiffs' appeal from the district court decision granting the defendants' joint motion to dismiss the Transient Lodging Tax-related suit remains pending. In August 2018, prior guests of The Strat filed a purported class action complaint against the Company in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of similarly situated individuals and entities that paid the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax on the portion of a resort fee that constitutes charges for Internet access, during the period of February 6, 2014 through the date the alleged conduct ceases. The lawsuit alleged that the Tax was charged in violation of the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which imposed a national moratorium on the taxation of Internet access by states and their political subdivisions, and sought, on behalf of the plaintiff and the putative class, damages equal to the amount of the Tax collected on the Internet access component of the resort fee, injunctive relief, disgorgement, interest, fees and costs. All defendants to this matter, including Golden Entertainment, Inc., filed a joint motion to dismiss this matter for lack of merit. The District Court granted this joint motion to dismiss in February 2019. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court decision in April 2019 to the Supreme Court of Nevada. Briefs in this matter were filed with the Federal Appeals Court in October 2019. Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc. and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015. The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. GOPRO INC: Settlement of 2016 Shareholder Suit Has Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------- GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the settlement in a 2016 Shareholder Class Action has been finally approved. On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit (the 2016 Shareholder Class Action) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and Nicholas D. Woodman, its Chairman and CEO, Brian McGee, its CFO, and Anthony Bates, its former President (Defendants). The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November 4, 2016. The complaint purports to allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. On February 6, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company and certain of its officers (GoPro Defendants) on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November 8, 2016. On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 26, 2017, the court denied that motion and directed the plaintiff to amend its complaint to add all defendants the plaintiff intended to sue. On August 4, 2017, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which Defendants answered on September 8, 2017. On September 11, 2018, the parties participated in a mediation session and following the mediation, reached an agreement in principle to settle the action. On April 26, 2019, the Court issued an order granting the lead plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement, which received final approval of the Court on September 20, 2019, was funded entirely by the Company's insurance carriers. GoPro, Inc. develops and sells cameras, drones, and mountable and wearable accessories in the United States and internationally. The company was formerly known as Woodman Labs, Inc. and changed its name to GoPro, Inc. in February 2014. GoPro, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Mateo, California. HARRIS, TX: Stauber Seeks Overtime Pay for Nonexempt Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY STAUBER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-04719 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 4, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation from the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, Harris County violated the FLSA by employing Stauber and other similarly situated nonexempt employees for a workweek longer than forty 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 they are or were employed. Mr. Stauber is a longtime employee of Harris County. He currently works as a deputy sheriff in the Harris County Sheriff's Department and has attained the rank of lieutenant. Harris County is a political subdivision of the State of Texas located in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. 'Bob' Thomas, Esq. ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW 5100 Westheimer Road, Suite 105 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 659-0005 Facsimile: (713) 750-0070 - and - Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt HesseCurt Hesse MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 HOUSTON BAPTIST: Compelled to Reply to Discovery Sought in Hicks ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DEANNA HICKS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-CV-629-FL (E.D. N.C.), Magistrate Judge James E. Gates of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, granted Hicks' motion to compel (i) the Defendant to respond to discovery sought in her first set of interrogatories and first requests for production of documents, and (ii) the Defendant's marketing agent, nonparty Educate Online, Inc., to respond to a deposition subpoena duces tecum seeking similar discovery. The Plaintiff, a former student at Austin Community College ("ACC"), commenced the lawsuit as a result of two unsolicited telephone calls she alleges she received on her cell phone on Sept. 13 and 14, 2017. According to the Plaintiff, the autodialed calls were made on behalf of the Defendant and urged her to contact the Defendant to learn about its nursing program, notwithstanding the fact that her cell phone number was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Plaintiff alleges that while enrolled at ACC, she signed a document informing her that ACC would not share or sell her personal information. She contends that the Defendant placed these unsolicited calls to her without her express written consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of herself and the putative class members similarly situated. Specifically, the Plaintiff proposes to assert her claims on behalf of the following two classes: 1. Autodialed No Consent Class: All persons in the United States from four years prior to the filing of the action through the present who (1) the Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant) called, (2) on the person's cellular telephone, (3) using an autodialer, and (4) for whom Defendant claims it obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as the Defendant claims it supposedly obtained prior express written consent to call the Plaintiff. 2. Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who (1) the Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant) called more than one time on his/her cellular telephone; (2) within any 12-month period (3) where the cellular telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days; (4) for the purpose of selling the Defendant's products and services; and (5) for whom the Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent in the same manner as the Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent to call the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserts two claims: the first for violation of the TCPA on behalf of herself and the autodialed No Consent Class, and the second under the same statute on behalf of herself and the Do Not Call Registry Class. The Defendant denies the material allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint. Among other defenses, it asserts that the Plaintiff and the other purported class members consented to receipt of its telephone calls. On March 21, 2018, the Plaintiff served on the Defendant her first set of interrogatories and first requests for production. On May 25, 2018, the Defendant responded to the Plaintiff's interrogatories and production requests. On April 27, 2018, the Plaintiff served a subpoena on Educate Online, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), seeking deposition testimony and documents from it. On May 16, 2018, Educate Online served objections and responses to the Plaintiff's subpoena. The instant motion seeks production from the Defendant and Educate Online of information and documents relating to persons at schools other than ACC who received any cellular telephone calls from or on behalf of defendant, including information and documents relating to the calls to such persons. The Plaintiff has demonstrated that she adequately attempted to resolve the matters at issue on her motion without court intervention through pre-filing conferral with defendant and Educate Online about their objections to producing the information and documents sought in her motion. The Plaintiff identifies the discovery requests subject to her motion as: interrogatories nos. 1-4 and 7-13; requests for production nos. 2-7, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 27-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 43-44; document requests nos. 2, 4, 5, and 7-20 in the subpoena; and deposition topics nos. 2, and 5-12 in the subpoena. Magistrate Judge Gates has considered the burden that the additional discovery sought by the Plaintiff would place on the Defendant and Educate Online, the volume of discovery that they have already provided, and the proportionality of the additional discovery sought to the needs of the case. He concludes that these considerations do not place the additional information and documents the Plaintiff seeks by her motion outside the permissible scope of discovery in the case. For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge Gates allowed the Plaintiff's motion to compel. The Defendant may not withhold from production any information requested in interrogatories nos. 1-4 and 7-13 or any documents requested in requests for production nos. 2-7, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 27-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 43-44 on the grounds that such information or documents relate to call recipients at schools other than ACC. For purposes of the Order, information or documents will be deemed to relate to such a call recipient if they relate to any such call to the call recipient. In the event that the directive in the preceding paragraph 2 makes producible information or documents that the Defendant has not yet produced in response to interrogatories nos. 1-4 and 7-13 or requests for production nos. 2-7, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 27-28, 30-32, 36-37, and 43-44, the Defendant was to serve on the Plaintiff by late November 2019: (a) a supplemental response to the interrogatories involved that sets out such additional information; and (b) a supplemental response to the requests for production involved that identifies by Bates number or otherwise the additional documents being produced and is accompanied by copies of all such documents. Topics nos. 2 and 5-12 in the subpoena to Educate Online will be deemed to include any information otherwise within the scope of such topics that relates to call recipients at schools other than ACC. Educate Online may not withhold from production any documents requested in document requests nos. 2, 4, 5, and 7-20 in the subpoena on the grounds that such documents relate to call recipients at schools other than ACC. In the event that the directive in the preceding paragraph 5 makes producible documents that Educate Online has not yet produced in response to document requests nos. 2, 4, 5, and 7-20 in the subpoena to it, Educate Online will serve on plaintiff by late November 2019 copies of all such additional documents. Because the circumstances presented would make an award of expenses unjust, the parties and Educate Online will bear their own expenses incurred on the Plaintiff's motion. A full-text copy of Judge Gates' Nov. 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/apxxhx from Leagle.com. Deanna Hicks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Avi R. Kaufman, Kaufman P.A., Stefan Coleman, Stefan Colema & Ted Lewis Johnson, Ted Lewis Johnson, Attorney at Law. Houston Baptist University, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Zwickert Timmermans -- eztimmermans@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP, Robert A. Muckenfuss -- rmuckenfuss@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP & Susan E. Groh -- sgroh@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal in Timm Class Action Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal from a ruling in the class action suit entitled, Timm, v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., is ongoing. On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a breach of a fiduciary duty. The action seeks the payment of two quarterly dividends for the Preferred B and C holders, the unwinding of the consents and reinstatement of the cumulative dividend on the Preferred B and C stock, and the election of two directors by the Preferred B and C holders. The action also seeks punitive damages and legal expenses. On July 16, 2018, the Court entered a Judgement Order whereby it (1) declared and entered judgment in favor of all defendants on all claims related to the Preferred C holders and all claims against all individual defendants thereby affirming the validity of the 2009 amendments to the Series B Articles Supplementary; (2) declared its interpretation of the voting provision language in the Preferred B Articles Supplementary to mean that consent of two-thirds of the Preferred B stockholders was required to approve the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles Supplementary, which consent was not obtained, thus rendering the amendments invalid and leaving the 2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary in effect; (3) ordered the Company to hold a special election within 60 days for the Preferred B stockholders to elect two directors to the Board of Directors pursuant to the 2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary (which Directors will remain on the Company’s Board of Directors until such time as all accumulated dividends on the Preferred B have been paid or set aside for payment) and, (4) declared that the Company is required to pay three quarters of dividends on the Preferred B stock under the 2004 Articles Supplementary (approximately, $1.2 million, but did not order the Company to make any payment at this time). The Court declined to certify any class pending the outcome of appeals and certified its Judgment Order for immediate appeal. On October 2, 2019, the appellate court held oral argument for all appeals in the matter. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independentresidential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. INFINITE PERSONAL: Faces De Varona Suit Alleging FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- ERNESTO DE VARONA And all others similarly situated v. INFINITE PERSONAL POSSIBILITIES, INC. and DEBORAH SAFKO, Case No. 0:19-cv-62966-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 3, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have underpaid their employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Behavioral Analyst Associate from 2004 until present. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff according to the same pay practice that it applied to its other employees who, like the Plaintiff, were not paid the applicable minimum wage for all hours as Behavioral Analyst Associates, the lawsuit says. The Defendants offers health care services in Aventura, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra Sierra-De Varona, Esq. DE VARONA LAW 350 Camino Gardens Blvd., Suite 105 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 600-9070 Facsimile: (561) 600-9077 E-mail: asd@devaronalaw.com J2 GLOBAL: Davis Neurology Class Action Ongoing ----------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Davis Neurology, P.A. On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class action against two J2 Global affiliates in the Circuit Court for the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40), alleging violations of the TCPA. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (No. 4:16-cv-00682). On March 20, 2017, the District Court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the J2 Global affiliates and dismissed all claims against the J2 Global affiliates. On July 23, 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded to district court with instructions to return the case to state court. On January 29, 2019, after further appeals were exhausted, the case was remanded to the Arkansas state court. On April 1, 2019, the state court granted a motion for class certification filed by the plaintiff in 2016. Because the prior removal to federal court had deprived the state court of jurisdiction, the J2 Global affiliates had not yet filed an opposition brief to the 2016 motion when the state court granted the motion. The J2 Global affiliates appealed the order. On July 15, 2019, the J2 Global affiliates removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The plaintiff has moved to remand and the J2 Global affiliates have opposed the motion. j2 Global said, "J2 Global does not believe, based on current knowledge, that the foregoing legal proceedings or claims, after giving effect to existing accrued liabilities, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, depending on the amount and timing, an unfavorable resolution of some or all of these matters could have a material effect on J2 Global's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows in a particular period." The Company has not accrued for any material loss contingencies relating to these legal proceedings because materially unfavorable outcomes are not considered probable by management. It is the Company’s policy to expense as incurred legal fees related to various litigations. j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media. The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc. and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2 Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Court Dismisses Ponzo Suit Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed without prejudice the case, PATRICK PONZO, on behalf of the Inmates of Jefferson County, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-CV-1013 (LEK/TWD) (N.D. N.Y.). Pro se Plaintiff Ponzo commenced the putative class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that Jefferson County, New York, has violated the rights of County inmates by refusing to transport them to court for attendance at judicial proceedings. The Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Danck granted the Plaintiff's IFP Application, reviewed the sufficiency of the Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e), and recommended that the Complaint be dismissed with leave to replead for failure to state a claim. The Magistrate Judge advised the Plaintiff that under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1), he had 14 days within which to file written objections to the Report-Recommendation, and that failure to object to the Report-Recommendation within 14 days would preclude appellate review. The Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report-Recommendation, instead filed an amended complaint before the Court reviewed the Report-Recommendation. Judge Kahn finds that because the Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint before the original Complaint had been served, he could file the Amended Complaint "as a matter of course," and there was no need to seek leave of Court. Judge Kahn therefore deems the Amended Complaint to be the operative pleading and refers the Amended Complaint to Magistrate Judge Dancks for review. Accordingly, Judge Kahn approved and adopted the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. The Judge dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiff's Complaint. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is deemed the operative pleading and is referred to Magistrate Judge Dancks for review under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e). A full-text copy of Judge Kahn's Nov. 12, 2019 Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/nBLJ5b from Leagle.com. Patrick Ponzo, Inmates of Jefferson County, Plaintiff, pro se. JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit over Race Bias Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2019, that the company continues to defend a discrimination class action suit entitled, Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al. On May 24, 2018, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit (Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by a former financial advisor. An amended complaint was filed on September 24, 2018, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that the defendants discriminated against the former financial advisor and financial advisor trainees on the basis of race. On November 26, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding an allegation of discrimination of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuit seeks equitable and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri. JONES FINANCIAL: Watson et al. Labor Suit in Calif. Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Watson, et al. v. The Jones Financial Companies L.L.L.P., et al. On April 25, 2019, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a putative class action (Watson, et al. v. The Jones Financial Companies L.L.L.P., et al.) filed by two former financial advisors in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County. Plaintiffs allege that defendants did not reimburse financial advisors and financial advisor trainees in California for certain categories of business expenses, which plaintiffs allege violates the California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit seeks damages and restitution as well as attorneys' fees and costs and equitable and injunctive relief. Defendants will respond to the complaint in due course and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri. JR ENGINEERING: Conditional Certification of Roberts Suit Ruled On ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Pamela Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned JAMES ROBERTS, JR., Plaintiff, v. J.R. ENGINEERING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-CV-00110. (N.D. Ohio). JRE is an Ohio corporation that manufactures automobile parts. It has two manufacturing facilities -- one in Norton, Ohio that operates under the name J.R. Wheel, and one in Barberton, Ohio that operates under the name J.R. Engineering. On January 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against JR Engineering (JRE), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA). Plaintiff alleges that JRE violated the FLSA by failing to appropriately compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for overtime hours worked before and after the end of their shifts. On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification. Therein, Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of "[a]ll former and current manufacturing employees of J.R. Engineering in Barberton, Ohio and Norton, Ohio between January 15, 2016 and the present." Opt-In Plaintiffs Tristan Adkins and Jacob Pastorius also submitted Declarations in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification. JRE has filed a Motion to Strike Certain Portions of the Declarations of James Roberts, Jr., Jacob Pastorius, and Tristan Adkins. On review, Judge Barker finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the modest factual showing necessary to demonstrate that they are similarly situated to other JRE manufacturing employees at JRE's J.R. Wheel and J.R. Engineering facilities. Likewise, despite the minimal factual detail or specificity in Plaintiffs' Declarations, Plaintiffs have sufficiently identified a common theory of JRE's alleged statutory violation: JRE's alleged failure to pay its manufacturing employees for performing work before and after their scheduled start and stop times, resulting in employees not being paid overtime compensation, the Court finds. Accordingly, Judge Barker makes these rulings: 1. JRE's Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. JRE's Motion to Strike is GRANTED with respect to the statements in Paragraphs 11 and 14 of Roberts's Declaration and Paragraph 7 of Pastorius's and Adkins's Declarations that aver Plaintiffs are similarly situated to other JRE manufacturing employees, but is DENIED in all other respects. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification is also GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows. The Court conditionally certifies the following collective action class: All former and current non-exempt manufacturing employees of J.R. Engineering, Inc. in Barberton, Ohio and Norton, Ohio between October 31, 2016 and the present who performed unpaid pre-shift and/or post-shift work. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y27wu6tb from Leagle.com James Roberts, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chastity L. Christy, Lori M. Griffin & Anthony J. Lazzaro of the Lazzaro Law Firm.. J.R. Engineering, Inc., Defendant, represented by Monica L. Frantz - mfrantz@ralaw.com - Roetzel & Andress, Morris L. Hawk - mhawk@ralaw.com - Roetzel & Andress & Nancy A. Noall - nnoall@ralaw.com - Roetzel & Andress. K & E RESOURCES: Simmons Seeks Overtime Pay for General Laborers ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARL SIMMONS and THELMA COSBY, on Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. K & E RESOURCES, LLC and JANE OLA EASTERLY ACHORD, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-14040 (E.D. La., Dec. 4, 2019), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act for general laborers. The Plaintiffs are employed as general laborers for the Defendants and are paid on an hourly rate for all hours worked, even when more than 40 hours of work is performed in a particular week, the lawsuit says. The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing commercial and residential construction.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Preston L. Hayes, Esq. Ryan P. Monsour, Esq. Zachary R. Smith, Esq. CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P. One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 Telephone: (504) 833-5600 Facsimile: (504) 613-4528 KENCO LOGISTIC: Cal. App. Reversed Dismissal of Young Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, First District, issued an Opinion affirming a trial court judgment sustaining Defendants' Demurer in the case captioned HUGUETTE NICOLE YOUNG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KENCO LOGISTIC SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. A153023 (Cal. App.). Plaintiff Huguette Nicole Young worked as a commercial truck driver for Kenco Logistic Services, LLC. Following two workplace disciplinary actions against her, Young, appearing in propia persona, filed suit against Kenco and SmartDrive Systems, Inc., a contractor Kenco used to surveil its drivers. Young alleged the disciplinary actions defamed her and that video recording her while working constituted an invasion of privacy by intrusion. On June 30, 2017, Young filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC), the operative pleading in the action, asserting four causes of action: defamation, invasion of privacy (intrusion), invasion of privacy (misappropriation of likeness), and invasion of privacy (false light). Thereafter, Young moved to certify the case as a class action, which the trial court denied. In September 2017, Kenco demurred to the FAC. Young did not submit any written opposition. Subsequently, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and then later entered judgment of dismissal. Young appealed. Upon review of the record, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of dismissal. The order sustaining the demurrer is reversed solely as to the second cause of action for invasion of privacy by intrusion, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Court's opinion. The Appellate Court affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer in all other respects. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's October 31, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyqqxtob from Leagle.com LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Cert. Bid in Miller Energy Litig. Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs' motion for class action certification in the litigation involving Miller Energy Resources, Inc.'s securities offerings remains pending. In November 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed in state court in Tennessee against Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller"), officers, directors, auditors and nine firms that underwrote six securities offerings in 2013 and 2014, which offerings raised approximately $151,000. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of two of the offerings. The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering materials were misleading based on the purportedly overstated valuation of certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other relief. In December 2015 the defendants removed the complaints to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee; in November 2016, the cases were consolidated. In August 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriters' motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs' motions for class certification and to remand the case to state court are pending. Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida. LADENBURG THALMANN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing This Month ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a final hearing seeking court approval of the settlement agreement in the consolidated class action suit against American Realty Capital Partners, Inc. ("ARCP") is scheduled for January 2020. In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against American Realty Capital Partners, Inc. ("ARCP"), certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's auditing firm, and the underwriters of ARCP's May 2014 $1,656,000 common stock offering ("May 2014 Offering") and three prior note offerings. The complaints have been consolidated. Ladenburg was named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of the May 2014 Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's July 2013 offering of $300,000 in convertible notes. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering materials were misleading based on financial reporting of expenses, improperly-calculated AFFO (adjusted funds from operations), and false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, including statements as to ARCP's internal controls, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other relief. In June 2016, the court denied the underwriters' motions to dismiss the complaint. In August 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In September 2019 the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement that provides for resolution of the matter with no contribution from Ladenburg or the other underwriter defendants. In October 2019, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval to the settlement. A final hearing seeking court approval of the settlement agreement is scheduled for January 2020. In the event that the lawsuit proceeds, Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Court Dismisses Derivative Stockholders Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge V.C. McCormick of the Court of Chancery of Delaware issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the consolidate case IN RE LENDINGCLUB CORP. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Consolidated C.A. No. 12984-VCM, (Del. Ch.). LendingClub Corporation operates an online platform that facilitates loans issued by third parties. The company then purchases the loans and sells them to investors based on the investors' preferred loan characteristics. LendingClub sold to an institutional investor $22 million in near-prime loans that did not meet the investor's instructions concerning loan characteristics. When whistleblowers alerted the company's board of directors, the board conducted an internal investigation with the assistance of independent outside counsel and a forensic auditor. The internal investigation surfaced other problems. Two members of the board of directors, one of whom was the company's CEO and board Chairman, failed to disclose their personal investments in Cirrix Capital L.P. before the company invested $10 million in Cirrix. Also, certain valuation adjustments made by LendingClub's wholly-owned subsidiary, LC Advisors, LLC, were not consistent with generally accepted accounting principles such that LC Advisors exceeded the investment parameters of one of the funds it managed. With that, the LendingClub board promptly self-reported the misconduct to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and took steps to remediate the matter. Nevertheless, two groups of LendingClub stockholders commenced litigation in reaction to the public disclosures. The first stockholder group filed a securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, the former CEO and CFO, and members of LendingClub's board of directors. As to the director defendants, the complaint alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which are essentially strict liability claims and do not require a showing of scienter. The complaint alleged that LendingClub's December 2014 registration statement contained misstatements in view of LendingClub's later-disclosed weaknesses in its internal controls. The second group of stockholders commenced the current derivative action claiming that LendingClub's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties. The complaint does not challenge the propriety of the remedial actions taken by the board. Rather, the complaint asserts claims under Caremark, In re Caremark Int'l Inc. Deriv. Litig., 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996), contending that the LendingClub board made no good faith effort to put in place a system of controls or, in the alternative, that it consciously failed to monitor company operations and thus disabled itself from being informed of problems requiring its attention. The Complaint contains two causes of action: The first cause of action alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with (a) the Board's failure to implement internal controls at LendingClub, which resulted in allegedly false and misleading statements in the Company's public disclosures (b) the Cirrix investment and (c) the non-conforming loans. The second cause of action alleges (d) that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor LC Advisors' compliance with federal law and oversee LC Advisors' risk management. Defendants in the action have moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 for failure to plead demand futility. The Derivative Claims * Oversight of LendingClub Plaintiffs' first claim is that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties because they failed to take steps to maintain adequate internal controls necessary to prevent against the issuance of false and misleading statements at LendingClub. These false and misleading statements allegedly surfaced in a variety of the Company's proxy statements, including in its December 2014 registration statement, where the Company stated that it would not assume credit risk or use its own capital to invest in loans facilitated by the LendingClub marketplace and that it maintained an effective information security program. Because Plaintiffs' first claim alleges a complete failure to maintain adequate internal controls, it falls within Caremark's first category. To demonstrate interestedness, Plaintiffs argue that the majority of the Demand Board members faced a substantial likelihood of liability from their first claim. This argument fails, the Court says. The Complaint is empty of the kind of fact pleading that is critical to a Caremark claim, such as contentions that the company lacked an audit committee or that the company had an audit committee that met only sporadically and devoted patently inadequate time to its work. The factual allegations in the Complaint indicate that LendingClub's Audit Committee both (1) existed and (2) met monthly. The Complaint offers no facts concerning LendingClub's internal controls or lack thereof that would persuade a finding that the Board faced a substantial likelihood of liability for utterly failing to implement them. And the Complaint offers no factual support for a finding that a majority of the Demand Board acted in bad faith, the Court continues. * Cirrix Investment Plaintiffs' second claim is that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to prevent harm to the Company stemming from the Cirrix investment. This claim falls within Caremark's second category, since it alleges a conscious failure to monitor such that the personal ownership interests of Laplanche and Mack in Cirrix went undetected at the time the board approved the Cirrix investment. To recover under the second prong of Caremark, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the directors, having implemented adequate internal controls, consciously failed to monitor or oversee their operations thus disabling themselves from being informed of risks or problems requiring their attention. In other words, Plaintiffs must allege that the directors were conscious of the fact that they were not doing their jobs, and that they ignored red flags indicating misconduct. To demonstrate that this claim compromises the Demand Board for demand futility purposes, Plaintiffs argue that the Risk Committee members -- Morris, Ciporin, Summers, and Williams -- faced a substantial likelihood of liability for consciously failing to perform their duties in connection with the Cirrix Investment. Plaintiffs argue that conscious disregard can be inferred because the Risk Committee approved the Company's Cirrix investment at Laplanche's recommendation "without so much as questioning the propriety of the action or taking any steps to learn of Laplanche's and Mack's interests in Cirrix. The Court finds that Plaintiffs do not plead facts sufficient to support a finding that a majority of the Demand Board consciously ignored red flags relating to the Cirrix investment such that it faced a substantial likelihood of liability in the action. * Sale of Non-Conforming Loans Plaintiffs' third claim is that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to prevent the sale of non-conforming loans, either because they failed to implement board-level oversight mechanisms or consciously ignored red flags. In briefing, Plaintiffs do not make arguments specific to this claim in order to demonstrate that the Demand Board was compromised for demand futility purposes, the Court finds. The Complaint does not adequately allege that any of the Demand Board members acted in bad faith such that they faced a substantial likelihood of liability in connection with respect to the sale of non-conforming loans, the Court further finds. * LC Advisors Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants failed to oversee and monitor compliance of LC Advisors with applicable federal, state, and local laws, and likewise failed to oversee LC Advisor's risk management. Plaintiffs concede that this claim calls for the application of Caremark. To demonstrate that this claim compromises the Demand Board for demand futility purposes, Plaintiffs allege that Demand Board failed to implement any mechanism by which it could oversee LC Advisors, despite the Company's acknowledgment in one of its 2015 SEC filings that any violations of law by LC Advisors would affect LendingClub's ability to meet the demands of its online marketplace. According to the Complaint, the Investment Policy Committee did not function as intended due to the conduct of two its three members, Laplanche and Dolan. When the Board learned of the relevant facts, the Board abolished the Investment Policy Committee, which ultimately led to the establishment of a new governing board comprised of a majority of independent members to supervise LC Advisors' exercise of its fiduciary duties. Since then, LC Advisors' new governing board regularly makes reports to LendingClub's board of directors. And while it may be true that actions taken after the fact do not absolve past transgressions, these allegations do not demonstrate that the Board failed to implement an oversight mechanism with regard to LC Advisors, the Court says. Rather, it demonstrates that the Board implemented an oversight system and, when the Board first learned that it was not working, created a new one, the Court continues The Securities Class Action Claims The Securities Class Action would not have compromised the Demand Board's ability to impartially consider a demand concerning the subject matter of this action, namely because the claims against them in this action are exceptionally weak, the Court opines. To hold the Director Defendants liable in the action, Plaintiffs must prove that the directors acted in bad faith, that is, there must be some factual support speaking to the Director Defendants' state of mind at the time the challenged conduct occurred. By contrast, the Section 11 claims sustained against the Director Defendants in the Securities Class Action did not require a showing of scienter. The only claims that required a showing of scienter in the Securities Class Action were the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims asserted exclusively against Dolan and Laplanche. Liability under Section 11 would not, in and of itself, have gotten to the heart of whether the directors acted in bad faith concerning wrongdoing at issue in both actions. There is thus no basis for the Court to conclude that the Demand Board members would have viewed the Securities Class Action as posing a substantial likelihood of liability concerning the Caremark claims in this case, Judge McCormick says. Judge McCormick opines that in sum, Plaintiffs have failed to allege that a majority of the Demand Board members were unable to impartially consider pre-suit demand with regard to any of Plaintiffs' claims. Because the Complaint fails to meet the requirements of Rule 23.1, the Court's decision does not address Defendants' arguments under Rule 12(b)(6). For reasons stated, Judge McCormick dismissed Plaintiffs' Consolidated Supplemented Verified Stockholder Complaint. A full-text copy of the Chancery Court's October 31, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4tuj7q2 from Leagle.com Seth D. Rigrodsky – sdr@rl-legal.com ; Brian D. Long - bdl@rl-legal.com ; Gina M. Serra – gms@rl-lega.com of RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Robert I. Harwood – rharwood@hfesq.com ; Matthew M. Houston of HARWOOD FEFFER LLP, 488 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10022; Brett D. Stecker & James M. Ficaro of THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C., 22 Cassatt Ave. Berwyn, PA 19312, Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Chaile Steinberg, William A. Blazek, and William Rhangos. Raymond J. DiCamillo - dicamillo@rlf.com & Eliezer Y. Feinstein - feinstein@rlf.com of RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington Delaware; Adam S. Paris & Natalie Muscatello of SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP; Counsel for Defendants John C. Morris, Daniel T. Ciporin, Jeffrey Crowe, Mary Meeker, Scott Sanborn, Lawrence H. Summers, and Simon Williams. Raymond J. DiCamillo & Eliezer Y. Feinstein of RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Jonathan D. Polkes – jonathan.polkes@weils.com of WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, New York, New York; Counsel for Defendant John J. Mack. Myron T. Steele - msteele@potteranderson.com ; T. Brad Davey - bdavey@potteranderson.com ; Callan R. Jackson -cjackson@potteranderson.com of POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Robert J. Liubicic - rliubicic@milbank.com of MILBANK LLP, Los Angeles, California; Scott A. Edelman- sedelman@milbank.com ; Adam Fee - afee@milbank.com ; Andrew Lichtenberg - alichtenberg@milbank.com of MILBANK LLP, New York, New York; Counsel for Defendant Renaud Laplanche. Jody C. Barillare - jody.barillare@morganlewis.com of MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Charlene S. Shimada - charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com ; Susan D. Resley; Lucy Wang of MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, San Francisco, California; Marc J. Sonnenfeld of MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Counsel for Defendant Carrie Dolan. LOUISIANA HEALTH: Denial of Bid to Intervene in OGHA Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned OPELOUSAS GENERAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, A PUBLIC TRUST, D/B/A OPELOUSAS GENERAL HEALTH SYSTEM, v. LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY D/B/A BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA, Case No. 19-265 CW 19-179 (La. App.), Judge Sylvia R. Cooks of the Court of Appeal of Louisiana for the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court's order denying the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association's (i) Motion for Leave to File a Petition for Intervention, and (ii) Motion to Temporarily Stay Application for Supervisory Writs and Consolidate Application with Direct Appeal. The consolidated appeal and writ application arise from a class action filed on Aug. 24, 2016 by the Plaintiff, Opelousas General Hospital Authority, a Public Trust, doing business as Opelousas General Health System ("OGHA"), against the Defendant ("BCBS-LA"). OGHA alleged that BCBS-LA conspired with the Association and 35 other Blue Cross plans across the United States to allocate markets, monopolize, and engage in other anticompetitive conduct. OGHA alleged this conduct was in violation of the Louisiana Anti-Trust Statute. In the relevant period surrounding the suit filed by OGHA, several anti-trust class actions were brought against various Blue Cross Blue Shield entities under both federal and state law. Many of the actions were consolidated in a federal Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. OGHA maintains its lawsuit is different from the ones in the MDL, and that the suit is tailored only against BCBS-LA and asserts only monetary claims under Louisiana law. In accordance with La. Code Civ. P. art. 593, OGHA moved for class certification on Nov. 3, 2016. On Dec. 22, 2016, BCBS-LA filed an Exception of Prematurity and Alternative Motion to Compel Arbitration, contending the claims asserted in the OGHA class action were subject to an arbitration agreement. The trial court denied the exception and alternative motion on March 8, 2017. On June 21, 2017, BCBS-LA filed an opposition to OGHA's motion for class certification. On June 27, 2017, two days prior to the class certification hearing, the Association filed a Motion for Leave to File a Petition for Intervention. That same day, the Association and BCBS-LA jointly filed a Notice of Removal, asserting the intervention (which had not yet been granted or denied) created minimal diversity for purposes of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Also, on June 27, 2017, OGHA filed an Emergency Motion to Remand, contending until the district court ruled on the Petition for Intervention, there was no federal jurisdiction. Emergency remand was requested to allow the district court to rule on the Petition for Intervention. Further, on the same day, the Association and BCBS-LA sought a transfer of the case to the MDL pending in the Northern District of Alabama. The Judicial Panel Multi-district Litigation automatically issued a Conditional Transfer Order. The Counsel for OGHA advised the district court they were seeking an emergency remand to allow the district court to consider the Petition for Intervention. Judge R. David Proctor, who presided over the MDL, on April 9, 2018, rendered judgment remanding the case back to Louisiana district court under the voluntary-involuntary rule. OGHA again attempted to reset its long-sought class certification hearing. The Association again opposed this, contending the district court must first rule on its Motion for Leave to File a Petition for Intervention. A hearing on that motion occurred on Feb. 7, 2019, after which the district court denied the intervention on the basis it would result in further needless delay. The district court certified the order as final and appealable. The Association and BCBS-LA filed yet another motion to stay on February 13, 2019. At the hearing on the stay motion, the Association acknowledged it would leverage any intervention as a means to seek removal to federal court. The district court denied the stay and reset the class certification hearing for May 30, 2019. The Association sought supervisory writs from the judgment of the district court denying the Petition for Intervention. The Association also filed an appeal from the district court's judgment. It acknowledged it filed the application for writs as a precautionary measure in the event the direct appealability of the district court's Reasons for Judgment and Final Judgment was challenged or denied on any grounds. On March 8, 2019, the Association filed a Motion to Temporarily Stay Application for Supervisory Writs and Consolidate Application with Direct Appeal. On March 14, 2019, the Court granted the writ application for the limited purpose of ordering the consolidation of the writ application with the appeal to be lodged in the Court. On appeal, the Association asserted the following assignments of error: 1. The district court erred in concluding that, if permitted to intervene, the Association would not be able to show the Federal Courts that it has the minimal diversity to trigger CAFA jurisdiction and thus any removal would result in remand and retard the progress of the action. It misread the Eleventh Circuit's decision in the case, which clearly stated than an order granting the Association's motion to intervene will trigger CAFA's minimal diversity jurisdiction, making the case properly removable. 2. The district court erred in denying intervention based upon a belief that the case would not be removable, in contravention of controlling Louisiana Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court precedent holding that such a determination is the purview of the federal courts alone, and that a court may not thwart removal because the court anticipated removal will cause delay. 3. The district court erred in finding that intervention by the Association would retard the progress of the action when the case remains in a preliminary, pretrial phase and the clear weight of authority holds that intervention before judgment does not retard the case. 4. The district court erred in denying the Association's petition to intervene on the basis that even if the Association is not allowed to intervene in the action, it still has a right to appeal because a third-party appeal is not a substitute for intervention. The question before the Appeals Court is whether the district court's denial of the Associations' Petition for Intervention under the circumstances of the case is an abuse of discretion. Judge Cooks holds that it is imperative to note the undisputed facts that the case has already undergone a two-year delay because the Association and BCBS-LA improperly removed the case to federal court two days before the district court was scheduled to hear the class certification hearing and before it could rule on the motion to intervene. After two years of delay, the Association again asked the district court to consider its Petition for Intervention and admitted it would immediately seek to remove the case to federal court if it were allowed to intervene. Judge Cooks finds no abuse of the trial court's broad discretion in finding that a grant of intervention would result in further, needless delay in violation of La.Code Civ.P. art. 1033. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying the Association's Petition for Intervention. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Cooks affirmed the judgment of the lower court. All costs of the appeal are assessed to the Appellant, the Association. A full-text copy of the Appeals Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/fc1NqX from Leagle.com. Thomas A. Filo, Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, L.L.C., 723 Broad Street, Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 582-8364, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Opelousas General Hospital Authority, et al. Patrick C. Morrow -- PatM@mmrblaw.com ; James P. Ryan -- JamesR@mmrblaw.com of Morrow, Morrow, Ryan, Bassett & Haik, 324 West Landry Street, Opelousas, LA 70570, (337) 948-4483, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Opelousas General Hospital Authority, et al. Stephen B. Murray, Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Arthur M. Murray, Murray Law Firm, Poydras Center, Suite 2150, 650 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, (504) 525-8100, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Opelousas General Hospital Authority, et al. James A. Brown, Liskow & Lewis, 701 Poydras St., Suite 5000, New Orleans, LA 70139, (504) 581-7979, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Joseph C. Giglio, Jr. -- jcgiglio@liskow.com -- Michael Ishee, Liskow & Lewis, 822 Harding Street, P.O. Box 52008, Lafayette, LA 70503, (337) 232-7424, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Daniel E. Laytin -- daniel.laytin@kirkland.com -- Zachary Holmstead -- zachary.holmstead@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 300 North LaSalle, Chicago, IL 60654, (312) 862-2000, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. MARQUEZ CONSTRUCTION: Patai Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA PATAI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MARQUEZ CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE D/B/A MARQUEZ INDUSTRIES, LLC AND TALIS INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 7:19-cv-00281 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 3, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, the Defendants 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 they are or were employed. Further, the Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for the Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees. The Defendants are a maintenance and services company. They employed Ms. Patai as a senior lead designer from July 2019 to November 2019.[BN] 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 MATRIX MEDICAL: Mizrahi Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH MIZRAHI, individually and of behalf of all others similarly situated v. MATRIX MEDICAL NETWORK, Case No. 3:19-cv-20960 (D.N.J., Dec. 3, 2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant made one or more unauthorized phone call to the Plaintiff's cellular phones using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) and pre-recorded messages for the purpose of soliciting business from the Plaintiff. Unfortunately for consumers, the Defendant utilizes a sophisticated telephone dialing system to call individuals en masse promoting its services. However, Defendant fails to get the requisite prior consent prior to calling. The Defendant also fails to have procedure in place to ensure that they were not calling and/or messaging consumers on the National Do Not Call Registry, the lawsuit says. The Defendant operates a home-based medical services and works with 60 different health plans nationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: $300K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Moodie FCRA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has entered judgment on attorneys fees in the case captioned SHONNTEY MOODIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 14-3471 FMO (ASx) (C.D. Cal.). Pursuant to the Court's Order on the Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Approval of Attorney's Fees, Costs & Incentive Payment, filed contemporaneously with the filing of the Judgment, Judge Olguin adjudged that (i) Plaintiff Moodie be paid a service payment of $5,000, (ii) the class counsel be paid $300,000 in attorney's fees and costs; and (iii) the Claims Administrator, JND, be paid for its fees and expenses, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. All class members who did not validly and timely request exclusion from the settlement have released their claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, against any of the released parties. Except as to any class members who have validly and timely requested exclusion, the action is dismissed with prejudice, with all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth in the Judgment and in the prior orders of the Court. A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Judgment is available at https://is.gd/NHwWxU from Leagle.com. Ronald Kroenig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, Christopher P. Ridout -- christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP & Kevin Mahoney -- kmahoney@mahoney-law.net -- Mahoney Law Group APC. Shonntey Moodie, Plaintiff, represented by Alina Birute Marija Mazeika -- amazeika@mahoney-law.net -- Mahoney Law Group, Hannah Fernandez -- hannah.fernandez@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, Kevin Mahoney, Mahoney Law Group APC & Christopher P. Ridout, Zimmerman Reed LLP. Nancy Lewen, Movant, pro se. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, Defendant, represented by John S. Battenfeld, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Kathryn Teresa McGuigan, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Joseph Duffy -- joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Taylor C. Day -- tday@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. MDL 2543: Balhoff Named Mediator in New GM Ignition Switch Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed Daniel J. Balhoff of the law firm Perry, Balhoff, Mengis & Burns, LLC, to act as a Special Master for the purpose of serving as a mediator to facilitate settlement discussions between the Plaintiffs and New GM in IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION, This document relates to Murphy v. GM LLC, Case Nos. 14-MD-2543 (JMF), 16-CV-0678 (S.D. N.Y.). Plaintiffs Park and Kari Murphy and the Estate of Chelsea Murphy are represented by counsel Tracy Cinocca in the litigation. It is the Court's determination that the Plaintiffs and New GM would benefit from a mediation with Daniel J. Balhoff serving as a neutral third party to mediate the claim and aid the parties in potentially reaching a mutually acceptable settlement. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a)(1)(C), Judge Furman will appoint Mr. Balhoff to act as a Special Master for the purpose of serving as a mediator to facilitate settlement discussions between the Plaintiffs and New GM. The Court is familiar with Mr. Balhoff's credentials, and it is the judgment of the Judge that he is well qualified for the appointment. Mr. Balhoff has already served as court-appointed Special Master for many settlements in the MDL. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, the Judge appointed Mr. Balhoff as the Special Master to serve as mediator to facilitate the potential resolution of the Plaintiffs' lawsuit in a manner acceptable to both parties. The parties will be equally responsible for the payment of Mr. Balhoff's fee for mediating this claim and any related expenses. To minimize travel expenses for plaintiffs and their counsel, the mediation will be conducted in Tulsa, Oklahoma at a location agreeable to both parties and Mr. Balhoff. Mr. Balhoff will proceed with all reasonable diligence. He will use his experience and judgment to structure the mediation in manner to best facilitate potential resolution of the claim. Mr. Balhoff may have confidential ex parte communications with the Plaintiffs and New GM in relation to his role as Special Master, and to the extent either party engaged in ex parte communications with Mr. Balhoff, such ex parte communications will not be deemed to have waived any attorney-client or other privileges. To execute the responsibilities and duties of his office, Mr. Balhoff will be vested by the Court with all necessary powers to act as an effective mediator as allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53. Unless expressly authorized in writing by both the counsel for the Plaintiffs and the counsel for New GM, Mr. Balhoff will not disclose any confidential information or documents obtained through or created in his role. Likewise, all communications by the counsel for the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, and the counsel for New GM with one another and with the mediator will be kept strictly confidential by the parties, and will be subject to Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. While the Court does not currently anticipate requesting a formal report and recommendation from Mr. Balhoff, if it does request the same, Mr. Balhoff will reduce any formal order, finding, report, or recommendation to writing to be filed under seal, as determined by the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/ZIxDSn from Leagle.com. Teleso Satele, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Carlota Onofre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Elaine T. Byszewski -- elaine@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Major A. Langer, Perona, Langer, Beck & Lallande, Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, Scot D. Wilson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, pro hac vice, Jason Allen Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Sean R. Matt -- sean@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Devora Kelley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Charles Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, pro hac vice, David K. Stein, Girard Gibbs Llp, pro hac vice, Eric H. Gibbs, Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo & Scott M. Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP, pro hac vice. Frederick Whittington, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs, Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo. Katie Michelle McConnell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine T. Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Sean R. Matt, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Sylvia Benton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine T. Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Kevin Frank Calcagnie, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, pro hac vice, Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, Robert Bruce Carey, Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro,LLP, Scot D. Wilson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Sean R. Matt, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Elizabeth J. Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, L.L.P. Martin Ponce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan A. Michaels , Mlg Automotive Law, Aplc, pro hac vice, Justin Benjamin Farar , Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn Jeanine Harvey , MLG Automotive Law APLC, pro hac vice, Laurence David King , Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Linda M. Fong , Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, pro hac vice & Robert N. Kaplan , Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP. General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Baker Bloomer -- andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Anne M. Talcott -- atalcott@schwabe.com -- Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, PC, Arthur Jay Steinberg -- asteinberg@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, Arthur Henry Thorn, Thorn Gershon Tymann and Bonanni, LLP, Benjamin Houston Joyce -- bjoyce@mcnair.net -- Hood Law Firm, Carey E. Olson, Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP, Christopher William Keegan -- chris.keegan@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Cristin Fitzgerald Bordelon , Leake & Andersson, LLP, Darin T. Beffa -- darin@beffalaw.com -- Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Darrell Lee Barger, Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, David L. Balser -- dbalser@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice, Edward L. Ripley, King & Spalding LLP, Eric Michael English, King And Spalding LLP, Francis J. Grey , Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey, James B. Hood, Hood Law Firm, James Johnson, Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey J. Cox, Hartline Dacus et al, Jeffrey Alan Daxe, Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP, Jeffrey Sinek -- jeff.sinek@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer L. Bullard, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Jerry L. Saporito, Leake & Andersson, LLP, John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., Kara MacCartie Stewart, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Kyle Harold Dreyer, Hartline, Dacus, Barger, Dreyer & Kern, LLP, Kyle Harold Dreyer, Hartline, Dacus, Barger, Dreyer & Kern, LLP, pro hac vice, Laurie K. Miller, Jackson Kelly PLLC, pro hac vice, Lawrence J. Murphy, Honigman, Miller, Lawrence A. Slovensky -- lslovensky@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice, Leonid Feller -- leonid.feller@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Linsey W. West, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Lisa Verna Lecointe, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Mark W. Skanes, The Rose Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Matthew H. McNamara , Thorn Grshon Tymann and Bonanni, LLP, Richard Cartier Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Robert Burkart Ellis -- robert.ellis@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Robert H. Hood, Jr. , Hood Law Firm, Robert Donald Ingram, Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP, Rodney E. Loomer, Turner, Reid, Duncan, Loomer & Patton, P.C., Roshan N. Rajkumar, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Ryan N. Clark, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., pro hac vice, Ryan M. Ingram, Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP, Scott Ian Davidson, King & Spalding LLP, Sherry A. Rozell, Turner, Reid, Duncan, Loomer & Patton, Stanley Weiner, Jones Day, Stephen B. Devereaux -- sdevereaux@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas P. Branigan, Bowman & Brooke LLP, Thomas J. Hurney, Jr., Jackson Kelly PLLC, pro hac vice, Thomas M. Klein, Bowman & Brooke LLP, Whitney H. Kimerling, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., William L. Kirk, Jr., Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, Allan Pixton -- allan.pixton@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Anne Raven, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Anne Mcclain Sidrys -- asidrys@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Barry E. Fields -- barry.fields@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Beth Larsen -- beth.larsen@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Brian Douglas Sieve -- brian.sieve@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Brian T. Smith , Dykema, Bridget Kathleen O'Connor -- bridget.oconnor@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Casey James McGushin, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Catherine L. Fitzpatrick , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Christina E. Sharkey , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Daniel Michael Monico, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Deron L. Wade, Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer, Dommond E. Lonnie, Dykema Gossett LLP, Eric Christopher Tew, Dykema, Eric Yeager -- eric.yeager@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Frank Chadwick Morriss, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., Geoffrey Alan David -- geoffrey.david@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Giovanna Tarantino Bingham, Hartline Dacus Barger, pro hac vice, Greg Ryckman -- greg.ryckman@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Gregory Polins -- greg.polins@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Haley Lorraine Darling -- haley.darling@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Hariklia Karis -- hariklia.karis@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Jeffrey Scott Bramson -- jeffrey.bramson@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Jeremy D. Roux -- jeremy.roux@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Jonathan C. Bunge, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Kadima Tshiamala -- jonathan.tshiamala@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Kimberly Olvey Branscome -- kimberly.branscome@kirkland.com --, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren Frances Biksacky -- lauren.biksacky@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Maria Pellegrino Rivera , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Marianna Caruso Chapleau , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Mark J. Nomellini , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Michael P. Cooney , Dykema, Michael K. Steinberger , Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Michael R. Williams , Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Nicholas Fanklin Wasdin, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Patrick Gerard Seyferth, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Paul David Collier , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Peter Bartoszek, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Pryce Godfrey Tucker , HARTLINE DACUS BARGER, pro hac vice, R. Chris Heck , Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P., Renee Deborah Smith , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Robert C. Brock, Covington & Burling, LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel James Ikard, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac ice, Sierra Elizabeth, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Terri A. Abruzzo -- terri.abruzzo@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Thomas William Osier, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Vanessa Anne Barsanti, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Vinu Joseph, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Wendy L. Bloom -- wendy.bloom@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Wendy D. May -- wmay@hdbdlaw.com -- Hartline Daus Barger Dreyer LLP, pro hac vice. Don McCue Chevrolet, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael T. Navigato, Bochte, Kuzniar & Navigato, LLP, Theodore L. Kuzniar, Bochte, Kuzniar & Navigato, LLP & William F. Bochte, Bochte, Kuzniar & Navigato, LLP. General Motors Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew Baker Bloomer, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin Houston Joyce, Hood Law Firm, James B. Hood, Hood Law Firm, James Johnson, Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Sinek, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Cartier Godfrey, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Robert Burkart Ellis, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Robert H. Hood, Jr., Hood Law Firm, Allan Pixton , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Barry E. Fields, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Catherine L. Fitzpatrick, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Michael K. Steinberger, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Michael R. Williams, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Patrick Gerard Seyferth, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Renee Deborah Smith, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Wendy L. Bloom, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. General Motors Holding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Sinek, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa Verna Lecointe, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Allan Pixton , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Barry E. Fields , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Catherine L. Fitzpatrick, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Michael K. Steinberger, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Michael R. Williams, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Patrick Gerard Seyferth, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Renee Deborah Smith, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Wendy L. Bloom, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Ramey Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc., a West Virginia corporation, Defendant, represented by Johnnie E. Brown, PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN BROWN & POE. Stoneridge, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley Willis Ward, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, pro hac vice, J. Clarke Keller, Stites & Harbison PLLC & Doris Rios Duffy, Edward Garfinkel, Law Offices. MERCHANT EXCHANGE: Cal. App. Flips Demurrer to O'Grady Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In LAUREN O'GRADY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MERCHANT EXCHANGE PRODUCTIONS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. A148513, (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two, issued an Opinion reversing a trial court judgment granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case. Merchant Exchange is in the business of providing a banquet facility at which food and beverages are served. It adds a mandatory, and substantial, "service charge" to the contract for every banquet. Merchant Exchange distributes some of the service charge to managerial employees who do not serve food and beverages at the banquet. An employee, Lauren O'Grady, filed a putative class action to force Merchant Exchange to treat the service charge as a gratuity and distribute all of it to employees who do serve food and beverages at the banquet. Merchant Exchange took the position that two Court of Appeal opinions hold, as a matter of law under stare decisis, that a service charge can never be a gratuity. The trial court agreed, and sustained Merchant Exchange's general demurrer without leave to amend. The issue presented to the Appeals Court is whether the service charge may be a gratuity that Labor Code section 3511 requires to go only to the non-managerial employees involved with the actual serving of the food and beverages. Under Section 351 of the Labor Code, gratuity is statutorily defined to include any tip, gratuity, money, or part thereof that has been paid or given to or left for an employee by a patron of a business over and above the actual amount due the business for services rendered or for goods, food, drink, or articles sold or served to the patron. No employer or agent shall collect, take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron, or deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer. Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left for. However, the terms tip, gratuity and service charge are commonly used as if they are interchangeable synonyms. Plaintiff is attempting to establish that it is custom "in the hospitality industry" to treat sums designated as "service charges" as gratuities for employees. In other words, custom or usage can serve as a common law augmentation of sections 350 and 351. If true, defendant's practice would clearly appear to be at odds with the purpose of section 351, which is "to ensure that employees, not employers, receive the full benefit of gratuities that patrons intend for the sole benefit of those employees who serve them.'" (Searle, supra, 102 Cal.App. 4th 1327, 1332.) That purpose would not be served by allowing employers to take money intended for employees simply by saying the customer has paid a "service charge." Accordingly, the Appeal Court ruled that the Order Granting Defendant Merchant Exchange Productions, Inc.'s Demurrer to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint filed April 5, 2016, is amended by adding the following paragraph: Plaintiff's complaint on file herein is dismissed. As so modified, the order/judgment is reversed. Plaintiff shall recover her costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Appeals Court's October 31, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy3v6xyb from Leagle.com Lichten & Liss-Riordan, Michael Freedman - mfreedman@llrlaw.com ; Matthew D. Carlson -mcarlson@llrlaw.com ; Shannon Liss-Riordan - sliss@llrlaw.com ; Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellant. Littler Mendelson, P.C., Joseph A. Schwachter - jschwachter@littler.com ; Galen M. Lichtenstein - glichtenstein@littler.com - Attorney for Defendant and Respondent. METROSTAFF INC: Williams Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data --------------------------------------------------------------- LaTonia Williams and Dequrvia Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MetroStaff Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH13840 (Ill. Cir., Dec. 2, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's employees in Illinois have been required to scan their fingerprints at a Metrostaff, Inc. office before they are placed to work at the job sites of third party companies. The Defendant does the collection of biometric data in the form of finger scans, which capture a person's fingerprint, and then Defendant uses that fingerprint to identify that same person in the future. Following the 2007 bankruptcy of a company specializing in the collection and use of biometric information, which risked the sale or transfer of millions of fingerprint records to the highest bidder, the Illinois Legislature passed detailed regulations addressing the collection, use and retention of biometric information by private entities, such as the Defendant. The Plaintiffs bring the action for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant. Metro Staff is a light industrial and professional staffing service company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312 201 0575 - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312 726 3400 MICHAEL PAGE: Jordan Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled DANIEL JORDAN, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly situated v. MICHAEL PAGE INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; C&D ZODIAC, INC. dba ZODIAC AEROSPACE, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:18-cv-01328-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves for preliminary approval of the parties' Joint Stipulation of Settlement of the California Class Action claims. Mr. Jordan also seeks entry of an order conditionally certifying the collective and class action claims for settlement purposes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will commence a hearing on January 27, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Quintilone, II, Esq. Andrew H. Haas, Esq. Alejandro Quinones, Esq. QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES 22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Telephone: (949) 458-9675 Facsimile: (949) 458-9679 E-mail: req@quintlaw.com ahh@quintlaw.com axq@quintlaw.com - and - Roger Carter, Esq. Bianca A. Sofonio, Esq. THE CARTER LAW FIRM 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 245-7500 E-mail: rcarter@carterlawfirm.net bianca@carterlawfirm.net - and - Marc H. Phelps, Esq. THE PHELPS LAW GROUP 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 629-2533 Facsimile: (949) 629-2501 E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com Defendant Michael Page International is represented by: Boris Sorsher, Esq. Bret Martin, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 851-2424 Facsimile: (949) 851-0152 E-mail: bsorsher@fisherphillips.com bmartin@fisherphillips.com MILACRON HOLDINGS: Faces Hillenbrand Merger-Related Suits --------------------------------------------------------- Milacron Holdings Corporation is facing litigation challenging its merger deal with Hillenbrand, Inc., Milacron said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated November 8, 2019. On July 12, 2019, Milacron Holdings Corp., Hillenbrand, Inc., and Bengal Delaware Holding Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hillenbrand, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger that provides for the acquisition of Milacron by Hillenbrand (the "merger"). Subject to approval of Milacron stockholders and the satisfaction or (to the extent permitted by law) waiver of certain other closing conditions, Hillenbrand will acquire Milacron through the merger of Merger Sub with and into Milacron, with Milacron surviving the merger and becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Hillenbrand. Following the announcement of the merger, four putative class action complaints have been filed by purported stockholders of Milacron. On October 1, 2019, the first putative class action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of Milacron in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Sabatini v. Milacron Holdings Corp., et al, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01846, against Milacron, the members of the Milacron board of directors, Hillenbrand and Merger Sub. On October 14, 2019, the second putative class action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of Milacron in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Krieger v. Milacron Holdings Corp., et al, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01943, against Milacron and the members of the Milacron board of directors. On October 16, 2019, the third putative class action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of Milacron in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Akerman v. Milacron Holdings Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-05841, against Milacron, the members of the Milacron board of directors, Hillenbrand and Merger Sub. On October 29, 2019, the fourth putative class action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of Milacron in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bushansky v. Milacron Holdings Corp., et. al, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-10022, against Milacron and the members of the board of directors. The complaints in these four cases allege that, among other things, the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act, by omitting or misrepresenting certain allegedly material information in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the merger, rescissory damages or rescission in the event the merger is consummated and plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees. Milacron, Hillenbrand and the other defendants believe the allegations and claims asserted in the Merger Litigation are without merit and supplemental disclosures are not required or necessary under applicable laws. However, in order to avoid the risk of the Merger Litigation delaying or otherwise adversely affecting the transactions and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in defending the Merger Litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Milacron and Hillenbrand are hereby voluntarily supplementing the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. Milacron, Hillenbrand and the other named defendants deny that they have violated any laws or breached any duties to Milacron's stockholders or Hillenbrand's shareholders, as applicable. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/34UOgEE. Milacron Holdings Corporation operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and distributes injection molding, extrusion, blow molding, hot runner solutions, and process control systems. Milacron Holdings serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Cincinnati, Ohio. MORTON GOLF: Faces Cavanaugh Employment Class Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morton Golf, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Jamie Cavanaugh, On behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Morton Golf, LLC and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00270176-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Dec. 2, 2019). The suit alleges violation of employment related laws. Morton Golf, LLC was founded in 1932. The company's line of business includes operating golf courses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shani O. Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5850 Oberlin Dr, Ste 230A San Diego, CA 92121-4711 Telephone: (619) 892-7095 Facsimile: (858) 404-9203 E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com MSC MERCHANT: Faces Abante Rooter Suit Over Auto-Dialed Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MSC MERCHANT SERVICE CENTER, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-07965 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing auto-dialed calls to cellphone owners, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Unfortunately for consumers, the Defendant, in an attempt to secure new customers (and sales) and leads for the merchant processing companies, engaged in an aggressive telemarketing campaign--often stepping outside the law in the process, the Plaintiff asserts. Specifically, the Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to make unsolicited telemarketing calls to cellphone numbers, the lawsuit says. Abante is a plumbing company headquartered in Emeryville, Alameda County, California. MSC is a sales marketer that recruits new customers for merchant processing companies via telemarketing (and potentially through other means).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Weinstein, Esq. P.O. Box 27414 Oakland, CA 94602 Telephone: (510) 336-2181 Facsimile: (510) 336-2181 E-mail: steveattorney@comcast.net - and - Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Taylor T. Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com NANTHEALTH INC: Bucks County Employee Fund's Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330, remains pending. In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar to those in Deora. That case is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330. The parties have agreed to stay the case until the next case management conference, scheduled for December 3, 2019. The Company believes that the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a healthcare technology company in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC. NANTHEALTH INC: Settlement Reached in Deora Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a settlement in principle has been reached in the class action suit entitled, Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825. In March 2017, a number of putative class action securities complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its current or former executive officers and directors. These complaints have been consolidated with the lead case captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825, ("Deora"). In June 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which generally alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations in NantHealth's IPO registration statement and in subsequent public statements. In particular, the complaint refers to various third-party articles in alleging that defendants misrepresented NantHealth's business with the University of Utah, donations to the university by non-profit entities associated with the Company's founder Dr. Soon-Shiong, and orders for GPS Cancer. The lead plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired NantHealth securities in the IPO or on the open market from June 1, 2016 through May 1, 2017. In March 2018, the court largely denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On July 30, 2019, the court certified the case as a class action. On October 23, 2019, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle to resolve the action on a classwide basis in the amount of $16,500, which is included in accrued and other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2019. The settlement is subject to several conditions, including the execution of a stipulation of settlement that is satisfactory to all parties, and preliminary and final approval from the court, among other things. NantHealth said, "If the settlement is finalized and approved by the court, the majority of the settlement amount will be funded by the Company's insurance carriers, and a portion will be funded by the Company." NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a healthcare technology company in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC. NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Decision Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs' appeal from a court's order granting the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings in a California class action lawsuit over the Company's initial public offering is still pending. On each of February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and April 4, 2016, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo, against Natera, its directors, certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their affiliates, and each of the underwriters of the Company's July 1, 2015 initial public offering. The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the Company's IPO contained materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about the Company's business and prospects. Among other relief, the complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company removed these actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the actions were subsequently remanded back to the San Mateo Superior Court. The Company has appealed the remand and discovery has been stayed pending the appeal. The Company also filed a demurrer, or a request for dismissal as a matter of law, in the San Mateo Superior Court, which was granted on October 23, 2017. The San Mateo Superior Court demurred the claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, without leave to re-file, and granted the demurrer as to Section 11 of the Act with leave to re-file. Plaintiffs refiled an amended complaint on November 22, 2017. The Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the amended complaint on January 25, 2018, which the plaintiffs opposed. Hearings on the motion were held in May and July of 2018. On August 7, 2018 the judge granted the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on or about October 18, 2018 and their brief on or about March 29, 2019. Natera filed its brief in response on June 27, 2019. The Company intends to continue to defend the matter vigorously, but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc. in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California. NATERA INC: Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Denied --------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has been denied. On March 15, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the plaintiff received an unauthorized text message to her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Among other relief, the complaint seeks statutory and other damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs. On June 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. The Company intends to vigorously defend the matter but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome. Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc. in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California. NCAA: Rucker Sues Over Disregard of Student-Athletes' Safety ------------------------------------------------------------ REGGIE RUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and BETHUNE-COOKMAN UNIVERSITY, INC., a Florida non-profit corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04740-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., Dec. 2, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained as a result of the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of BCU student-athletes. According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why. Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football season, there are entire days of the week that millions of Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the world. Before each game, these players--often mere teenagers--are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going. But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than 1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20 Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and 21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car accidents. Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia, depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur" college football. Football players were under the Defendant's care. Unfortunately, the Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the Plaintiff experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit, the Plaintiff avers. As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the Plaintiff and countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football, the lawsuit says. As such, the Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713.554.9099 Facsimile: 713.554.9098 E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589 6370 Facsimile: 312 589 6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com NCAA: Stallworth Sues Over Disregard of Student-Athletes' Safety ---------------------------------------------------------------- BYRON STALLWORTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and WITTENBERG UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04738-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., Dec. 2, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained as a result of the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Wittenberg student-athletes. According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why. Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football season, there are entire days of the week that millions of Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the world. Before each game, these players--often mere teenagers--are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going. But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than 1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20 Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and 21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car accidents. Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia, depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur" college football. Football players were under the Defendant's care. Unfortunately, the Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the Plaintiff experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit, the Plaintiff avers. As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the Plaintiff and countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football, the lawsuit says. As such, the Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable. NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713.554.9099 Facsimile: 713.554.9098 E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589 6370 Facsimile: 312 589 6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com NCL CORP: Appeal on Dismissal in Phillips Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------ NCL Corporation Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal from the ruling in the class action suit initiated by Marta and Jerry Phillips and others against the company is pending. On September 21, 2018, a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed by Marta and Jerry Phillips and others against NCL Corporation Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida relating to the marketing and sales of the company's Booksafe Travel Protection Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent an alleged class of passengers who purchased Booksafe Travel Protection Plans. The complaint alleged that the Company concealed that it received proceeds on the sale of the travel insurance portion of the plan. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, fees and costs. The Company moved to invoke the arbitration clause of the ticket contract to move the case out of Federal Court. On May 29, 2019, the Court granted the motion and compelled the plaintiffs to submit their claims to arbitration on an individual basis, dismissing the claims before the Court with prejudice. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. NCL said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claim and that any liability which may arise as a result of this action will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements." NCL Corporation Ltd. operates as a cruise line operator. The company was founded in 2013 and is based in Miami, Florida. NCL Corporation Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. NCS PEARSON: Schacke Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Douglas Schacke, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NCS Pearson, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12356, was removed from the Cook County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Dec. 2, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-07901 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Steven C. Seeger. The suit demands $9.9 million in damages. NCS Pearson develops and markets enterprise application software. The company provides software applications and technologies for education, testing, assessment, and complex data management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Megan Shannon, Esq. Ryan F Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: cmitchell@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com mshannon@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael R. Dockterman, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 227 West Monroe St., Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 577-1243 E-mail: mdockterman@steptoe.com OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in California. On February 14 and 22, 2018, plaintiff stockholders filed class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00352-AJB-WVG, and Cook v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00407-CAB-RBB). On July 24, 2018, the court appointed Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff. On October 5, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its executive officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations, and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section 11 of the Exchange Act arising out of the Company's initial public offering. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. The underwriters from the company's initial public offering have also been named as defendants in this case and we have certain obligations under the underwriting agreement to indemnify them for their costs and expenses incurred in connection with this litigation. On September 25, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the Section 11 claims entirely, without leave to amend, and accordingly dismissed the underwriters and certain directors from the case. The Court also dismissed certain statements from the Section 10 claims. The Company believes the remaining claims in the complaint are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against them. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., a vertically integrated medical device company, focuses on developing and commercializing medical devices to treat people who are obese and overweight. The company offers the Obalon balloon system designed to provide weight loss in obese patients. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Carlsbad, California. ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS: GTx Merger-Related Suits Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that lawsuits related to the merger between GTx, Inc. and Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc., have been voluntarily dismissed. On March 6, 2019, the Company, then operating as GTx, Inc. ("GTx"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, as amended (the "Merger Agreement"), with privately-held Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc. ("Private Oncternal") and Grizzly Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub"). Under the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into Private Oncternal, with Private Oncternal surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger"). On June 7, 2019, the Merger was completed. GTx changed its name to Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc., and Private Oncternal, which remains as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, changed its name to Oncternal Oncology, Inc. Between April 10 and May 1, 2019, three putative class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware: Wheby v. GTx, Inc. et al., Miller v. GTx, Inc. et al., Tabb v. GTx, Inc. et al., and Living Seas LLC v. GTx, Inc. et al. (collectively, the "Delaware Actions"). On April 11 and 23, 2019, two putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Kopanic v. GTx, Inc. et al. and Cooper v. GTx, Inc. et al. (collectively, the "New York Actions" and, together with the Delaware Actions, the "Actions"). The Actions name as defendants the company and its former board of directors, and, in the case of the Wheby and Miller actions, Private Oncternal and Merger Sub. The Actions allege that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, in connection with our filing of the Registration Statement in connection with the Merger. The Delaware Actions have now been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice: the Wheby action on June 12, 2019; the Miller action on July 15, 2019; the Living Seas action on June 26, 2019, and the Tabb action on October 21, 2019. On September 16, 2019, plaintiffs in the New York Actions filed an amended complaint, alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act related to the value GTx’s stockholders received in the Merger. The complaint seeks damages and other unspecified relief. The Company believes that the remaining lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend these actions. The Company cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the possible loss or range of loss from any of these matters. Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company, develops various product candidates for the treatment of cancer. The Company is headquartered in San Diego, California. PFIZER INC: Consolidated Class Suit v. Array BioPharma Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 29, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit related to Array BioPharma's NRAS-mutant melanoma program. In November 2017, two purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that Array BioPharma Inc., which the company acquired in July 2019 and is the company's wholly owned subsidiary, and certain of its former officers violated federal securities laws in connection with certain disclosures made, or omitted, by Array regarding the NRAS-mutant melanoma program. In March 2018, the actions were consolidated into a single proceeding. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Dropped from Adalimumab Biosimilars Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 29, 2019, that the company is no longer a defendant in the consolidated class action suit related to Adalimumab Biosimilars. Beginning in March 2019, purported class actions relating to Humira and adalimumab biosimilars were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AbbVie Inc. (AbbVie), certain affiliates of AbbVie, and other pharmaceutical manufacturers. Pfizer is a named defendant in three of the actions. The plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide and multi-state classes consisting of persons and/or entities who are indirect purchasers of Humira from January 1, 2017 until the allegedly unlawful antitrust effects cease. Against Pfizer, the plaintiffs generally allege that Pfizer's and AbbVie's 2018 licensing agreements, resolving all global intellectual property matters for Pfizer's proposed adalimumab biosimilar, delayed market entry of Pfizer's biosimilar product in the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws, various state antitrust or consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and treble damages for alleged overcharges for Humira since 2017. In August 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint that superseded the prior complaints and does not name Pfizer as a defendant. As a result, Pfizer is no longer a party to the case. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Still Defends EpiPen Consolidated Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 29, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit related to EpiPen. Beginning in February 2017, purported class actions were filed in various federal courts by indirect purchasers of EpiPen against Pfizer, and/or its affiliates King and Meridian, and/or various entities affiliated with Mylan, and Mylan Chief Executive Officer, Heather Bresch. The plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide classes comprising persons or entities who paid for any portion of the end-user purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. In August 2017, a similar lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a purported class of direct purchaser plaintiffs against Pfizer, King, Meridian and Mylan was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Against Pfizer and/or its affiliates, plaintiffs generally allege that Pfizer's and/or its affiliates' settlement of patent litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic EpiPen in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust or consumer protection laws. At least one lawsuit also alleges that Pfizer and/or Mylan violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiffs also filed various consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims against, and relating to conduct attributable solely to, Mylan and/or its affiliates regarding EpiPen. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen since 2009. In August 2017, the actions were consolidated for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation, MDL-2785) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas with other EpiPen-related actions against Mylan and/or its affiliates to which Pfizer, King and Meridian are not parties. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Harbison et al. Seek to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as PAULA HARBISON, VALERIE SANTOSUOSSO, and CHARLEY WHISENHUNT, On Behalf of THEMSELVES and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00955 (M.D. Tenn), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) consisting of: "current/former collections employees of Defendant who have worked for Defendant in the United States at any time since October 28, 2016, who were paid on a salaried basis without overtime compensation for hours over 40 in a workweek, and who did not work in a supervisory or management capacity." 2. approving a stipulated notice and consent form; 3. directing Philips within 21 days following the Court's granting class certification, to provide to Plaintiffs' counsel an Excel spreadsheet containing the name, last known mailing address(es), last known e-mail address(es), dates of employment, and location(s) of employment for the class; 4. directing Plaintiffs and their counsel within seven days of receiving the Class List from Philips, to cause the Notice and Consent Form to issue to potential opt-in plaintiffs via U.S. Mail and e-mail, at their initial expense without prejudice to seek reimbursement and to include a self- addressed, postage-prepaid envelope with the initial mailing; and 5. approving opt-in period of 60 days from the mailing of the Court-authorized notice and consent form. Philips North America LLC designs and manufactures products for consumers, commercial professionals, and government professionals. [CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Jonathan O. Harris, Esq. Casey M. Parker, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. SunTrust Plaza 401 Commerce Street, Suite 1200 Nashville, TN 37219-2446 Telephone: 615-254-1900 Facsimile: 615-254-1908 PHILLIPS CHEVROLET: Snyder Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------- COURTNEY SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHILLIPS CHEVROLET, INC., an Illinois corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07914 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 3, 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. According to the complaint, to promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers, including the Plaintiff, in the process. Through the action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt 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 herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for individuals and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com POPULAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in Camacho Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the defendants in the case, Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed their appellate brief, along with a motion to dismiss the appeal due to the plaintiffs' repeated failure to comply with the Circuit Court's rules and orders. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), has been named a defendant in a putative class action captioned Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers. Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel (or dual tracking). Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), the Home Affordable Refinance Program ("HARP") and other federally sponsored loan modification programs, as well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor Assistance Act and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). For the alleged violations stated above, plaintiffs request that all defendants (over 20, including all local banks) be held jointly and severally liable in an amount no less than $400 million. BPPR filed a motion to dismiss in August 2017, as did most co-defendants, and, in March 2018, the District Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. After being denied reconsideration by the District Court, on August 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Court of Appeals has entered an order where it consolidated three pending appeals related to the same subset of facts. The plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on August 16, 2019, but on September 24, 2019, the Court of Appeals ordered plaintiffs to submit a new brief for the consolidated appeals that complied with the applicable appellate procedural rules. On October 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed a revised brief, which defendants believe yet again do not comply with applicable court rules. On November 4, 2019, defendants filed their appellate brief, along with a motion to dismiss the appeal due to the plaintiffs' repeated failure to comply with the Circuit Court's rules and orders. Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail, mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. POPULAR INC: Motion for Reconsideration in Maura Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the Court's amended opinion and order in the class action suit entitled, Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et al., is pending. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), has also been named a defendant in another putative class action captioned Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who filed the Gonzalez Camacho action, on behalf of residential customers of the defendant banks who have allegedly been subject to illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers. As in Gonzalez Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel, all in violation of TILA, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and other consumer-protection laws and regulations. Plaintiffs did not include a specific amount of damages in their complaint. After waiving service of process, BPPR filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds as those asserted in the Gonzalez Camacho action (as did most co-defendants, separately). BPPR further filed a motion to oppose class certification, which the Court granted in September 2018. On April 5, 2019, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting BPPR's and several other defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April 15, 2019, which Popular timely opposed. The Court held a hearing on May 14, 2019 to entertain the Motion for Reconsideration and other pending miscellaneous motions and, on September 30, 2019, issued an Amended Opinion and Order dismissing plaintiffs' claims against all defendants, denying the reconsideration requests and other pending motions, and issuing final judgment. On October 17, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Amended Opinion and Order, which BPPR opposed on October 31, 2019. Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail, mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. POPULAR INC: Unit Still Faces Torres Class Action in Puerto Rico ---------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") has separately been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, filed before the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the same Popular Defendants, as well as other financial institutions with insurance brokerage subsidiaries in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs contend that in November 2015 Antilles Insurance Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers to obtain reimbursement on their insurance deductible for good experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other products instead, in violation of their duties as insurance brokers. Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed to comply with their duty to disclose the existence of this new insurance product, as well as double or treble damages (the latter subject to a determination that defendants engaged in monopolistic practices in failing to offer this product). In July 2017, after co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In August 2017, plaintiffs appealed this judgment and, in March 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the Court of First Instance's dismissal. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court denied review. At the request of the parties, the Court agreed to first decide certain threshold questions of law but, on August 15, 2019, the Popular Defendants and the Plaintiffs filed a Joint Motion where they informed the Court that Plaintiffs were simultaneously filing voluntary dismissals with prejudice against all other parties. On September 13, 2019, a status hearing was held where the Plaintiffs and the Popular Defendants informed the Court that the parties were in the process of stipulating a class for settlement purposes. The Court set a status hearing for November 14, 2019, where the parties currently expect to submit settlement terms for the Court's approval. Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail, mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. PRA GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- PRA Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit initiated by Opt-Out members of the resolved class action suit entitled, In Re Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation. On January 25, 2017, the Company resolved the matter of In Re Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, which consisted of a number of class actions and single plaintiff claims consolidated by order of the Panel for Multi-District Litigation. While the settlement disposed of a large number of claims, several hundred class members opted out ("Opt-Out Plaintiffs") of that settlement. Many of these Opt-Out Plaintiffs have been consolidated before the MDL appointed court, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and are pending a determination on cross-motions for summary judgment. The range of loss, if any, cannot be estimated at this time due to the uncertainty surrounding liability. PRA Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries, is a global financial and business services company with operations in the Americas and Europe. The Company's primary business is the purchase, collection and management of portfolios of nonperforming loans. PROSHARES TRUST II: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- ProShares Trust II said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the class action suit entitled, In re ProShares Trust II Securities Litigation, is pending. The Sponsor and the Trust are named as defendants in the following purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on the following dates: (i) on January 29, 2019 and captioned Ford v. ProShares Trust II et al.; (ii) on February 27, 2019 and captioned Bittner v. ProShares Trust II, et al.; and (iii) on March 1, 2019 and captioned Mareno v. ProShares Trust II, et al. The allegations in the complaints are substantially the same, namely that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act by issuing untrue statements of material fact and omitting material facts in the prospectus for ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, and allegedly failing to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. Certain Principals of the Sponsor and Officers of the Trust are also defendants in the actions, along with a number of others. On April 29, 2019, the Court entered an order consolidating the three suits into a single action captioned In re ProShares Trust II Securities Litigation, and requiring that the lead plaintiff file an amended consolidated complaint by June 21, 2019. The Sponsor and the Trust filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 2, 2019. The plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint on September 6, 2019, which the Sponsor and the Trust moved to dismiss on September 27, 2019. Counsel for the Trust believes the second amended consolidated complaint (as with the prior complaints) is without merit and that the lawsuit will not adversely impact the operation of the Trust, ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, or any of its other Funds. The Trust and the Sponsor intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. The Trust and the Sponsor cannot predict the outcome of the lawsuit. Accordingly, no loss contingency has been recorded in the Statement of Financial Condition and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF may incur expenses in defending against the lawsuit. ProShares Trust II (the "Trust") is a Delaware statutory trust formed on October 9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate series (each, a "Fund" and collectively, the "Funds"). PT CHICAGO: Fails to Provide RLTO Separate Summary, Olabisi Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JADESOLA OLABISI, Individually And As Representative of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiff v. PT CHICAGO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH13863 (Ill. Cir., Dec. 2, 2019), alleges that the Defendant does not provide Chicago tenants at Presidential Towers with the Separate Summary that is made for inspection and copying by the City of Chicago Commissioner of Department of Buildings, when rental agreements are initially offered and renewed, pursuant to the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Section 5-12-170. On September 25, 2018, the Defendant offered Plaintiff a 29-page rental agreement for her unit. The Plaintiff was a tenant of dwelling unit No. 04-1812 located at 625 W. Madison Street, in Chicago, Illinois. The subject building is a part of large residential complex in Chicago containing over 1000 residential rental dwelling units commonly known as Presidential Towers ("PT Chicago"). According to the complaint, a part of its responsibilities, the Defendant and its agents prepare and offer rental agreements and renewals to current and prospective tenants. The Defendant has offered the same rental agreement to all of its Chicago tenants, omitting the RLTO Separate Summary, within the last two years from the filing of the action. The Plaintiff, as the representative party seeks adjudication in her favor and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. The Plaintiff fully understands her rights and other class members' rights under the Chicago RLTO Section 5-12-170, the lawsuit says. The Defendant was an owner, lessor, authorized management agent, and landlord of Presidential Towers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Krolik, Esq. AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.A. 225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 924-0278 Facsimile: (312) 650-8241 E-mail: akrolik@securitydepositlaw.com - and - MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD. 225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 775-1015 Facsimile: (312) 256-2055 E-mail: mark@depositlaw.com QUIKTRAK INC: Wallace Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- Quiktrak, Inc. removed the case captioned as ALBERT WALLACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUIKTRAK, INC., an unknown corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. RG18925519 (Filed Oct. 22, 2018), from the Alameda County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 2, 2019, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-07895 to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and other individuals as independent contractors, rather than employees. The Plaintiff seeks to recover meal period and rest break wages; minimum and overtime wages; waiting time penalties under the California Labor Code. Quiktrak provides professional services. The company offers asset verification, inspection, auditing, inventory, and risk management services.[BN] Defendant Quiktrak is represented by: Marlene S. Muraco, Esq. Adam J. Fiss, Esq. Linda Nguyen Bollinger, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 95113-2303 Telephone: 408 998 4150 Facsimile: 408 288 5686 E-mail: mmuraco@littler.com afiss@littler.com Ibollinger@littler.com RANCHHODRAI INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Arosemena Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMERI AROSEMENA, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. RANCHHODRAI INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2019-15963 (Cal. Super., Dec. 2, 2019), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages, to pay minimum wages, to provide meal periods, to provide rest periods, to provide accurate itemized statements, and to reimburse expenses pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee at one of the Company's four hotel locations. She asserts that the unpaid wages remained unpaid after she and similarly situated employees ceased working for the Defendants. Ranchhodrai Inc. is in the hotels and motels business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq. Brittany V. Berzin, Esq. SHIMODA LAW CORP. 9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200 Elk Grove, CA 95624 Telephone: (916) 525 0716 Facsimile: (916) 760-3733 RBC CAPITAL: 8th Cir. Appeal in Luis Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs' appeal from a ruling in the case, Luis et al v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Case No. 0:16-cv-03873 (D. Minn.), remains pending. The appellate case is Gary Luis, et al., the Appellants v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Appellee, Case No. 19-2706 (8th Cir., Aug 13, 2019). The suit alleges violation of Securities/Commodities Exchange Act. The Plaintiffs are taking an appeal from Judge Susan Richard Nelson's July 11, 2019 decision granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as moot.[BN] Attorneys for the Appellants are: Gregg Martin Fishbein, Esq. LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL 100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000 Telephone: 612-339-6900 - and - David A. Goodwin, Esq. Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Eric S. Taubel, Esq. GUSTAFSON & GLUEK 120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000 Telephone: 612 333-8844 - and - Scott D. Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 7301 W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 207A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Telephone: 561 569-7062 RECRO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Suit Related to IV Meloxicam Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Recro Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit related to the NDA for IV meloxicam, is pending. On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made by the Company concerning the NDA for IV meloxicam. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but included new allegations and named additional officers and directors as defendants. On February 8, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed on April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the Company filed its response and briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss. On June 26, 2019, the judge heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss. The judge asked the plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief, which was completed on August 30, 2019, and the Company submitted a reply brief on September 27, 2019. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Recro Pharma said, "The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this time, no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to the Company." Recro Pharma, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company. It operates through two divisions, an Acute Care, and Contract Development and Manufacturing (CDMO). The company was formerly known as Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma, Inc. in August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is based in Malvern, Pennsylvania. RIPPY'S INVESTORS: Miller Seeks OT Wages for Tip-Credited Staff --------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES MILLER, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. RIPPY'S INVESTORS, LLC, d/b/a Rippy's Bar & Grill, Case No. 3:19-cv-01078 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 3, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has a common pay policy and/or pay practice, which fails to pay certain tip-credited employees at a rate of time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff, and those similarly situated individuals, were servers/bartenders paid the tip-credited wage for services performed for the Defendant, the lawsuit says. Rippy's offers restaurant food and drink services to the general public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Brian C. Winfrey, Esq. Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 810 Broadway, Ste. 105 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 928-9890 Facsimile: (615) 928-9917 E-mail: bwinfrey@forthepeople.com kimd@forthepeople.com ROBINSON NURSING: Arbitration Denial in Phillips Suit Reversed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion reversing in part and affirming in part a trial court order denying Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned ROBINSON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, D/B/A ROBINSON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER; CENTRAL ARKANSAS NURSING CENTERS, INC.; NURSING CONSULTANTS, INC.; AND MICHAEL MORTON, Appellants, v. ANDREW PHILLIPS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DOROTHY PHILLIPS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF DOROTHY PHILLIPS; AND ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, Case No. CV-18-45. (Ark.). In this interlocutory appeal, Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center LLC, et al., appealed from the Pulaski County Circuit Court's order denying motions to compel arbitration of the class action complaint commenced by Andrew Phillips, on behalf of the estate of Dorothy Phillips, and others. On September 4, 2015, Phillips filed a first amended class action complaint against Robinson alleging claims that Robinson had breached its admissions and provider agreements, violated the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), committed negligence and civil conspiracy, and has been unjustly enriched. Phillips filed an amended motion for class certification on September 10, 2015, requesting that a class be certified of all residents and estates of residents who resided at Robinson from June 11, 2010 to the present. The circuit court granted class certification on March 4, 2016. Robinson appealed. The Appellate Court has affirmed the grant of class certification with respect to Phillips's breach-of-contract, ADTPA, and unjust-enrichment claims, but reversed with respect to the negligence claim. On Sept. 1, 2017, Robinson filed a motion to compel arbitration with regard to nine class members/residents with arbitration agreements that had been signed by the residents' legal guardians. This motion was later supplemented to add one additional class member. Robinson also filed separate motions to compel arbitration as to 105 residents who had signed the agreements on their own behalf and as to 158 residents whose agreements had been signed by a person with power of attorney over that resident. On Sept. 5, 2017, Robinson filed a fourth motion to compel arbitration as to 271 residents who had "responsible parties" execute arbitration agreements on their behalf. The circuit court summarily ruled at a Sept. 22, 2017 hearing that all four of Robinson's motions to compel arbitration were denied. A written order generally denying the motions to compel was entered on Oct. 19, 2017, and Robinson filed a timely notice of appeal from the order. On appeal, Robinson argued that the circuit court erred in denying its motions to compel arbitration. Robinson contends that the 544 arbitration agreements at issue were valid and enforceable; that the claims asserted by Phillips were within the scope of the agreements; and that the circuit court's ruling was contrary to the Appellate Court's strong policy in favor of arbitration. On review, the Appellate Court conclude that Robinson failed to demonstrate that the individuals signing the arbitrations agreements were acting in an individual rather than a representative capacity. Because there was no valid arbitration agreement between Robinson and these individuals, the circuit court correctly denied Robinson's motion to compel arbitration with respect to the 271 class members, the Appellate Court opines. The Appellate Court further agrees with the reasoning in Hickory Heights Health & Rehab, LLC v. Adams, 2018 Ark. App. 560, 566 S.W.3d 134 (Adams) and conclude that the arbitration agreements containing the $30,000 limitation in the current case lack mutuality. As in Adams, the Appellate Court believes that the arbitration agreements serve to shield Robinson from defending itself in the court system against the majority of potential claims by residents, while reserving its right to utilize the court system for its likely claims. Accordingly, these arbitration agreements are not valid or enforceable, and the circuit court correctly denied the motions to compel as to these agreements, the Appellate Court opines. Moreover, the Appellate Court agrees that Robinson's failure to sign certain arbitration agreements is fatal to the validity of these agreements. It is a matter of basic contract law that, without its signature, Robinson is unable to demonstrate such mutual assent. Thus, the Appellate Court affirms the circuit court's denial of the motions to compel with respect to the arbitration agreements that were not signed by Robinson. Phillips also challenges the validity of the 105 arbitration agreements signed by the residents on another basis. He contends that Robinson has exclusive access to the information needed to determine the residents' competency at the time they signed the arbitration agreements, but that Robinson has refused to provide this information. Thus, Phillips argues that Robinson has failed to demonstrate the essential element of competency. After reviewing records, the Appellate Court finds that Robinson has failed to meet its burden of proving a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with respect to each of the agreements that contain the deficiencies previously discussed. Accordingly, the circuit court's order denying the motions to compel arbitration are affirmed as to those agreements, the Appellate Court rules. As to the remainder of the arbitration agreements not already discussed, the Appellate Court says Robinson has met its burden to prove the validity of those agreements. Thus, the next threshold issue that must be addressed is whether the claims asserted by Phillips fall within the scope of those remaining arbitration agreements. Depending on the version of the arbitration agreement, the language states that it applies broadly to any and all claims, disputes, and controversies arising out of, or in connection with, or relating in any way to the Admission Agreement or any service or health care provided or to all disputes arising from this or any future stays in this Facility. Phillips does not contend that the claims brought in this class action do not fall within the scope of these arbitration agreements and the Supreme Court concludes that this requirement is satisfied here. The Appellate Court thus reverses and remands with respect to those arbitration agreements not otherwise held to be invalid by this opinion. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's October 31, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y36sxx4c from Leagle.com Hardin, Jesson & Terry, PLC (Little Rock), by: Jeffrey W. Hatfield - jhatfield@hardinlaw.com - Kynda Almefty - kalmefty@hardinlaw.com - and Carol Ricketts - cricketts@hardinlaw.com - ; and Hardin, Jesson & Terry, PLC (Fort Smith), by: Kirkman T. Dougherty - kdougherty@hardinlaw.com - and Stephanie I. Randall , Arvest Bank Tower 5000 Rogers Avenue, Suite 500 Fort Smith, AR 72917, for appellants. Campbell Law Firm, P.A. by: H. Gregory Campbell - greg@campbellackermanlaw.com - and Reddick Moss, PLLC by: Brian D. Reddick , 1 Information Way #105, Little Rock, AR 72202, for appellees. SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Cal. App. Flips Dismissal of Carroll FEHA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four, issued an Opinion reversing a trial court's entry of a Stipulated Dismissal of the case JOYCE CARROLL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. A155208. (Cal. App.) Plaintiff Joyce Carroll appealed the trial court's entry of a stipulated dismissal with prejudice of her age discrimination complaint under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Plaintiff was 43 years old when she began working for the City and County of San Francisco. She worked for the City for approximately 15 years before retiring at age 58 due to rheumatoid arthritis. Plaintiff applied for disability retirement, and the City granted her request shortly thereafter. Since then, plaintiff has received monthly disability retirement benefit payments from defendants. Plaintiff brought a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleging that defendants discriminate on the basis of age in violation of FEHA by providing reduced disability retirement benefits to older employees who took disability retirement after working for the City for less than 22.22 years. The dismissal followed the trial court's order sustaining defendants' demurrer on the ground that plaintiff did not file a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) within one year of the date the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. The Appellate Court considers whether plaintiff's disparate treatment and disparate impact claims were timely under FEHA. On review, the Appellate Court rejected a restrictive interpretation of FEHA and held that plaintiff's FEHA claim accrued on the date of his discharge, not when he was informed of his discharge. The Appellate Court also opines that the putative class action claim for use of a systemic discriminatory policy during the limitations period to the detriment of the class is timely under Alch v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 339. Moreover, the Appellate Judge opines that on the face of her complaint, the injury that plaintiff alleges arise from the Defendant's act is not subject to immunity under Section 818.2 of the Government Tort Claims Act. Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's ruling. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's October 31, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxlarf39 from Leagle.com Aiman-Smith & Marcy, Randall B. Aiman-Smith - ras@asmlawyers.com - Reed W. L. Marcy - rwlm@asmlawyers.com - Hallie L. Von Rock - hvr@asmlawyers.com - Carey A. James -caj@asmlawyers.com - Brent A. Robinson , for Plaintiff and Appellant. Dennis J. Herrera , City Attorney, Katherine H. Porter , Joseph M. Lake , Deputy City Attorneys, for Defendants and Respondents. SANDBOX TRANSPORTATION: Calhoun Suit Moved to N.D. West Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sandbox Transportation, LLC removed the case captioned as TOMMY CALHOUN, JR., on behalf Of himself and all others Similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANDBOX TRANSPORTATION, LLC, D/B/A SANDBOX LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-215 (Keeley) (Filed Oct. 25, 2019), from the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on Dec. 4, 2019. The Northern District of West Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00215-IMK to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts that he and others "similarly situated" are entitled to unpaid overtime premium pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he and others "similarly situated" worked 16 hours per day, days per week, for straight time/ pay without overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sandbox Transportation is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Houston, Texas.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrea J. Johnson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One PPG Place - Suite 1900 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 394-3333 E-mail: andrea.johnson@ogletree.com SCIPLAY CORP: Continues to Defend Fife Class Action --------------------------------------------------- In the case, Fife v. Scientific Games Corp., Case No. 2:18-cv-00565 (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ronald B. Leighton entered an order dated November 25, 2019, granting a Stipulated Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order. The Schedule provides for: -- Class certification fact discovery cutoff 5/22/20, -- Class expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 6/19/2020, -- Class rebuttal Expert Disclosure/Reports due by 7/10/2020, -- Class expert discovery cutoff 8/7/20, -- Class certification motions due by 8/28/2020. SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that on April 17, 2018, a plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint, Fife v. Scientific Games Corp., against the company's Parent, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly lost virtual coins playing the company's online social casino games, including but not limited to Jackpot Party Casino and Gold Fish Casino. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington's Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington's consumer protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified money damages (including treble damages as appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre‑ and post‑judgment interest, and injunctive and/or declaratory relief. On July 2, 2018, the company's Parent filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, which the trial court denied on December 18, 2018. The company's Parent filed its answer to the putative class action complaint on January 18, 2019. SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. Although the case was brought against Scientific Games, pursuant to the Intercompany Services Agreement, we would expect to cover or contribute to any damage awards due to the matter arising as a result of our business." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March 2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay is a subsidiary of Scientific Games Corporation. SCIPLAY CORP: Continues to Defend Good Class Action --------------------------------------------------- SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend 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, Scientific Games Corporation, 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. SciPlay 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." SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March 2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific Games Corporation. SCIPLAY CORP: Police Retirement System of St. Louis Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend 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. SciPlay 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." SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March 2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific Games Corporation. SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- Shasta Beverages, Inc., et al., removed the case captioned as JAIME GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHASTA BEVERAGES, INC., NATIONAL BEVPAK, NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV37651 (Filed Oct. 22, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 2, 2019, under the Class Action Fairness Act. According to the complaint, the putative class is "all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing of the complaint to final judgment and who reside in California." The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage statements, and unreimbursed business expenses pursuant to the California Labor Code. Shasta Beverages is an American soft drink manufacturer which markets a value priced soft drink line with a wide variety of soda flavors under the brand name Shasta. The company name is derived from Mount Shasta in Northern California and an associated spring. National Beverage Corp. is an American beverage developer, manufacturer, and distributor based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, focused on flavored soft drinks.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Kondon, Esq. Saman M. Rejali, Esq. Jonathan D. Kintzele, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Eighth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310 552 5000 Facsimile: 310 552 5001 E-mail: christopher.kondon@klgates.com saman.rejali@klgates.com jonathan.kintzele@klgates.com SKECHERS USA: Appeal in Steamfitters Local 449 Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the case, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Skechers USA, Inc., Robert Greenberg, and David Weinberg, have taken an appeal from the court's decision granting the company's motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2017, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed a securities class action, on behalf of itself and purportedly on behalf of other shareholders who purchased Skechers stock in a five-month period in 2015, against our Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, case number 1:17-cv-08107. On April 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint and on July 24, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended and consolidated complaint. The lawsuit alleges that, between April 23 and October 22, 2015, the company made materially false statements or omissions of material fact about the anticipated performance of the company's Domestic Wholesale segment and asserts claims for unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief based on two counts for alleged violations of federal securities laws. On November 21, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On January 10, 2019, plaintiffs filed an opposition and on February 11, 2019, the company filed a reply. On September 23, 2019, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss without leave to amend and on October 22, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Skechers said, "Given the early stage of this proceeding and the limited information available, we cannot predict the outcome of this legal proceeding or whether an adverse result in this case would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial position. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend this matter vigorously." Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. SKECHERS USA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss in the class action suit entitled, In Re Skechers Securities Litigation (formerly Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund v. Skechers USA, Inc. Robert Greenberg, David Weinberg, and John Vandemore), is pending. On September 4, 2018, Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund filed a securities class action on behalf of itself and purportedly on behalf of other shareholders who purchased the Company's stock between October 20, 2017, and July 19, 2018 (the "Class Period"), against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, case number 1:18-cv-8039. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period we made materially false statements or omissions of material fact regarding our sales growth and controlling expenses and asserts claims for unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. Beginning October 17, 2018, copycat cases were filed and on January 22, 2019, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed as In Re Skechers Securities Litigation. On May 13, 2019, the company filed a motion dismiss the complaint. On June 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed an opposition, and on July 29, 2019, we filed a reply. There is no hearing date set. Skechers said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend these matters vigorously. Given the early stages of these proceedings and the limited information available, we cannot predict the outcome of these legal proceedings or whether an adverse result in these cases would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial position." Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. SKECHERS USA: Hearing This Month on Bid to Compel Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration in Jose Zavala Guzman v. Team One Employment Specialists, Skechers USA, Inc. et. al., is set for January 30, 2020. On April 2, 2019, Jose Guzman, a Team One employee, filed a class action lawsuit against Team One and the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV11006. The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations, and seeks compensatory damages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and restitution. This complaint was followed by a Private Attorney General's Act Notice, specifying the same allegations raised in the complaint. This matter was tendered to the company's insurance carrier, and the company is currently investigating the allegations. Co-defendant Team-One has filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the Company has joined in. The hearing is set for January 30, 2020 and the matter is otherwise stayed until then. Skechers said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position, we believe that we have meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend to defend the case vigorously." Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. SKECHERS USA: Mediation in Wilk Class Suit Set for Jan. 27 ---------------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that mediation in the class action suit entitled, Ealeen Wilk v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., is scheduled for January 27, 2020. On September 10, 2018, Ealeen Wilk filed a putative collective action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 5:18-cv-01921, alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due upon termination and unfair business practices. The complaint seeks actual, compensatory, special and general damages; penalties and liquidated damages; restitutionary and injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; and interest as permitted by law. On July 5, 2019, the court granted, in part, plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. On July 22, 2019, the parties submitted to the court an agreed upon notice to be sent to members of the collective. Mediation is scheduled for January 27, 2020. The parties are delaying the mailing of the Belaire West privacy opt out notice until after mediation. The parties have agreed to an informal stay of discovery until after mediation and have stipulated to continue all relevant discovery and motion deadlines accordingly. The deadline for the Court to hear a motion for class certification and/or summary judgment is April 6, 2020. Trial is set for June 16, 2020. Skechers said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position, we believe that we have meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend to defend the case vigorously." Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. SMASHBURGER IP: Court Issues Protective Order in Galvan Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge John E. McDermott of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has entered a stipulated Protective Order in IN RE: SMASHBURGER IP HOLDER LLC, et al. ALL CASES, Lead Case No. 2:19-cv-00993-JAK (JEMx) (C.D. Cal.). The Defendants in the case, Smashburger IP Holder and Smashburger Franchising, LLC, are involved in restaurants that sell, among other things, hamburgers, cheeseburgers, and fries. The Plaintiffs have brought a class action lawsuit against the Defendants on behalf of purchasers of a hamburger called the "Triple Double." The Parties expect that discovery in the case will include the Defendants' commercially sensitive information, such as sales figures, expenses, pricing, and marketing plans. The Defendants believe they would be harmed if that information was publicly disclosed, because, for example, such information could give their competitors an advantage. The Parties expect that discovery in the case will also include some private or confidential personal information relating to the Plaintiffs in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Additionally, the action is likely to involve valuable and confidential research and development, trade secrets, future marketing plans, and information that could potentially give Defendants' competitors a competitive advantage and/or cause the Defendants harm. Thus, and based on the request of the Parties, and good cause being found, Judge McDermott ordered that any party to the litigation or any third party will have the right to designate as "Confidential Material" and subject to the Order any information, document, or thing, or portion of any document or thing, that (a) contains competitively sensitive technical, marketing, financial, sales, or other confidential business information, (b) contains private or confidential personal information, (c) contains information received in confidence from third parties, or (d) the producing party otherwise believes in good faith to be entitled to protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). Any party or third party covered by this Order that produces or discloses any Confidential Material will mark it with the following or a substantially similar legend: "CONFIDENTIAL." Any party to the litigation or any third party will have the right to designate as "Attorneys' Eyes Only Material" and subject to this Order any information, document, or thing, or portion of any document or thing, that the designating party reasonably believes is among that considered to be most sensitive by the party. Any party to the litigation or third party covered by the Order that produces or discloses any Attorneys' Eyes Only Material will mark the same with the following, or a substantially similar, legend: "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY." Any Confidential Material or Attorneys' Eyes Only Material produced in a non-paper medium (e.g., videotape, audiotape, computer disc) may be so designated by labeling the outside of such non-paper medium, as appropriate, with the following, or a substantially similar, legend: "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY." In the event a receiving party generates any electronic copy, hard copy, transcription, or printout from any such designated non-paper medium, that party, and all persons subject to the Order, must treat each copy as the original was designated and label it in a manner consistent with this Order. All designations of Confidential Material and Attorneys' Eyes Only Material will be made in good faith and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). If it comes to a designating party's attention that information or items that it designated for protection do not qualify for protection, that designating party must promptly notice all other parties that it is withdrawing the inapplicable designation. All Confidential Material and Attorneys' Eyes Only Material will be used by the receiving party solely for purposes of the prosecution or defense of the action. They may be disclosed only to the authorized individuals under certain conditions. With respect to depositions during which there has been a general designation of testimony as Confidential Material or Attorneys' Eyes Only Material, the party or third party designating the testimony as Confidential Material or Attorneys' Eyes Only Material will have until 21 days after receipt of the deposition transcript within which to inform all parties the specific portions of the transcript that are to be designated as Confidential Material or Attorneys' Eyes Only Material, which period may be extended by agreement of the parties. Within 60 days of the termination of litigation between the parties, including conclusion of all appeals and the expiration of time to appeal or seek further review, each party or other person or entity subject to the terms thereof shall, if the producing party or third party so requests, (a) assemble and return to the producing party or third party or destroy all original and unmarked copies of documents and things containing Confidential Material and Attorneys' Eyes Only Material; and (b) destroy all copies of Confidential Material and Attorneys' Eyes Only Material that contain or constitute attorney work product as well as excerpts, summaries and digests revealing Confidential Material and Attorneys' Eyes Only Material; provided, however, that outside counsel may retain one copy of all transcripts and pleadings, and any exhibits thereto, as well as electronic copies, subject to the provisions of the Protective Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Protective Order is available at https://is.gd/YU9BOb from Leagle.com. Andre Galvan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Blair Elizabeth Reed, Bursor and Fisher PA, Adam T. Hoover -- adhoover@reichradcliffe.com -- Reich Radcliffe and Hoover LLP, Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor and Fisher PA & Marc G. Reich -- mgr@reichradcliffe.com -- Reich Radcliffe and Hoover LLP. Lucinda Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Bursor and Fisher PA & Blair Elizabeth Reed, Bursor and Fisher PA. Barbara Trevino, Plaintiff, represented by Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot and Wolfson PC, Bradley K. King, Ahdoot and Wolfson APC & Blair Elizabeth Reed, Bursor and Fisher PA. Thu Thuy Nguyen, Robert Meyer & Jamelia Harris, Plaintiffs, represented by Blair Elizabeth Reed, Bursor and Fisher PA. Smashburger IP Holder LLC & Smashburger Franchising LLC, Defendants, represented by Adina Witzling Stowell -- astowell@UmbergZipser.com -- Umberg Zipser LLP, Dean J. Zipser -- dzipser@UmbergZipser.com -- Umberg Zipser LLP & Mark A. Finkelstein -- mfinkelstein@umbergzipser.com -- Umberg Zipser LLP. ST. JOHN'S COMMUNITY: Ware Seeks OT Pay for Service Specialists --------------------------------------------------------------- GERALDINE WARE, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. ST. JOHN'S COMMUNITY SERVICES, ST. JOHN'S COMMUNITY SERVICES (TENNESSEE), ST. JOHN'S COMMUNITY SERVICES (PENNSYLVANIA), and ST. JOHN'S COMMUNITY SERVICES (VIRGINIA), Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01281 (W.D. Tenn., Dec. 2, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and members of the proposed class under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the class are current and former hourly-paid service specialists employed by the Defendants during the three years preceding the filing of the collective action. The Defendants are an integrated enterprise that provide service and support to individuals with disabilities and their families in various counties in Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com STONEMOR PARTNERS: Appeal in Anderson Class Action Denied --------------------------------------------------------- StoneMor Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied plaintiffs' appeal on the order of dismissal in the class action suit entitled, Anderson v. StoneMor Partners, LP, et al., No. 2:16-cv-6111, filed on November 21, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs in this case (as well as Klein v. StoneMor Partners, LP, et al., No. 2:16-cv-6275, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on December 2, 2016, which has been consolidated with this case) brought an action on behalf of a putative class of the holders of Partnership units and allege that the Partnership made misrepresentations to investors in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things and in general, failing to clearly disclose the use of proceeds from debt and equity offerings by making allegedly false or misleading statements concerning (a) the Partnership's strength or health in connection with a particular quarter's distribution announcement, (b) the connection between operations and distributions and (c) the Partnership's use of cash from equity offerings and its credit facility. Plaintiffs sought damages from the Partnership and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of the class of Partnership unitholders, as well as costs and attorneys' fees. Lead plaintiffs have been appointed in this case, and filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on April 24, 2017. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 8, 2017. The motion was granted on October 31, 2017, and the court entered judgment dismissing the case on November 30, 2017. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December 29, 2017. Oral argument was held before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on November 1, 2018. On June 20, 2019, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' case. On July 11, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a petition to have the appeal reheard by the entire Third Circuit, which the Third Circuit denied on September 16, 2019. Plaintiffs have 90 days from that date to file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to seek discretionary review of the Third Circuit's decision. StoneMor Partners L.P., together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates cemeteries and funeral homes in the United States. It operates through two segments, Cemetery Operations and Funeral Home Operations. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Trevose, Pennsylvania. SWEPI LP: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal in Rogers Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of the United States has denied the petition for a writ of certiorari by plaintiff in a lawsuit against Swepi LP and Shell Energy Holding GP, LLC. The case is captioned as, MATT A. ROGERS, INDIVIDUALLY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Applicant, SWEPI LP AND SHELL ENERGY HOLDING GP, LLC, the Respondents, Case No. 18-1565 (U.S.). The plaintiff is taking an appeal from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The putative class action involves a claim that the Applicant breached a contractual "signing bonus" payment obligation that induced Rogers and hundreds of other rural landowners in eastern Ohio to sign oil and gas leases with Shell. After Rogers signed his lease, Shell terminated the lease without paying the signing bonus to Rogers. The lease contains an arbitration clause -- but that clause did not become effective when the lease was executed, and instead would become effective only if certain conditions occurred. After Rogers filed suit to recover the signing bonus, Shell moved to compel arbitration. The District Court denied Shell's motion, agreeing with Rogers that, under the terms of the parties' agreement, the arbitration clause did not become binding and effective until Shell performed its obligation to pay the signing bonus. The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on June 19, 2019. The petition was denied on Nov. 4.[BN] Attorneys for the Petitioner are: Robert Sabre Safi, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 E-mail: rsafi@susmangodfrey.com THRASHER BUSCHMANN: Court Dismisses Amended Gunn FDCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CHRISTOPHER GUNN and LINDA GUNN, Plaintiffs, v. THRASHER, BUSCHMANN & VOELKEL, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01385-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind.), Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division: (i) granted TBV's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint; (ii) granted Gunns' Motion for Leave to Respond to New Matter In Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint; and (iii) overruled TBV's Objection to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Surreply and Motion to Strike Same. After Plaintiffs Linda and Christopher Gunn allegedly failed to pay certain homeowners association fees, the homeowners association retained Defendant Thrasher, Buschmann & Voelkel ("TBV"), a collection agency and law firm, to collect the debt. On July 16, 2018, TBV then sent a collection letter to the Gunns, which the Gunns claim contains statements that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Subsequently, TBV initiated a small claims lawsuit against the Gunns in Hamilton Superior Court on Oct. 3, 2018. Six months later, on April 5, 2019, the Gunns filed the putative class action against TBV, and filed the operative Amended Complaint on June 24, 2019. In the Amended Complaint, the Gunns focus on the statements in the Letter that if it is a landlord-tenant matter, the Creditor may also seek eviction or ejection. If the Creditor has recorded a mechanic's lien, covenants, mortgage, or security agreement, it may seek to foreclose such mechanic's lien, covenants, mortgage, or security agreement. They allege that the Letter violates 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), and 1692e(10) by referring to remedies which TBV is not entitled to invoke and did not intend to invoke with respect to the particular debt. TBV has moved to dismiss the Gunns' Amended Complaint, and the Gunns have filed a Motion for Leave to Respond to New Matter In Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. Additionally, TBV has objected to, and moved to strike, the Gunns' Motion for Leave. In their Motion for Leave, the Gunns argue that TBV's Sept. 3, 2019 Reply in Support of Attorney Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint set forth entirely new theories asserted for the first time. The Gunns contend that TBV has asserted new legal theories in two ways. First, they claim that TBV's assertion that the Gunns' allegations are "conclusory" constitutes a new legal theory because TBV had not made that allegation before. Second, the Gunns argue that TBV's citation of new case law is a new legal theory to which the Gunns should be granted leave to respond. TBV argues in its Motion to Strike that these are not "entirely new theories" at all, but rather reiterations of the same arguments made throughout the case. First, TBV contends that it has made the "conclusory" argument before, including when discussing the heightened pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal in its Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss. TBV then points out that citing new case law is not the same thing as asserting new legal theories, and that TBV only cited new case law to counteract the Gunns' "misplaced reliance" on another case. Finally, TBV argues that the Gunns' Motion for Leave should be struck from the record due to the Gunns' improper inclusion of substantive arguments in the Motion. Although the Gunns requested leave to reply to "new theories," they included their arguments in the Motion for Leave itself. While it is not an invitation for future parties before the Court to include substantive arguments in the Motion itself, Judge Magnus-Stinson will treat the Motion for Leave as a surreply and consider the arguments that the Gunns have presented. Accordingly, she granted the Gunns' Motion for Leave, to the extent that it considers the arguments included in the Motion. She also overrules TBV's Objection to the Gunns' Motion for Leave and denies its Motion to Strike the Motion for Leave. In its Motion to Dismiss, TBV argues that the statement if the Creditor has recorded a mechanic's lien, covenants, mortgage, or security agreement, it may seek to foreclose such mechanic's lien, covenants, mortgage, or security agreement is a correct statement of Indiana law, so it may not provide the basis for an FDCPA claim. The Judge finds that the Gunns have failed to allege facts showing that the Letter violates Section 1692e. The statements at issue are true, and would not plausibly deceive or mislead even the unsophisticated consumer. The Gunns have therefore failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e upon which relief may be granted, and TBV's Motion to Dismiss is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 12, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/n11crR from Leagle.com. CHRISTOPHER GUNN & LINDA GUNN, on behalf of plaintiffs and a class, Plaintiffs, represented by Cathleen Maria Combs, EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER GOODWIN & Daniel A. Edelman, EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC. THRASHER, BUSCHMANN & VOELKEL, P.C., Defendant, represented by Dina M. Cox -- dcox@lewiswagner.com -- LEWIS WAGNER LLP & Joseph Neal Bowling -- nbowling@lewiswagner.com -- LEWIS WAGNER LLP. TRILOGY WAREHOUSE: McClellan Sues Over Collection of Biometrics --------------------------------------------------------------- VINCENT MCCLELLAN AND ISAAC BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. TRILOGY WAREHOUSE PARTNERS II LLC, seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class' sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. 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, allegedly 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 Defendant's employees, including Plaintiffs, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. The Plaintiffs and the Class members may be aggrieved because Defendant may have improperly disclosed employees' biometrics to third-party vendors in violation of BIPA, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant at Trilogy Warehouse in Illinois. Trilogy Warehouse is in engaged in aerospace manufacturing operation. 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 Telephone: 314 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com TRIPOLI GOURMET: Rojas Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- ADAN JAVIER ROJAS v. TRIPOLI GOURMET CORP., doing business as SW ALLOW CAFE, and NASSIM SALEM and SALEH SALEM, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-06765 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2019), seeks to recover for similarly situated employees unpaid wages, minimum wages, and overtime compensation; liquidated damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was an employee of Tripoli Gourmet Corp., doing business as Swallow Cafe, in Kings County, New York, beginning on August 23, 2015, through August 20, 2019, without interruption. Nassim Salem and Saleh Salem are owners, shareholders, officers, directors, supervisors, and/or managing agents of Tripoli Gourmet Corp.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central 155 East 44th Street, 61st Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@icpclaw.com TUSCAWILLA REALTY: Pitts Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER PITTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TUSCAWILLA REALTY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-02282-GAP-EJK (M.D. Fla., Dec. 3, 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. According to the complaint, to solicit new clients, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of those messages. The Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Through the action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and Class Members, any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant. The Defendant is a real estate brokerage based in Coral Springs, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 786 496 4469 E-mail: IJHiraldo@IJHLaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954 533 4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com TWO RIVER: Parshall Class Suit Filed over OceanFirst Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Two River Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is facing a class action suit entitled, Paul Parshall v. Two River Bancorp, et al., Docket No. C-124-19. On August 9, 2019, the Company entered into a definitive merger agreement with OceanFirst Financial Corp., a parent company of OceanFirst Bank N.A. Under the Merger Agreement, the Company will merge into OceanFirst, and, upon completion of that merger, the Bank will merge into OceanFirst Bank. The mergers are expected to close in the first quarter of 2020, subject to the Company receiving the requisite approval of its shareholders, receipt of all required regulatory approvals, and fulfillment of other customary closing conditions. On October 4, 2019, a purported Two River shareholder filed a putative shareholder class action lawsuit against the Company, certain members of the Company's board, and OceanFirst in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, Chancery Division, captioned Paul Parshall v. Two River Bancorp, et al., Docket No. C-124-19. The action generally alleges that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed by OceanFirst with the SEC on September 20, 2019, which included a preliminary proxy statement/prospectus, omitted certain material information with respect to the merger and related transactions and that members of the Company's board breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement because the merger is financially inadequate. Plaintiffs further allege that OceanFirst aided and abetted such alleged breaches. The action seeks to enjoin the merger (or, if the merger is consummated, rescission or rescissory damages), as well as unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' fees and expense. OceanFirst and Two River believe the claims in the lawsuit are without merit and intend to defend such claims vigorously. Two River Bancorp is the holding company for Two River Community Bank, which is headquartered in Tinton Falls, New Jersey. Two River Community Bank operates 15 branches and 2 Loan Production Offices throughout Monmouth, Middlesex, Union, and Ocean Counties, New Jersey. UBIQUITI INC: Settlement Reached in NY Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Ubiquiti Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a proposed settlement has been reached in the consolidated class action suit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 21, 2018, a purported class action, captioned Paul Vanderheiden v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01620, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The Vanderheiden Action complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements, including purported overstatements of the Company's online community user engagement metrics and accounts receivable. On February 28, 2018 and March 13, 2018, substantially similar purported class actions, captioned Xiya Qian v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01841 and John Kho v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-02242, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 24, 2018, the court consolidated the Class Actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended Complaint on December 24, 2018. On March 21, 2019, Defendants informed the Court that they were prepared to move to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint but that, consistent with the Court's individual practices, they would refrain from filing that motion pending receipt of further guidance from the Court. While the Company believes that the Consolidated Class Action is without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail. The Company cannot currently estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, that it may experience in connection with this litigation. On October 16, 2019, the parties in the Consolidated Class Action reached an agreement in principle to settle the Consolidated Class Action (the "Proposed Settlement"). Certain insurers of the Company have agreed to fully fund the Proposed Settlement, including any award of attorneys' fees to Plaintiff's counsel. The Proposed Settlement remains subject to definitive documentation and court approval. Ubiquiti Inc. develops technology platforms for high-capacity distributed Internet access, unified information technology, and consumer electronics for professional, home and personal use. The company categorizes its solutions in to three main categories: high performance networking technology for service providers, enterprises and consumers. The company targets the services providers and enterprise markets through its highly engaged community of service providers, distributors, value added resellers, systems integrators and corporate IT professionals, which the company refers to as the Ubiquiti Community. The company is based in New York, New York. UNDER ARMOUR: Appeal in Securities Class Suit in Maryland Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Under Armour Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal in the class action suit entitled, In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB, is pending. On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland were consolidated under the caption In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB. On August 4, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action, North East Scotland Pension Fund, joined by named plaintiff Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officers Lawrence Molloy and Brad Dickerson. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act against the officers named in the Amended Complaint, claiming that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products. The class period identified in the Amended Complaint is September 16, 2015 through January 30, 2017. The Amended Complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the Company's public offering of senior unsecured notes in June 2016. The Securities Act claims are asserted against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Molloy, the Company's directors who signed the registration statement pursuant to which the offering was made and the underwriters that participated in the offering. The Amended Complaint alleges that the offering materials utilized in connection with the offering contained false and/or misleading statements and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products. On November 9, 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 19, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Securities Act claims with prejudice and the Exchange Act claims without prejudice. The lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 16, 2018, asserting claims under the Exchange Act and naming the Company and Mr. Plank as the remaining defendants. The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on January 17, 2019. On August 19, 2019, the District Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. In September 2019, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit challenging the decisions by the District Court on September 19, 2018 and August 19, 2019 (the "Appeal"). Briefing in connection with the Appeal is expected to be completed by the end of 2019. The Company continues to believe that the claims asserted in the Consolidated Action and the Appeal are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Under Armour said, "However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of the outcome of this matter." Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Patel Class Action in Maryland -------------------------------------------------- Under Armour Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is facing a purported shareholder class action suit entitled, Kirtan Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No 1:19-cv-03209-RDB. On November 6, 2019, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a securities case in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Operating Officer, as well as a former Chief Financial Officer of the Company (captioned Kirtan Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No 1:19-cv-03209-RDB). The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) of the Exchange Act, against all defendants, and Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act against the current and former officers named in the complaint. The complaint claims that the defendants' disclosures and statements supposedly misrepresented or omitted that the Company was purportedly shifting sales between quarterly periods allegedly to appear healthier and that the Company was under investigation by and cooperating with the United States Department of Justice and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission since July 2017. The class period identified in the complaint is August 3, 2016 through November 1, 2019, inclusive. Under Armour said, "The Company has not yet been served with the complaint. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and, once served, intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of this matter." Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. UNDER ARMOUR: Suit over MyFitnessPal Data Breach Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Under Armour Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consumer class action lawsuit related to the company's MyFitnessPal application and website. In 2018, an unauthorized third party acquired data associated with the Company's Connected Fitness users' accounts for the Company's MyFitnessPal application and website. Consumer class action lawsuits in connection with this incident remain pending, and the Company has received inquiries regarding the incident from certain government regulators and agencies. Under Armour said, "The Company does not currently consider these matters to be material and believes its insurance coverage will provide coverage should any significant expense arise." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Relyea Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEVI RELYEA, individually, and on behalf of himself and all other employees similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-01491-BKS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violates the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor by failing to pay its employees minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant UPS from June 12, 2017 to date at the UPS facility in Ithaca, New York. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees work, or have worked, for UPS as hourly, part-time, seasonal and/or temporary Pre-loaders, Package Handlers, Drivers, Cover Drivers and Air Drivers. UPS is engaged in the business of domestic and international package delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan Matusz, Esq. 29 Murfield Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Telephone: 607-319-5513 E-mail: stanmatusz@gmail.com UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek to File 2nd Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Universal Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to file a second amended complaint in the class action suit entitled, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al., is pending. Plaintiffs have filed a motion with the court seeking leave to file a second amended complaint. In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the company (UHS) and certain UHS officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The case was originally filed as Heed v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:16-CV-09499-PSG-JC). The court subsequently appointed Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs. The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the style of the case has been changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS). In September, 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed an amended complaint. The amended class action complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws relating to disclosures made in public filings associated with alleged practices and operations at the Company's behavioral health facilities. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for shareholders during the defined class period as a result of the decrease in share price following various public disclosures or reports. In December, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In August, 2019, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have filed a motion with the court seeking leave to file a second amended complaint. Universal Health said, "Should the court deny plaintiffs' motion, we anticipate an appeal of the dismissal of the case. We deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. At this time, we are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter." Universal Health Services, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and behavioral health care facilities. The company operates through Acute Care Hospital Services, Behavioral Health Care Services, and Other segments. Universal Health Services, Inc. founded in 1978 and is headquartered in King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Underpays Security Guards, McElroy Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- RUBEN MCELROY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06782 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law by underpaying the overtime wages of its security guards. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated are current and former hourly employees of the Defendant since December 2016. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as a security guard in the security services industry. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant full-time as a security guard from February 2019 until September 2019 at the Defendant's World Trade Center location. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Collective overtime wages based on the correct regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, the lawsuit says. The Defendant provides security services to its clients in and around the City of New York and its metropolitan area, The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Wims, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS 1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11233 Telephone: (646) 393-9550 UNLOCKED BUSINESS: Abante Rooter Sues Over Auto-Dialed Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNLOCKED BUSINESS STRATEGIES, INC., a New York corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-07966 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2019), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing auto-dialed calls to cellphone owners, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Unfortunately for consumers, the Defendant, in an attempt to secure new customers (and sales) and leads for the merchant processing companies, engaged in an aggressive telemarketing campaign--often stepping outside the law in the process, the Plaintiff contends. Specifically, the Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to make unsolicited telemarketing calls to cellphone numbers, the lawsuit says. Abante is a plumbing company headquartered in Emeryville, Alameda County, California. UBSI is a telemarketer that targets consumers and businesses for its point of sale (POS) and merchant processing systems, i.e., credit card scanners and other point of sale systems that businesses can use to accept credit and debit card payments. UBSI makes telemarketing calls to solicit sales of POS systems from national merchant payment processors like First Data and TSYS.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Weinstein, Esq. P.O. Box 27414 Oakland, CA 94602 Telephone: (510) 336-2181 Facsimile: (510) 336-2181 E-mail: steveattorney@comcast.net - and - Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Taylor T. Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com USF REDDAWAY: Rivera Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- USF Reddway Inc. removed the case titled MONICA RIVERA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USF REDDAWAY INC., an Oregon Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV38679 (Filed Oct. 29, 2019), from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 2, 2019, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-10218 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants. She worked for the Defendants from July 2019 to August 26, 2019, as a driver. Ms. Rivera alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all wages in violation to the California Labor Code. Reddaway is an American trucking company based in Oregon.[BN] Reddaway is represented by: Ronald J. Holland, Esq. Pankit J. Doshi, Esq. Philip Shecter, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 415 Mission St., Suite 5600 San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 Telephone: 628 218 3800 Facsimile: 628 877 0107 E-mail: rjholland@mwe.com pdoshi@mwe.com pshecter@mwe.com VIRTU FINANCIAL: Agreement in Principle Reached in CCERF Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Virtu Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in the case, Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund v. KCG Holdings, Inc., et al., have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter. In connection with the Acquisition of KCG, a previously filed complaint, which was initially captioned Greenway v. KCG Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 2017-421-JTL and filed on behalf of a putative class in Delaware Chancery Court, was recaptioned Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund v. KCG Holdings, Inc., et al., amended and refiled on February 14, 2018 to include claims for the alleged breach of fiduciary duties against former KCG board members, claims against each of the Company and Jefferies LLC for allegedly aiding and abetting the KCG board members' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and a claim against the Company and Jefferies LLC for alleged civil conspiracy. The amended complaint was again amended on July 16, 2018 with the filing of the Verified Second Amended Class Action Complaint to include additional factual allegations. In October 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter. The agreement is subject to customary conditions including execution of definitive settlement documentation and final court approval. The proposed settlement contains no admission of any liability or wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, each of whom continues to deny all of the allegations against them and believes that the claims are without merit. Virtu Financial said, "Though the Company believes the likelihood of approval of the settlement is probable, we cannot predict with certainty the outcome of the litigation, and if an agreement is not reached or the settlement is not finally approved by the Court, we believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims in the operative complaint." Virtu Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides market making and liquidity services through its proprietary, multi-asset, and multi-currency technology platform to the financial markets worldwide. Virtu Financial, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Virtu Financial, Inc. was formerly a subsidiary of TJMT Holdings LLC. WIWI 1 NAIL: Li FLSA Suit Transferred From S.D. to N.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled WEIDONG LI, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WIWI 1 NAIL & SPA INC. d/b/a WiWi Nails & Spa; WIWI NAILS & SPA INC. d/b/a WiWi Nails & Spa; RONGGUANG FU a/k/a Rong Guang Fu, KUANLIANG HU a/k/a Kuan Liang Hu, XUBO LU a/k/a Xu Bo Lu, WEI WANG, and JIXIN CAI a/k/a Ji Xin Cai, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06120 (Filed July 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of New York on Dec. 3, 2019. The Northern District Court of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:19-cv-01488-FJS-ML to the proceeding. The action is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself as well as other employees similarly situated, against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York Labor Law, arising from Defendants' various willfully and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. From April 15, 2019, to June 22, 2019, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a nail saloon worker and masseur in Oneonta, New York. The Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wage and unpaid overtime wages, an award of out-of-pocket breach-of-contract costs for gloves and masks incurred and expended by the Plaintiff on the Defendants' bequest and behalf; liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and or attorney's fees and cost. The Corporate Defendants are engaged in spa business. The Individual Defendants are officers, directors, managers and/or majority shareholders or owners of the Corporate Defendant and being among the ten largest shareholders. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 WRIGHT MEDICAL: 76 Unresolved Suits over PROFEMUR Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the company continues to defend 76 unresolved lawsuits over injuries related to PROFEMUR(R). The company had received claims for personal injury against it associated with fractures of the PROFEMUR(R) titanium modular neck product (Titanium Modular Neck Claims). As of September 29, 2019, there were approximately 23 unresolved pending U.S. lawsuits and approximately 53 unresolved pending non-U.S. lawsuits alleging such claims (44 of which are part of a single consolidated class action lawsuit in Canada). These lawsuits generally seek monetary damages. Wright Medical Group N.V., a medical device company, designs, manufactures, markets, and sells upper and lower extremities, and biologics products in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Canada, Asia, Australia, and Latin America. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. YELP INC: Securities Suit Wins Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has approved a stipulation to certify a class in a securities class action. In January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the company and certain of its officers. The complaint, which the plaintiff amended on June 25, 2018, alleges violations of the Exchange Act by the company and its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and operations on February 9, 2017. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On August 2, 2018, the company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted in part and denied in part on November 27, 2018. On October 22, 2019 the Court approved a stipulation to certify a class in this action. The case remains pending. Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects consumers with local businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Yelp Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. ZIMMER BIOMET: Court Stays Karl Labor Class Suit ------------------------------------------------ Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in October 2019, stayed the case captioned JAMES KARL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; ZIMMER US, INC., a Delaware corporation; BIOMET U.S. RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company; BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company; and BIOMET, INC., and Indiana corporation, Defendants, Case No. C 18-04176 WHA. (N.D. Cal.). The lawsuit was filed under alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Stay was entered pending a resolution of an appeal on an amended order on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The order has been certified for interlocutory appeal on issues of whether plaintiff James Karl was an exempt outside salesperson under federal and California law. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 31, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y46zlcea from Leagle.com James Karl, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alec Llewellyn Segarich - alec.segarich@lrllp.com - Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich LLP, Denis S. Kenny - dsk@sfcounsel.com - Scherer & Smith, LLP & Jason Shelton Lohr - jason.lohr@lrllp.com - Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich LLP. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Zimmer US, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Biomet Inc., an Indiana Corporation, Biomet U.S. Reconstruction, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company & Biomet Biologics, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company, Defendants, represented by Eric Meckley - eric.meckley@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Andrea Lynn Fellion - andrea.fellion@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Jason Phillip Brown- jason.brown@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Joseph Raymond Lewis - joseph.lewis@morganlewis.com - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Kathryn M. Nazarian , Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, One MarketSpear Street TowerSan Francisco, CA 94105- 1596 ********* 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 ***