/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200203.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 3, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 24 Headlines 27 DRESSINGS HEWLETT: Padilla Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ACACIA RESEARCH: Wilson Sues over Defective Proxy Statement AKORN: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Massive Fraud ALLIANCE FUNDING: Vandenberg Seeks to Certify Two TCPA Classes ALLIEDINTERSTATE LLC: Talaferro Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ARDENT HEALTH: Faces Suit over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan B&G FOODS: Faces Silva Suit Over Adulterated Ortega Taco Shells BAIRD DRYWALL: Underpays Laborers, Britt Suit Alleges BAYER HEALTHCARE: Prescott Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Sunscreens CALIFORNIA FOOD: Puente Seeks Fines for Unpaid Wages Under PAGA CARSON SMITHFIELD: Phillips Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections CENTO FINE: "San Marzano" Tomato Class Action Can Proceed CENTRAL COAST RESTAURANTS: Certification Bid Hrg. in Garcia Moved CHAMPION PETFOODS: Class Action Over Dog Food Can Proceed CHEWY INC: Guglielmo Says Website Not Blind-accessible CHINESE BODYWORKS: Court Denies FLSA Class Cert. Bid in Li Suit CIRCLE 2 INC: Esedebe Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA CORINTHIAN COLLEGE: Ex-Students Seek More Actions Against Devos COULTER VENTURES: Conditional Certification of FLSA Class Sought CRAFT BREW: Kost Suit Challenges Proposed Sale to Anheuser-Busch CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Kuchta" CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL: Faces Kamara Employment Suit in California CV SCIENCES: Nevada District Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit DCH HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack DEPENDABLE HIGHWAY: Faces Hoff Employment Suit in California DOLLAR TREE: Sells Almondmilk With Misleading Label, Powell Says DUN HUANG CORP: Underpays Waiters, Chen Suit Alleges EASTERN MUSHROOM: Bid to Dismiss Winn-Dixie Antitrust Suit Denied ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Cabrito Says FAB4 LLC: Fails to Pay for All Overtime Hours, Haghoubian Claims FEDEX CORP: Travers Seeks Pay for Short-Term Military Leave GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert. Bid in Monteville Sloan Case Shelved GREAT LAKES ASSEMBLIES: Underpays Assembly Workers, Butcher Claims GUIDANT GLOBAL: Smith Seeks to Certify FLSA Class of Workers HINDS COUNTY SD: Clincy FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Mississippi IOWA: Beverages Div. Sued for Illegally Raising Liquor Prices JENNY JN NAILS: Underpays Nail Salon Workers, Chang Suit Alleges JEWELRY EXPRESS: Faces Cooks ADA Class Suit in C.D. California JFAT LLC: Weatherly Seeks Penalties Under PAGA Over Untimely Pay JOHNNY WAS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Campos Claims JUUL LABS: Breaches Duty to Minority Stockholders, Grove Claims KALISPELL REGIONAL: Faces Data Breach Class Action KANSAS: Bids for New Class Counsel Appointment in Porter Denied KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Brown-Henry Sues Over Unwanted Telephone Calls KRAFT FOODS: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Ploss Trust Suit KSM HEALTHCARE: Underpays Housekeepers, Hernandez Suit Alleges LANDS' END INC: Uniforms Cause Health Problems, Workers Claim LEBO AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Legare Wage and Hour Suit in California LVNV FUNDING: Faces Ruvalcaba Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA MARY KAY INC: Court Dismisses Reid Class Suit Over ADA Breach MATSU FUSION: Underpays Deliverymen, Chen Suit Alleges MAZDA: Faces Class Action Over i-Activsense Brakes MCKENZIE PAUL: Francois Sues over Debt Collection Practices MDL 2672: Bids to File Under Seal in VW Clean Diesel Suit Denied MEDICREDIT INC: 5th Cir. Overturns Class Cert. Ruling in Flecha MINCH PROFESSIONAL: Underpays Cleaners, Eder Suit Alleges MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: PERS of Miss. Sues Over Drop of Stock Price MSC INDUSTRIAL: Guglielmo Sues Over Disabilities Act Violations NATURAL ENERGY: Farber Seeks to Recover Overtime Wage Under FLSA NCB MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Lisiecki Suit NEWELL BRANDS: Court Dismisses Securities Suit Without Prejudice NORTHBRIDGE COMPANIES: Blundo Sues Over Unlawful Community Fees NORWALK, CT: Conditional Certification of Collective Action Sought OCWEN LOAN: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Bess Suit OMAHA, NE: Court Narrows Claims in MOPOA Suit Over Housing Code PALMCO ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abramson Suit Claims PAPA JOHN'S: DeSalvo Sues Alleging Violation of Disabilities Act PEP BOYS: Al Zinnah Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Deductions POCH PERSONNEL: Faces Samuels Employee Class Suit in California POLK COUNTY, FL: Class Cert. Bid in Conrad Case's Suit Denied PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE: Marazzito Sues Over Unknown Documentary Fees PRO TREE: Court Approves Settlement in Hernandez Suit PROSHARES TRUST: Court Dismisses Second Amended Securities Suit QUANTUM GLOBAL: $126K Taafu Suit Deal Denied Initial Court Approval RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Zurakov Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ROUSSELOT PEABODY: Facility Emits Noxious Odors, Baranofsky Says RUST-OLEUM CORP: Garrard Sues Over Efficacy of Restore Products SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA: Faces Okun Civil Rights Suit in C.D. Calif. SANDERSON FARMS: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Gamm Securities Suit SEIU LOCAL 668: First Amended Wenzig Suit Dismissed With Prejudice SHASTA ENTERPRISES: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Addison Alleges SIRENS: $600K Settlement in Hogan Suit Gets Prelim. Approval SIRIUS XM: Dismissal Notice in Sheridan Infringement Suit Rejected SPRINGPOINT SENIOR: Faces Duffy Suit Over Consumer Fraud Scheme STATE FARM: Stuart Insurance Suit Deal Gets Prelim. Approval STERLING CREDIT: Faces Ferrando Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA SUNPOWER CORP: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls TECH DATA: Faces Post Suit over Proposed Apollo Global Merger TECH DATA: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Apollo Merger TENNESSEE: Parole Violators' Bail Class Action Can Proceed TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Tupitza Seeks Overtime Wages for Asst. Managers TREADZ AUTO: $5MM Class Action Lawsuit Certified in Calgary TRENDZ BEAUTY: Ghazarian Seeks Damages Over Labor Code Violations TWC ADMINISTRATION: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Gibbs Suit ULISES PHARMACY: Underpays Pharmacy Technicians, Suit Alleges UNION LOCAL 237: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Amended Wynn Suit UNITED AIRLINES: Flores Suit Over Airfare Insurance Kickback Nixed VALDEZ PAINTING: Faces Brasier Employment Suit in California VIGLIOTTI ENTERPRISES: Cordova Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages VIGLIOTTI ENTERPRISES: Cordova Sues Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages WELLSPACE HEALTH: Faces Hewitt-King Labor Suit in Sacramento ********* 27 DRESSINGS HEWLETT: Padilla Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Elbin Alexander Padilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 27 DRESSINGS HEWLETT, INC., 27 DRESSINGS, INC., and LEENOR NATHAN, ALLEN NATHAN AND MICHAEL SHEENA, as individuals, Case No. 2:20-cv-00455 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to recover damages for their egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, including the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act, arising out of the Plaintiff's employment with them. Although the Plaintiff worked for 57 or more hours per week during his employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook, cleaner, counter person and waiter. 27 DRESSINGS HEWLETT, INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office in Hewlett, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 ACACIA RESEARCH: Wilson Sues over Defective Proxy Statement ----------------------------------------------------------- BILL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAUREEN O'CONNELL; CLIFFORD PRESS; ALFRED V. TOBIA, JR.; KATHARINE WOLANYK; ISAAC T. KOHLBERG; LUIS E. RINALDINI; JONATHAN SAGAL; and ACACIA RESEARCH CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2019-1049 (Del. Ch., Dec. 31, 2019) is an action arising from alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the board of directors of Acacia in connection with the Board's dissemination of a materially omissive proxy statement which seeks to solicit stockholder approval in connection with the Company's entry into a $35 million Securities Purchase Agreement with Starboard Value LP. According to the complaint, on November 18, 2019, Acacia announced that it had entered into the Purchase Agreement with Starboard. The Purchase Agreement provides for, among other things, the issuance to Starboard of: (i) 350,000 shares of Acacia Series A Convertible Preferred Stock (the "Preferred Shares"), with an initial conversion price of $3.65 per share; and (ii) warrants to purchase up to 5,000,000 shares of Acacia's common stock at an initial exercise price of $3.65 (the "Series A Warrants"). On December 10, 2019 Acacia filed a preliminary proxy statement (the "Proxy") with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") soliciting stockholder approval of (i) the Nasdaq Proposal and (ii) a charter amendment that would triple the amount of the Company's authorized shares of common stock (the "Charter Amendment"). According to the Proxy, following stockholder approval of the Nasdaq Proposal and Charter Amendment, Acacia will also issue to Starboard warrants to purchase up to 100,000,000 shares of common stock (the "Series B Warrants"). The Proxy is so materially deficient that it deprives Acacia stockholders of any meaningful way to assess the reasonableness of the process leading to -- or the financial fairness of -- the Purchase Agreement. Indeed, the Proxy fails to disclose, among other things: a. Anything regarding the process or negotiations culminating in the Purchase Agreement; b. Whether the Board explored any alternatives to the Purchase Agreement; c. Whether the Board retained and/or consulted with any financial advisor(s) in connection with the Purchase Agreement; d. A summary of any financial analysis prepared by any such financial advisor; e. A summary of any such financial advisor's prior and present engagements with Acacia or Starboard, and any compensation received by any such financial advisor therefrom; or f. The nature and amount of the compensation payable to any such financial advisor for its services in connection with the Purchase Agreement. Acacia Research Corporation develops, acquires, and licenses patented technologies. The Company controls patent portfolios covering technologies used in a variety of industries. Acacia Research serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (888) 715-1740 AKORN: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Massive Fraud -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a shareholder class action accuses directors of "a massive fraud that has left Akorn -- a once-vibrant multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical company -- in ruins," in federal court. A copy of the Complaint is available at: https://is.gd/kgr3eH ALLIANCE FUNDING: Vandenberg Seeks to Certify Two TCPA Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as VANDENBERG & SONS FURNITURE, INC. a Michigan corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE FUNDING GROUP and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-01255-GJQ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying two classes: Class A "all persons or entities, identified in the WestFax opt-out list for Defendant, who were successfully sent the same or similar fax to the Complaint from December 3, 2011 to December 3, 2015"; and Class B "all persons who were successfully sent the same or similar fax to the Complaint on January 18, 2013, January 23, 2013, February 25, 2013, March 9, 2013, March 19, 2013, April 3, 2013, April 10, 2013, May 6, 2013, June 5, 2013, June 17, 2013, July 9, 2013, September 3, 2013, and June 9, 2014"; and 2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative and appointing the law firm Anderson + Wanca as class counsel. The case arises out of Defendant Alliance Funding custom and practice of fax advertising wherein facsimile advertisements were sent to Plaintiff and the proposed classes on numerous occasions between December 3, 2011 and December 3, 2015. The record evidence demonstrates that Defendant sent approximately 232,879 fax advertisements during the class period, says the complaint. The Plaintiff brought this lawsuit alleging that the fax violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Alliance Funding has been financing small, medium, and enterprise sized businesses throughout the United States since 1998.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross M. Good, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: 847 368 1500 Facsimile: 847 368 1501 E-mail: rgood@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com ALLIEDINTERSTATE LLC: Talaferro Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ----------------------------------------------------------------- VINCENT TALAFERRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIEDINTERSTATE, LLC; DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06090-ER (E.D. Pa., Dec. 24, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno. Allied Interstate, LLC provides financial services. The Company offers accounts receivable, customer retention, and debt collection services. Allied Interstate serves customers throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, Pa 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: Erayz@Kalraylaw.Com ARDENT HEALTH: Faces Suit over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- MARK MCCOOL; SHAWN MACDONALD; and WARREN HARLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARDENT HEALTH SERVICES, LLC; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ARDENT HEALTH SERVICES; DAVID T. VANDEWATER; ARDENT HEALTH SERVICES BENEFITS PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE; NEIL HEMPHILL; BRIAN WALTON; JAMES GRIMES; ASHLEY CRABTREE; STEVE HINKLE; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01158 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 24, 2019) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the Plaintiffs, during the putative Class Period, December 24, 2013 to the present, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Ardent Health Services Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan"), breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by: (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and better performance histories. To make matters worse, the Defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the Plan, and failed to consider collective trusts, commingled accounts, or separate accounts as alternatives to the mutual funds in the Plan, despite their lower fees. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Ardent Health Services, LLC provides healthcare services. The Company offers network of acute care hospitals, rehabilitation, multi-specialty physician group, health plans, and retail pharmacies. Ardent Health Services serves patients in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Daniel Waite, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS DANIEL WAITE 219 2nd Avenue N., Suite 400 Nashville, TN 37201-1616 Telephone:(855) 566-3948 - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 B&G FOODS: Faces Silva Suit Over Adulterated Ortega Taco Shells --------------------------------------------------------------- SABRINA SILVA and NANCY SHIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. B&G FOODS, INC. and B&G FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00137 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 7, 2020), alleges that the Defendants falsely marketed and falsely represented Ortega as free of trans fat when it contained dangerous levels of trans fat. According to the complaint, Defendants' taco shells containing PHO included two different varieties sold under the label of Ortega. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants misleadingly marketed Ortega with an unauthorized nutrient content claim. The Plaintiffs assert that the misleading and unauthorized claim deceived consumers into purchasing a product that is harmful to their health. On June 17, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration determined that PHO is unsafe for use in food. Yet the Defendants continued to insert this illegal, dangerous additive into the Trans Fat Tacos, even after the FDA tentatively, and now finally, declared it unsafe for use in food, rendering products made with PHO unlawful and adulterated, the Plaintiffs aver. PHO is a food additive banned in many parts of the world due to its artificial trans fat 2 content. Artificial trans fat is a toxic carcinogen for which there are many safe and commercially viable substitutes. The action is brought to remedy the Defendants' unlawful conduct. The Plaintiffs seek restitution, actual damages, and punitive damages to the extent permitted under the law and for costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs repeatedly purchased and consumed Ortega during the Class Period. B&G Foods, Inc. manufactures, distributes, and sells the Trans Fat Tacos.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory S. Weston, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 798-2006 Facsimile: (619) 343-2789 E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com BAIRD DRYWALL: Underpays Laborers, Britt Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH BRITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAIRD DRYWALL & ACOUSTIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00882-EKD (W.D. Va., Dec. 30, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Britt was employed by the Defendant as laborer. Baird Drywall And Acoustic, Inc. was founded in 1980. The company's line of business includes providing asphalt tile, carpeting, linoleum, and resilient flooring installation and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. CURWOOD LAW FIRM, PLC 530 E. Main Street, Suite 710 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 788-0808 Facsimile: (804) 767-6777 E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com - and – Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: c@coffieldlaw.com BAYER HEALTHCARE: Prescott Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Sunscreens ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN PRESCOTT and MIKE XAVIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS INC., a Delaware corporation; BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; BAYER AG, a public limited company; BEIERSDORF, INC., a Delaware corporation; BEIERSDORF NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and BEIERSDORF AG, a public limited company, Case No. 5:20-cv-00102-NC (N.D. Cal., Jan. 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendants are exposing babies and children to harmful chemical-based ingredients hidden in their sunscreens by fraudulently passing them off as safe mineral-based ingredients to obtain an unfair competitive advantage in the billion-dollar sunscreen market, in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Contrary to their labeling, the purported mineral-based sunscreen Products contain chemical active ingredients. In fact, the Products often contain a larger percentage of chemical active ingredients than mineral active ingredients, says the complaint. According to the complaint, through falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively labeling the Products, the Defendants sought to take advantage of consumers' desire for mineral-based sunscreens, while reaping the financial benefits of using less desirable chemical active ingredients in the Products. The Defendants have done so at the expense of unwitting consumers, as well as Defendants' lawfully acting competitors, over whom Defendants maintain an unfair competitive advantage, the Plaintiffs contend. The purported "Mineral-Based" products at issue are Coppertone Water Babies Mineral-Based Sunscreen Stick; Coppertone Water Babies Mineral-Based Sunscreen Lotion; Coppertone Kids Mineral-Based Sunscreen Lotion; and Coppertone Sport Face Mineral-Based Sunscreen Lotion. The Plaintiffs seek damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, restitution, other equitable relief, and disgorgement of all benefits Defendants have enjoyed from their conduct. In addition, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop Defendants' unlawful conduct in the false, deceptive, and misleading labeling and marketing of the Products. The Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, and sell the Products throughout California and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Celine Cohan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804 Los Angeles, CA 90069 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com ccohan@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Christopher D. Moon, Esq. Kevin O. Moon, Esq. MOON LAW APC 228 Hamilton Ave., 3rd Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (619) 915-9432 Facsimile: (650) 618-0478 E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com kevin@moonlawapc.com CALIFORNIA FOOD: Puente Seeks Fines for Unpaid Wages Under PAGA --------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE CARRERA PUENTE, an individual, on behalf of himself, all other aggrieved employees, and the general public v. CALIFORNIA FOOD MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California limited liability company, INGLEWOOD 2017 INC., a California corporation, PARAMOUNT 3582 INC., a California corporation, ASH HOP INC., a California corporation, ASH HOP II INC., a California corporation, ASH HOP III, INC., a California corporation, NORWALK 939 PROPERTIES, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV00647 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan 6, 2020), seeks civil penalties against the Defendants alleging violation of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. The lawsuit challenges the Defendants' employment practices with respect to their non-exempt, hourly workers employed in the State of California at the Defendants' restaurant locations, based on the Defendants' policy and practice of failing to provide legally compliant meal and rest breaks, denying earned wages, including overtime pay, and failing to provide accrued sick days to the Restaurant Employees from October 4, 2018, to the present. In particular, the Defendants require employees to perform work tasks during unpaid breaks, fail to provide meal and rest breaks, fail to timely compensate employees for all wages earned, and fail to properly and accurately calculate overtime and report wages earned, hours worked, and wage rates, says the complaint. The Plaintiff commenced his employment with the Defendants in the summer of 2018, and worked as a non-exempt, hourly employee until his resignation in August 2019. The Defendants operate several IHOP restaurant locations in California. IHOP is an American multinational pancake house restaurant chain that specializes in breakfast foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Alfred Movsesyan, Esq. Katrina Castillo Espina, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: 818 547 5300 Facsimile: 818 547 5678 E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com alfred@boyamianlaw.com katrina@boyamianlaw.com CARSON SMITHFIELD: Phillips Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID M. PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARSON SMITHFIELD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01664-PLD (Pa. Com., Pleas, Allegheny Cty., Dec. 24, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Carson Smithfield, LLC is a debt collection agency located in Woodbury New York and a branch office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It was established in 2010, has fewer than 10 employees, and is managed by owner Albert Jaronczyk. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Ward, Esq. Brian J. Fenters, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF FENTERS WARD 201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Telephone: (412) 545-3015 Facsimile: (412) 540-3399 CENTO FINE: "San Marzano" Tomato Class Action Can Proceed --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a putative class action suit against Cento Fine Foods may continue, a federal court in California ruled, because the consumers have sufficiently claimed that packaging on the company's "San Marzano" tomato products gives the impression that they are grown in a specific region of Italy. A copy of the Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is available at: https://is.gd/O2DhUo CENTRAL COAST RESTAURANTS: Certification Bid Hrg. in Garcia Moved ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JENNIFER GARCIA, individually and acting on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL COAST RESTAURANTS, INC., YADAV ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES 1-20; Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02370-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has entered an order regarding modification of the class certification motion schedule. The parties jointly presented a stipulation to apprise the Court of recent events in the case and a related case and to request that the Court continue the class certification motion briefing schedule and hearing date. The parties in the case last came before the Court when the Defendants moved for summary judgment on arbitration and res judicata grounds. Defendants argued that the judgment in Contreras, et al. v. Central Coast Restaurants, et al., Monterey Superior Court Case Number 15-CV-000143, resolved the claims at issue in the Garcia case. The Court denied the Defendants' motion on Sept. 23, 2019. The defendants in the Monterey case, represented by the counsel for the Defendants in the instant case, then filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment Entered, or in the Alternative, to Vacate the Judgment. The plaintiffs in the Monterey case, represented by the counsel for Plaintiff in the instant case, then filed a Motion to Enforce Judgment Entered and for Attorneys' Fees. The court in the Monterey case heard initial arguments on the set aside on Oct. 29, 2019, and continued the motion to Nov. 12, 2019, so that it would be fully argued concurrent to the motion to enforce. The court in the Monterey case ordered the parties to explore mediation and contemplate a global mediation of both the case in superior court and the federal class action. Since then, the parties have agreed to participate in a global mediation of the two cases and have discussed its parameters. Mediation was tentatively scheduled for mid-January 2020. Because of the forthcoming global mediation, the parties have taken the pending motions in the Monterey case off calendar, they can and would be put back on calendar if necessary. Although mediation of the Monterey case and the case will occur in January 2020, the Court, in its order on Dec. 14, 2018, set hearing for the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on March 26, 2020. At present, the Plaintiff's opening papers were due on Dec. 23, 2019. The Defendants' opposition is due Feb. 6, 2020, and the Plaintiff's reply is due March 6, 2020. Because of the substantial proceedings in the Monterey case and the forthcoming mediation in both the Monterey case and the case, the parties will not be able to meet the current class certification motion briefing schedule. In light of the foregoing and in order to preserve resources for mediation, the parties stipulate to continue the briefing scheduling and hearing date on the motion addressing class certification for three months. The parties proposed and Judge Seeborg approved the following briefing schedule: (i) Initial papers for addressing class certification must be filed and served on March 16, 2020; (ii) Opposition to the motion must be filed on April 30, 2020; (iii) Reply brief to the motion must be filed on May 29, 2020; (iv) The hearing date of the motion addressing class certification will be set for July 2, 2020, at 10 a.m. or to a date thereafter as set by the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 13, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/dRdui6 from Leagle.com. Jennifer Garcia, an individual, individually and acting on behalf of class of similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, represented by Hector R. Martinez - hectorm@themmlawfirm.com - Mallison & Martinez, Stanley Scott Mallison - stanm@themmlawfirm.com - Mallison & Martinez & Hilary P. Hammell - hilary@levyvinick.com - Mallison & Martinez. Central Coast Restaurants, Inc. & Yadav Enterprises, Inc., Defendants, represented by Joshua Martin Deitz - jdeitz@rjo.com - Rogers, Joseph, O'Donnell, Katherine M. Svinarich, Rogers Joseph O'Donnell & Dennis Chi-Yu Huie, Rogers Joseph O'Donnell, Robert Dollar Building, 311 California Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104-2695 CHAMPION PETFOODS: Class Action Over Dog Food Can Proceed --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that consumers who claim they were scammed into paying top dollar for two brands of premium dog food may continue their suit against Champion Petfoods, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled. The food was billed as human food grade quality but the consumers provided evidence the food contains high levels of heavy metals and is contaminated with "excessive quantities" of hair, insects, livestock tags, feathers and bones. A copy of the Memorandum Order is available at: https://is.gd/oF4bIO CHEWY INC: Guglielmo Says Website Not Blind-accessible ------------------------------------------------------ Joseph Guglielmo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Chewy Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00024 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant is a pet food and products retailer with an online site, www.chewy.com. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 107 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com CHINESE BODYWORKS: Court Denies FLSA Class Cert. Bid in Li Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as XIN LI, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHINESE BODYWORKS, INC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-11277-ES-JAD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order on Jan. 24, 2020, denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Chinese Bodyworks offers body massage services.[CC] CIRCLE 2 INC: Esedebe Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Sonya Esedebe, Tarajah Ford, Sandra Robinson, Antoinette Mapp, Chelsey Slade, Ivy Stewart, Sophia Taylor, Whitney Taylor, and Destiny Walls, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Circle 2, Inc. d/b/a Daddy Rabbits also d/b/a Candy Bar, BTF3, LLC d/b/a Paper Moon, Imaginary Images, Inc. d/b/a Paper Moon, M.G.B., Inc. d/b/a Pure Pleasure, Arkesia, Inc. d/b/a Club Rouge, Pyliaris Corporation, and William Pyliaris, Case No. 3:20-cv-00008-HEH (E.D. Va., Jan. 7, 2020), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid tips, minimum wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, the Defendants regularly deprived the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated members of the putative class of their rights under federal and Virginia wage and hour laws, including their rights to be paid proper minimum wages, to be paid proper overtime compensation, their right to keep earned customer gratuities or tips, and their right to work without paying "house fees" and other fees. This lawsuit seeks to force the Defendants to pay the entertainers all the wages they have earned and to allow them to keep all the tips they earn, as required by law. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as performers and entertainment employees. The Defendants operate Gentlemen's Clubs in Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. CURWOOD LAW FIRM, PLC 530 E. Main Street, Suite 710 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 788-0808 Facsimile: (804) 767-6777 E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com - and - Justin P. Keating, Esq. Rod Harrell, Esq. BEINS, AXELROD, P.C. 1717 K Street, N.W., Suite 1120 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 595-1941 Facsimile: (202) 328-7030 E-mail: jkeating@beinsaxelrod.com harrellr@yahoo.com CORINTHIAN COLLEGE: Ex-Students Seek More Actions Against Devos --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that defrauded former Corinthian College students asked a federal judge to order more sanctions for the U.S. Department of Education and its secretary Betsy DeVos, after the department revealed it has collected -- and continues to collect -- over $20 million from the students after being ordered to stop. A copy of the Proposed Motion for Partial Reconsideration is available at: https://is.gd/zgM7Or COULTER VENTURES: Conditional Certification of FLSA Class Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SCOTT LEE BRAUN, et al., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COULTER VENTURES, LLC, DBA ROGUE FITNESS, et al. the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05050-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), Mr. Braun moves the Court pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for entry of an order: 1. conditionally certifying a proposed collective FLSA class; 2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to: "all current or former non-exempt employees in Defendants' warehouse, customer service, and/or manufacturing divisions and employed during the past three years who were paid from the beginning of their shift until the end of their shift despite being clocked in more than seven minutes prior to their shift and/or remaining clocked in more than seven minute after their scheduled shift end time and/or who were paid a flat per diem amount while working at off-site events on behalf of Defendants regardless of the number of hours worked each day"; and 3. requiring Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all potential opt-in Plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in Plaintiffs who worked for Defendants at any location at any time within the past three years. Mr. Braun commenced this action against Defendants on December 11, 2019, alleging violations of the FLSA, the Ohio Wage Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Defendants' common business practices throughout their operations violated these acts by not paying Named Plaintiff, Putative Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated for tasks necessary to the primary job duties which the Named Plaintiff and the Putative Opt-in Plaintiffs were required to perform before and after their scheduled shift start and end time, says the complaint. Coulter Ventures retails athletics equipment.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Jessica R. Doogan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP 250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Louis A. Jacobs, Esq. 177 19th St., Apt. 9C Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (614) 203-1255 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: LAJOhio@aol.com - and - John S. Marshall, Esq. Helen M. Robinson, Esq. Edward R. Forman, Esq. Samuel M. Schlein, Esq. MARSHALL AND FORMAN, LLC 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 480 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 463-9790 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: jmarshall@marshallforman.com hrobinson@marshallforman.com eforman@marshallforman.com sschlein@marshallforman.com CRAFT BREW: Kost Suit Challenges Proposed Sale to Anheuser-Busch ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN KOST, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CRAFT BREW ALLIANCE, INC., DAVID R. LORD, TIMOTHY P. BOYLE, MARC J. CRAMER, PAUL D. DAVIS, MATTHEW GILBERTSON, KEVIN R. KELLY, NICKOLAS A. MILLS, and JACQUELINE S. WOODWARD, Case No. 20-2-00389-1 SEA (Wash. Super., Jan. 3, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating securities laws in connection with their proposed sale of the Company to Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC. The lawsuit is a stockholder class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other public stockholders of Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. against Craft Brew Alliance and the Company's Board of Directors, for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of the Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC and Barrel Subsidiary, Inc., as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price. The Plaintiff challenges and seeks to enjoin an upcoming stockholder vote on the proposed all cash transaction valued at approximately $321 million. Pursuant to the terms of the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger, Craft Brew Alliance will become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Anheuser-Busch, and Craft Brew Alliance stockholders will receive only $16.50 in cash for each share of Craft Brew Alliance common stock they own. As a result of the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff asserts he and other Craft Brew Alliance stockholders will be frozen out of any future ownership interest in the Corporation. In addition, the Proposed Transaction is unfair and undervalued for a number of reasons, the Plaintiff contends. Significantly, he alleges, the Proxy describes an insufficient sales process in which the Board rushed through an inadequate "sales process" in which the only end goal was a sale to A-B, and in which no actual sales process took place outside of addressing A-B's offer. The Plaintiff contends that without accurate projection data presented in the Proxy, he and other stockholders of Cray are unable to properly evaluate the Company's true worth, the accuracy of Morgan Stanley's financial analyses, or make an informed decision whether to vote their Company stock in favor of the Proposed Transaction. As such, he adds, the Board has breached their fiduciary duties by failing to include such information in the Proxy. The Plaintiff has been a Craft Brew Alliance stockholder. Craft Brew together with its subsidiaries, brews, brands, and brings to market American craft beers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger M. Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 652-8660 Facsimile: (206) 652-8290 E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com - and - Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. Ryan P. Cardona, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 667-6200 Facsimile: (610) 667-9029 CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Kuchta" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ARNOLD KUCHTA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT MANAGEMENT CONTROL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00129-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action Defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL: Faces Kamara Employment Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crestwood Behavioral Health Inc. The case is captioned as Amadu Kamara, on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Crestwood Behavioral Health Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 34-2020-00272635-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan 6, 2020). The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws. Crestwood Behavioral provides healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com CV SCIENCES: Nevada District Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, In Re: CV Sciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-01602-JAD-BNW (D. Nev.), Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (i) denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss; (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' request to strike certain allegations in Ina's amended complaint; and (iii) granted in part and denied in part Ina's motion to strike. The case is a securities-fraud-class-action lawsuit against CV Sciences and its current and former officers Michael Mona, Jr., Michael Mona, III, and Joseph D. Dowling. CV Sciences is a life-science company that specializes in cannabidiols ("CBD"). CV Sciences' pharmaceutical division developed a treatment utilizing CBD for smokeless tobacco use and addiction. The company filed a patent application for the product with the United States Patent and Trade Office ("USPTO"), and the Defendants subsequently made numerous public statements that the product was "patent-pending," "patent-protectable," and "proprietary." But CV Sciences did not reveal that USPTO had rejected its patent application twice -- including a "Final Rejection" on grounds that the invention was obvious. After non-party Citron Research shared news of the rejections on Twitter, CV Sciences' stock price dropped 54.24%. Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina and others filed suit, alleging that the Defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by describing the product as "patent-pending," "patent-protectable," and "proprietary" in the wake of the rejections. Ina also asserts control-person liability against the individual Defendants under section 20(b) of the Exchange Act. The Defendants move to dismiss Ina's amended complaint on numerous grounds. Ina moves to strike certain exhibits to the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Ina moves to strike 18 of the 19 exhibits the Defendants filed in support of their motion to dismiss, all references to the exhibits in the motion to dismiss, and "unsworn attorney testimony" in the motion to dismiss. The Defendants respond that all of the challenged exhibits are subject to judicial notice or incorporation by reference into Ina's amended complaint. Exhibits A through D include: (1) a version of Citron Research's Twitter page that does not include the Aug. 20, 2018, Tweet alleged in the complaint and (2) Wikipedia and New York Times articles about Citron Research's founder and Citron Research's web page, which are linked from the Twitter page. Judge Dorsey finds that incorporation by reference of the Twitter page, which does not include the Tweet referenced in the complaint, is not appropriate because it would not serve the doctrine's purpose of ensuring appropriate context for documents alleged in the complaint. She will not incorporate web pages and articles linked from that Twitter page into the complaint because such an extension of the doctrine would permit incorporation of, among other things, the New York Times wedding section into a complaint that quotes a New York Times article. And although these web pages and articles may be judicially noticed to "indicate what was in the public realm at the time," the Defendants use them in their motion to dismiss to support factual assertions. So the Judge granted the motion to strike Exhibits A to D and references to these exhibits in the motion to dismiss. Exhibit E is a USPTO web page showing the status of CV Sciences' patent application. This document is incorporated by reference because it provides necessary context to the amended complaint's citations to the same website for selective events in the patent application history. And this USPTO patent application web site is also subject to judicial notice. So, the Judge denied the motion to strike Exhibit E. Exhibits F through R are press releases, a presentation, an investor-call transcript, and documents filed with the SEC containing the statements that Ina alleges were false and misleading. These documents are incorporated by reference into the complaint because they are the basis of Ina's claims. They do not "merely create a defense" because, in addition to the cautionary language cited by defendants in their safe harbor defense, they contain the allegedly false or misleading statements at issue in the case. So, the Judge denied the motion to strike Exhibits F-R.23 As to Ina's remaining arguments, Judge Dorsey denied the motion to strike "unsworn attorney testimony" in the motion to dismiss because she finds that these "factual representations" consist of argument or are based on exhibits to the motion to dismiss. And Judge Dorsey denied Ina's request to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment because courts must consider documents subject to judicial notice or incorporation by reference while assessing the sufficiency of securities-fraud allegations. Turning to the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Defendants argue that their challenged statements were neither false nor material because the patent application process often extends beyond a final rejection by the USPTO. Judge Dorsey holds that it is enough that Ina identifies the misleading statements with particularity and alleges why they are misleading, meeting the requirements of Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA. The Judge therefore denied the motion to dismiss on this ground. Next, the Defendants argue that the truth-on-the-market defense bars Ina's claims because the patent rejections were posted on the USPTO's website. Ina responds that a reasonable investor would not have known the information, the Defendants' misstatements counterbalanced the information, and the stock drop after the Citron Research Tweet undermines the defense. Judge Dorsey cannot conclude at this time that the publication of the patent rejections on the USPTO website were sufficient to counter-balance the impression created by these representations. So, the Judge denied the motion to dismiss on this ground. The Defendants also content that Ina fails to adequately plead scienter because his theory that the individual Defendants stood to gain from a stock bonus is insufficient. Because the Plaintiff alleges with requisite particularity that these statements were materially misleading and, Judge Dorsey cannot determine otherwise as a matter of law on a motion to dismiss, the Defendants' knowledge of the rejections constitutes, at the very least, deliberate recklessness as to whether the subsequent statements would mislead investors. The Defendants' knowledge of the rejections thus raises a strong inference of scienter on its own, and it is at least as strong as any opposing inference that the defendants lacked the requisite state of mind. So, Judge Dorsey does not address the other allegations supporting scienter, and denied the motion to dismiss on this ground. Because the Tweet revealed the same information withheld from the allegedly misleading statements, Ina sufficiently alleges that the Defendants' fraudulent conduct proximately caused his loss. And although the stock price rebounded in subsequent days, dismissal on those grounds is not appropriate because other events could have caused that recovery. So, the Judge denied the motion to dismiss on loss-causation grounds. The Defendants next argue that because CV Sciences' stock price recovered after the initial fall, the class-action Plaintiffs who purchased shares on or prior to Aug. 8, 2018, cannot establish loss causation under a damages-limitation provision in the PSLRA. The Judge holds that the parties have not identified any authority applying this damages-limitation provision on a motion to dismiss a Section 10(b) claim. Application of 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(e) is more appropriate on a class-certification or summary-judgment motion, when the Judge may have the benefit of expert testimony on damages. So, the Judge denied without prejudice the motion to dismiss on this ground. Although the statements at issue were accompanied by appropriate cautionary language, none of these statements were forward-looking. The claims that the product was "patent-pending" refer to current facts. The statements that the product was "patent-protectable" and "proprietary" may appear forward-looking on their face, but Ina alleges that the contingency these statements refer to was already resolved when these statements were made—by the patent rejections. So these statements also refer to current or past events, and the Judge denied the motion to dismiss on this ground as well. The Defendants only move to dismiss on grounds that Ina failed to allege a primary violation of federal securities law. Because she finds that Ina sufficiently alleges a violation of federal securities law, Judge Dorsey denied the motion to dismiss on this ground as well. Finally, in their motion to dismiss, the Defendants request to strike allegations in the Plaintiff's amended complaint describing Mona, Jr. as a "serial fraudster" and detailing Mona Jr.'s past wrongdoing. Judge Dorsey finds that the allegations regarding the denial of a gaming license and the fraudulent land-sale transaction are immaterial because they have no important relationship to Ina's claim for relief. However, the Judge finds that the Defendants have not carried their burden to show that the prior securities-fraud allegations could have no bearing on the subject matter of this litigation. These allegations suggest that Mona Jr. was aware of CV Sciences' disclosure obligations and his lack of mistake in making misleading statements to investors, which are relevant to scienter. And they mirror Ina's allegations of the wrongdoing in this case, so they can hardly "detract from the dignity of the court." So, the Judge granted the request to strike paragraphs 98 and 99 of the amended complaint, but denied the request with respect to paragraphs 100 through 102. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Judge Dorsey denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Dfendants' request to strike certain allegations in Ina's amended complaint. Paragraphs 98 and 99 are deemed stricken. The Judge granted in part and denied in part Ina's motion to strike. Exhibits A through D are stricken. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/Cv9e0B from Leagle.com. Richard Ina, as Trustee for The Ina Family Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Dillon Hagius -- dhagius@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice, Martin Muckleroy, Richard Gonnello, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, Richard Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice & Sherief Morsy -- smorsy@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice. David Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Martin Muckleroy & Patrick R. Leverty -- pat@levertylaw.com -- Leverty & Associates Chtd. Kenneth Zelden, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd. Lenny Alvarado, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd., pro hac vice. CVI Investor Group, Movant, represented by Patrick R. Leverty, Leverty & Associates Chtd. CV Sciences, Inc., Michael Mona, Jr., Joseph D Dowling & Michael Mona, III, Defendants, represented by Terry A. Coffing -- tcoffing@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach & Michael David Maupin -- mmaupin@maclaw.com -- c/o Marquis Aurbach Coffing. Jerry Faulkner, Defendant, represented by Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd. DCH HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack ----------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims that DCH Health System, of Tuscaloosa, failed to protect 32,000 patients' personal information from a ransomware attack. A copy of the Complaint is available at: https://is.gd/rIvSYf DEPENDABLE HIGHWAY: Faces Hoff Employment Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dependable Highway Express Inc. The case is captioned as Randy L. Hoff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Dependable Highway Express Inc. and Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2020-00272729-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 7, 2020). The suit alleges violation of employment related laws. Dependable Highway provides logistics services. The Company offers less than truckload, harbor drayage, warehousing and distribution harbor, container load, and transload services, as well as provides international air and ocean freight forwarding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC 1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Telephone: (310) 975-1493 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com DOLLAR TREE: Sells Almondmilk With Misleading Label, Powell Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lafremia Powell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00734 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2020), seeks damages under consumer protection laws arising from the Defendant's misleading representations on its almondmilk beverages, purporting to be flavored only with vanilla. The relevant front label statements include "Almond," "Vanilla," "Almondmilk" and "Sweetened." The Plaintiff contends that the representations are misleading because the Product does not contain the amount, type, and proportion of vanilla relative to non-vanilla flavor components which is expected based on the front label. The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant's branding and packaging of the Products are designed to--and do--deceive, mislead, and defraud consumers. The Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading branding and packaging of the Product has enabled the Defendant to sell more of the Product and at higher prices per unit, than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers, the Plaintiff asserts. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $1.00 per unit, excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal consumption within this district. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells almondmilk beverages purporting to be flavored only with vanilla under the Dollar Tree Store Brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com DUN HUANG CORP: Underpays Waiters, Chen Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- JINXIONG CHEN a/k/a Jason Chen; and CHAN YIN LAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DUN HUANG CORP. d/b/a Dun Huang; DH NEWLAND CORP. d/b/a Dun Huang; NEW YORK DUN HUANG INC. d/b/a Dun Huang; LANZHOU BEEF NOODLE INC. d/b/a Dun Huang; JOHN DOE CORP. d/b/a Dun Huang; and DUN HUANG NEWLAND CORP. d/b/a Dung Huang and d/b/a Miss Noodle; SHIYANG LI; ZHONGQI BIAN; HONG JI; SIWEN LIU; YANG LIU; and HAIJUN LU, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11883 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Chen was employed by the Defendants as waiter. Dun Huang Corp. d/b/a Dun Huang is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 EASTERN MUSHROOM: Bid to Dismiss Winn-Dixie Antitrust Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. EASTERN MUSHROOM MARKETING COOPERATIVE, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-6480 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Berle M. Schiller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (i) denied Defendant-Franklin's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) and (ii) granted Plaintiff-Winn-Dixie's cross-motion for enlargement of time to serve Franklin. Franklin was a Connecticut company that once grew and sold mushrooms. It once did business in Pennsylvania. Pursuant to Pennsylvania's requirement that foreign companies designate an in-state registered address, Franklin designated the corporate service company "CT Corporation Philadelphia" as its in-state address. In 2006, Franklin ceased production of agaricus mushrooms and sold its customer list. In 2008, Franklin sold its brand name. In 2010, it ceased all operation. Since 2006, Franklin has been a defendant in a class action lawsuit alleging that Eastern Mushroom Marketing Collective -- of which it was once a member -- and various affiliated organizations conspired to raise the price of agaricus mushrooms. Several plaintiffs also filed their own antitrust lawsuits. The most recent of these lawsuits -- the instant case -- was filed on Dec. 7, 2015. On March 22, 2016, Winn-Dixie's process server attempted to serve Franklin at CT Corp. in Harrisburg by handing process documents to CT Corp. Senior Corporate Operations Specialist Bob Sersh. That same day, CT Corp. forwarded the summons and complaint to Milton Jacobson at the Connecticut Law firm of Brown & Jacobson, PC via Federal Express 2-day service. On April 4, 2016, Michael D. Colonese, an attorney at Brown & Jacobson, forwarded the materials to Franklin's president Wilhem Meya via overnight delivery. It was not the end of the matter, and Franklin would not enter an appearance in the lawsuit for another three years. In the meantime, the instant case was consolidated with the class action and other individual actions for pre-trial purposes between April 12, 2017 and Sept. 29, 2018; Winn-Dixie filed its First Amended Complaint -- again naming Franklin as a Defendant -- on Jan. 29, 2019; the Court granted in part and denied in part motions by various Defendants to dismiss the complaint -- including dismissing the complaint against seven Defendants due to improper service -- on April 8, 2019. On April 10, 2019, chambers contacted Franklin's counsel by email to request an entry of appearance. According to Franklin, it was the first time James Rodgers, who represented Franklin in the other antitrust cases, became aware of Winn-Dixie's complaint. Rodgers entered his appearance on April 15, 2019. Franklin answered Winn-Dixie's complaint on July 12, 2019 and filed the instant motion on Aug. 8, 2019. Now before the Court is Franklin's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) and the Plaintiff's cross-motion for enlargement of time to serve Franklin. The crux of Franklin's argument is that Winn-Dixie did not perfect service when it served process at CT Corp. in Harrisburg, therefore Franklin has never actually been served in the lawsuit. Winn-Dixie counters that Franklin waved the argument, and that Franklin's motion is untimely. Judge Schiller finds neither of Franklin's argument availing. First, Winn-Dixie argues that, under Rule 12(h), Franklin waived the argument that service was improper because CT Corp. was not authorized to accept process on Franklin's behalf. In Franklin's answer to Winn-Dixie's amended complaint, Franklin argued that it had been improperly served, because its in-state agent was CT Corp. in Philadelphia rather than CT Corp. in Harrisburg. It did not, however, argue that service was improper because CT Corp. was not authorized to accept process on Franklin's behalf. The Judge disagrees with Winn-Dixie's reading of Rule 12(h). Under Rule 12(h), waiver is triggered by a party's failing to include a defense listed in rule 12(b)(2)-(5) in a responsive pleading. He finds that Franklin did not waive its defense of improper service by failing to include the precise theory of improper service it would ultimately use in the instant motion. The fact that Franklin raised a defense of improper service in its answer is sufficient to avoid waiver. Second, Winn-Dixie argues that Franklin's objection to service of process is untimely because it filed the motion after first filing its answer to Winn-Dixie's complaint. Reading Rule 12 as Winn-Dixie does would require a party to raise a defense under Rule 12 via pre-answer motion, as failing to do so would render any subsequent advocacy of the defense untimely. It would contradict the permissive language of Rule 12(b), and thus the Judge declines to read Rule 12(b) in such fashion. As a result, he will consider the merits of Franklin's motion. Franklin moves the Court to dismiss Winn-Dixie's complaint for failure to effectuate service in the time allotted by Rule 4. Winn-Dixie served Franklin at CT Corp. in Harrisburg. There is no question such service was not made on an executive officer or person in charge of any regular place of Franklin's business -- and thus the only question is whether CT Corp. was authorized in writing to receive service on Franklin's behalf. Winn-Dixie has presented no evidence that CT Corp. was authorized in writing to accept service of process for Franklin. Because Winn-Dixie bears the burden of proving that it properly served Franklin and has presented no evidence upon which it could carry that burden, the Judge finds that Winn-Dixie did not properly serve Franklin on March 22, 2016. As a result, Franklin was not served within the time allotted by Rule 4. Having found that Franklin was not served in the time allotted by Rule 4, the Court can either give Winn-Dixie an extension of time to serve Franklin or, if an extension is unwarranted, dismiss the complaint against Franklin. Judge Schiller finds that an extension is appropriate. First, Franklin was not prejudiced by Winn-Dixie's improper service, rules the Court. Franklin received Winn-Dixie's process documents about two weeks after process was "served" in Harrisburg and the Court is unwilling to hold Winn-Dixie responsible for any prejudice to Franklin stemming from its inactivity after that point. Second Franklin's objection to Winn-Dixie's service of process comes more than three years after Franklin was first given notice of the lawsuit. In light of this, Judge Schiller is wary of dismissing the Complaint, as it would contravene the general principle that defendants wishing to object to service of process should do so promptly. Third, Winn-Dixie's failure to serve Franklin was clearly the result of its mistaken belief that Pennsylvania law permitted plaintiffs to serve foreign corporations at their registered Pennsylvania address. These factors do not excuse Winn-Dixie's failure to correctly serve Franklin, and the result could well be different had service never reached Franklin, or had Franklin made the instant motion in 2016. However, in the present case, Winn-Dixie's lack of bad faith or overt recklessness, combined with a lack of prejudice to Franklin, tips the scale in favor of granting a discretionary extension of time in which to serve Franklin. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Schiller (i) denied Franklin's motion to dismiss, and (ii) granted Winn-Dixie's cross-motion for an extension of time to serve Franklin. An Order consistent with this Memorandum will be documented separately. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/AHb6CA from Leagle.com. WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. & BI-LO HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiffs, represented by KRISHNA B. NARINE -- knarine@lauletta.com -- LAULETTA BIRNBAUM & PATRICK J. AHERN -- patrick.ahern@ahernandassociatespc.com -- AHERN & ASSOCIATES PC. EASTERN MUSHROOM MARKETING COOPERATIVE, INC., BROWNSTONE MUSHROOM FARMS, INC., TO-JO FRESH MUSHROOMS, INC., COUNTRY FRESH MUSHROOM CO., FOREST MUSHROOM INC., GINO GASPARI & SONS, INC., GASPARI BROS. INC., KAOLIN MUSHROOM FARMS, INC., SOUTH MILL MUSHROOM SALES, INC., MODERN MUSHROOM FARMS, INC., SHER-ROCKEE MUSHROOM FARM, C & C CARRIAGE MUSHROOM CO., OAKSHIRE MUSHROOM FARM, INC., PHILLIPS MUSHROOM FARMS, INC., LOUIS M. MARSON, JR., INC., MONTEREY MUSHROOMS, INC., JOHN PIA & MICHAEL PIA, Defendants, represented by WILLIAM A. DESTEFANO -- wad@stevenslee.com -- STEVENS & LEE. CARDILE MUSHROOMS, INC., Defendant, represented by DANA A. FELMLEE -- dfelmlee@mccarthypc.com -- MCCARTHY WEIDLER PC & GARY J. MCCARTHY -- gmccarthy@mccarthypc.com -- MCCARTHY WEIDLER PC. FRANKLIN FARMS, INC., Defendant, represented by JAMES J. RODGERS -- jrodgers@dilworthlaw.com -- DILWORTH PAXSON. GIORGI MUSHROOM COMPANY & GIORGIO FOODS, INC., Defendants, represented by JOSHUA SARNER, SARNER & ASSOCIATES, MATTHEW C. BRUNELLI, STEVENS & LEE, TERRI A. PAWELSKI, STEVENS & LEE & WILLIAM A. DESTEFANO, STEVENS & LEE. MARIO CUTONE MUSHROOM CO., INC., Defendant, represented by JOEL I. FISHBEIN, LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP. M.D. BASCIANI & SONS, INC., Defendant, represented by DONNA M. ALBANI, LAW OFFICES OF DONNA M. ALBANI & THOMAS K. SCHINDLER, SCHINDLER LAW GROUP LLC. MUSHROOM ALLIANCE, INC., Defendant, represented by MATTHEW J. BORGER, KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG L.L.P. CREEKSIDE MUSHROOMS LTD., Defendant, represented by BARBARA T. SICALIDES, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP. J-M FARMS, INC., Defendant, represented by JASON S. TAYLOR, CONNER & WINTERS LLP & FRANCESCO P. TRAPANI, Kreher & Trapani LLP. UNITED MUSHROOM FARMS COOPERATIVE, INC., Defendant, represented by JANE M. SHIELDS, MACELREE HARVEY, LTD. & WILLIAM J. GALLAGHER, MAC ELREE, HARVEY, LTD. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Cabrito Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROMULO CABRITO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE CONCEPTS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-582061 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 7, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum and straight time wages, to pay overtime compensation, and to provide meal periods. According to the complaint, the Defendants classified the Plaintiff as non-exempt and typically scheduled Plaintiff to work 5 days per workweek, and in excess of hours each workday. Throughout the statutory period, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked, including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a California resident that worked for the Defendants in the State of California as a janitorial employee from October 2005 to July 2019. ESC offers building and facility services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232 3128 Facsimile: (213) 232 3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com FAB4 LLC: Fails to Pay for All Overtime Hours, Haghoubian Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- ARGIN HAGHOUBIAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all aggrieved employees v. FAB4, LLC dba RUSSELL WESTBROOK CDJR, a Limited Liability Corporation, and DOES 1 -50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV00627 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 6, 2020), seeks damages and other relief arising from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, including failure to properly pay for all overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to comply with California Labor Code requirements due to erroneous, willful and intentional employment practices and policies, including failing to properly pay for all overtime hours worked, failure to timely pay wages when owed, including upon separation, failure to provide accurate paystubs and maintain accurate records, failure to provide required California sick days and notice thereof, and failure to permit required meal and rest breaks. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, nonexempt employee of the Defendants as a car salesperson until July 5, 2019. FAB4 offers a range of new & used cars, parts, and service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. Hilary Silvia, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koulllaw.com hilarv@koullaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Blvd., Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 FEDEX CORP: Travers Seeks Pay for Short-Term Military Leave ----------------------------------------------------------- GERARD TRAVERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDEX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06106-MAK (E.D. Pa., Dec. 24, 2019) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay the Plaintiff with paid leave during periods of short-term military leave. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a courier. FedEx Corp. delivers packages and freight to multiple countries and territories through an integrated global network. The Company provides worldwide express delivery, ground small-parcel delivery, less-than-truckload freight delivery, supply chain management services, customs brokerage services, and trade facilitation and electronic commerce solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Harrison Garner, Esq. THE GARNER FIRM LTD. 1515 Market St. Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 645-5955 Facsimile: (215) 645-5960 E-mail: adam@garnerltd.com GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert. Bid in Monteville Sloan Case Shelved ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Monteville Sloan, JR v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2020), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order taking the motion to certify class under submission. According to the civil minutes,the proceedings for motion for partial summary judgment and motion to exclude certain testimony of Plaintiffs' expert witness Jeffrey K. Ball were held. Proceedings for status conference was not held. General Motors is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: John Tangren, Esq. Daniel Ferri, Esq. Adam Levitt, Esq. Clay Barnett, Esq. James Mitchell Williams, Esq. Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. Wilson Daniel Miles III, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER 10 North Dearborn Street Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312 214 7900 Attorneys for Defendant are: April Ross, Esq. Kathleen Sooy, Esq. Gregory Oxford, Esq. CROWELL MORING 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004-2595 Telephone: 202 624 2687 E-mail: aross@crowell.com GREAT LAKES ASSEMBLIES: Underpays Assembly Workers, Butcher Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ THERESA BUTCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREAT LAKES ASSEMBLIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05647-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 30, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Butcher was employed by the Defendant as an assembly worker. Great Lakes Assemblies, LLC manufactures automobiles parts. The Company offers automobile center console modules, tire and wheel assemblies, powertrain accessory modules, chassis, and engine components. Great Lakes Assemblies serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com GUIDANT GLOBAL: Smith Seeks to Certify FLSA Class of Workers ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as CHADWICK SMITH, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. GUIDANT GLOBAL, INC. and GUIDANT GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-12318-GAD-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of and authorizing notice be sent to: "all workers covered by a Guidant Staffing Company Agreement who were paid straight time for overtime within the past 3 years (Putative Class Members)"; 2. approving the Notice and Consent forms; 3. authorizing the mailing and emailing of notice, along with a reminder notice; 4. authorizing Class Counsel to contact the Putative Class Members by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice and Consent forms return undeliverable; 5. directing Guidant to produce to Class Counsel the contact information for each of the Putative Class Members within 10 days of the Court's order; and 6. authorizing 60-day notice period for the Putative Class Members to join the case. The Plaintiff contends that Guidant paid the Putative Class Members the same hourly rate for all hours worked (including those in excess of 40 in a workweek) and deprived them of the "time and a half" overtime premium required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Guidant provides staffing services. The company provides engineering, information technology, and administrative staffing, as well as offers related outsourcing services and solutions.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor A. Jones, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, PC 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910 Telephone: 248-542-6300 E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com HINDS COUNTY SD: Clincy FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------------- The case titled Tondee Clincy and others similarly situated v. Hinds County School District, Case No. MS-19-00717 (Filed Oct. 21, 2019), was removed from the Mississippi Circuit Court, Hinds County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on Jan. 3, 2020. The Southern District of Mississippi assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00004-HTW-LRA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Henry T. Wingate. The case is an overtime collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that she and others like her were suffered or permitted to work off the clock, and were routinely deprived of pay to which they were entitled, including overtime. Tondee Clincy is an adult resident of Mississippi, and a former employee of HCSD. She did bookkeeping. Hinds County School District is a public school district organized under the Mississippi Uniform School Law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel F. Dillard, Esq. JOEL F. DILLARD, PA 775 N. Congress St. Jackson MS 39202 Telephone: 601 487 7369 E-mail: joel@joeldillard.com IOWA: Beverages Div. Sued for Illegally Raising Liquor Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- Rox Laird, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a convenience store claims in a putative class action lawsuit filed on Dec. 20 that Iowa's state-owned alcoholic beverages distributor is illegally raising liquor prices charged to retailers. Quick Shop Foods in Ottumwa, Iowa, claims in the complaint filed in Polk County District Court that the Alcoholic Beverages Division of the Iowa Department of Commerce -- the state's exclusive wholesaler and distributor of liquor to retailers -- illegally overcharged the convenience store and other similar retailers that sell alcohol for off-premises consumption in unopened containers. The convenience store notes in its suit that the state legislature sought to avoid abuse of the Alcoholic Beverages Division's monopoly by setting a cap in state law on how much the division can mark up liquor prices. The law states that liquor sold by the division may be sold at a markup of up to 50% of the wholesale price paid by the division to liquor makers. The law allows the division to increase the markup on certain kinds of liquor more but the overall return on all sales may not exceed a 50% markup of the wholesale price. "However, the [Alcoholic Beverages Division] has illegally charged plaintiffs and other similarly situated retailers, proprietors, and all Class E liquor license holders in excess of that statutory cap on the price of alcoholic liquor," the store states in its complaint. A similar allegation was lodged against the Alcoholic Beverages Division in a civil suit filed Dec. 5 by Todd P. Halbur, a former controller and accountant for the division, who alleged he was wrongfully terminated after he reported that the division had excessively and illegally marked up liquor prices. He said in the suit he refused to sign off on payment to a website developer without first going through a competitive bidding process as required by Iowa law. The Quick Shop Foods lawsuit does not state how much the division is overcharging for liquor, only that it exceeded the cap set in state law "over the course of many years." The complaint was filed by Four M Inc. and Steven Mark Ebelsheiser, an owner and officer of that corporation, doing business as Quick Shop Foods. The plaintiffs are represented by Stuart Higgins and Justin Swaim of West Des Moines, Iowa. In response to a request for comment, Swaim said: "We have nothing to add to the statements in the petition. Our witness will do his talking in court." A spokesman for the Alcoholic Beverages Division said division officials "are consulting with legal counsel and have no further comment at this time." The plaintiffs seek class action status and claim to be representing "several hundreds of class members," the exact number and identities of whom will be revealed during the discovery phase of the litigation. Plaintiffs are asking the court to order the division to reimburse class members for the excessive markup. A copy of the Class Action Petition is available at: https://is.gd/VsrPBf JENNY JN NAILS: Underpays Nail Salon Workers, Chang Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- HSIN HUANG CHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JENNY JN NAILS INC. d/b/a Sarah Nail; BURTIS NAIL INC. d/b/a Burtis Nail; JENNY GJ INC. d/b/a Nail by Jenny; DAE EUN LEE a/k/a Sarah Lee, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02024 (D. Conn., Dec. 31, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Chang was employed by the Defendants as nail salon worker. Jenny JN Nails Inc. d/b/a Sarah Nail operates as a nail salon. The Company provides nail grooming, painting and acrylic nail services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 JEWELRY EXPRESS: Faces Cooks ADA Class Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jewelry Express, Inc. The case is captioned as Richard Cooks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jewelry Express, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00190-PSG-E (C.D. Cal., Jan. 7, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. The suit alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. Jewelry Express operates as a jewelry store. The company offers rings, earrings, bracelets, necklaces, pendants, and watches. Kevin Jewelers serves customers in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda F. Benedict, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA BENEDICT 7710 Hazard Center Drive, Suite E104 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (760) 822-1911 Facsimile: (760) 452-7560 E-mail: amanda@amandabenedict.com JFAT LLC: Weatherly Seeks Penalties Under PAGA Over Untimely Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT WEATHERLY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly aggrieved v. JFAT, LLC DBA JIMMY'S FAMOUS AMERICAN TAVERN, a California limited liability company; JFAT BREA, LLC, a California limited liability company; JFAT DANA POINT, LLC, a California limited liability company; JFAT SANTA MONICA, LLC, a California limited liability company; JFAT TOPANGA, LLC, a California limited liability company; JFAT SAN DIEGO, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV00736 (Cal. Super., Jan. 6, 2020), alleges that Defendants violated the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code. The case is an enforcement action seeking to recover civil penalties and any other available relief on behalf of the Plaintiff, the State of California, and other current and former employees, who worked for the Defendants in California as non-exempt, hourly employees and who received at least one wage statement during their employment. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants knew or should have known that he and other nonparty Aggrieved Employees were entitled to timely payment of wages during their employment. In violation of the California Labor Code, the Defendants did not pay them all wages, including overtime wages, minimum wages, gratuities, and meal and rest period premium wages, within permissible time periods, he adds. The Defendants employed Mr. Weatherly as an hourly-paid, nonexempt restaurant employee from July 2019 through October 1, 2019, in the positions of dishwasher, runner, and busser. JFAT is in restaurant, bar and catering services business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carney R. Shegerian, Esq. Anthony Nguyen, Esq. Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq. SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 145 South Spring Street, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (310) 860 0770 Facsimile: (310) 860 0771 E-mail: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com CKenner@Shegerianlaw.com JOHNNY WAS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Campos Claims -------------------------------------------------------- CHARLIE CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNNY WAS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV46783 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 27, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Campos was employed by the Defendant as hourly paid, non-exempt employee. Johnny Was, LLC is engaged in the business of wholesale distribution of clothing and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq, Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq. Matthew K. Moen, Esq, HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com mmoen@haineslawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Breaches Duty to Minority Stockholders, Grove Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL GROVE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of JUUL LABS, INC. v. ADAM BOWEN, JAMES MONSEES, NICHOLAS J. PRITZKER, K.C. CROSTHWAITE, GUY CARTWRIGHT, JARED FIX, GERALD F. MASOUDI, KEVIN BURNS, TIMOTHY DANAHER, and DOES 1-18, and JUUL LABS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. CGC-20-582059 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Jan, 7, 2020), is brought on behalf of the minority stockholders of JUUL against it and its Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, violation of California Corp. Code, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff contends that the Individual Defendants have all breached their duties of good faith, candor, and loyalty by failing to provide any information to minority shareholders, including failing to hold annual meetings of shareholders, failing to provide annual reports to minority shareholders, and failing to provide any other financial information about the Company to minority shareholders. The Defendants, in stark contrast, have unfettered information about the Company and its financial condition, the Plaintiff avers. The Plaintiff adds that Defendants Bowen and Monsees are using their control of the Company to cause the Board to rubber-stamp their self-dealing conduct. In addition to directly harming him and the Class, the Defendants' misconduct has also harmed JUUL, the Plaintiff alleges. He also alleges that the Defendants used their control of JUUL to pay themselves huge bonuses when Altria made its investment in the Company in 2018, which cost the Company lost opportunities from investing the significant capital in higher and better uses, which would have earned a return on investment. JUUL designs, manufacturers, and markets electronic cigarettes and vaping products. Company was spun off from a vaping startup called Pax Labs in 2017. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the company. The JUUL device, which resembles a USB flash drive, delivers a powerful dose of nicotine in a salt solution that smokers say closely mimics the feeling of inhaling cigarettes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914 2001 Facsimile: (858) 914 2002 KALISPELL REGIONAL: Faces Data Breach Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that the personal information of 130,000 patients of Kalispell Regional Healthcare in Montana was exposed in a cyberattack, a federal class action claims. A copy of the Complaint is available at: https://is.gd/dm6O0O KANSAS: Bids for New Class Counsel Appointment in Porter Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THOMAS H. PORTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HONORABLE BILL GRAVES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 77-3045-SAC (D. Kan.), Judge Sam A. Crow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied (i) the motion and amended motion of Artis Swafford for appointment of new counsel to represent the class of the Plaintiffs, and (ii) the motions of Reginald D. Stewart, D'Andre Williams and Daniel P. Parker for the same relief. The class action challenged the conditions of confinement in the Kansas prison system. The case was closed upon the agreement of the parties on Oct. 22, 1996. The Movants are not listed as the class representatives and it appears from KDOC records that Mr. Williams and Mr. Parker were not the class members at the time the case was closed. But, assuming that they may request new counsel on behalf of the class, their motions will be denied. The Movants contend that conditions in some facilities in the Kansas prison system are so deficient that it surpasses the agreed requirements for reopening the case when it was closed. That agreement was more than 23 years ago. Since then, efforts to intervene and reopen the case have been rejected in part because of: the time which has passed since the case was closed; the enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"); the changes which have occurred in the administration and operation of the Kansas prison system; and the opportunity to raise a claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement in new litigation. The Movants contend that the counsel of record have engaged in professional malpractice and misconduct because they have discouraged efforts to reopen the case. Judge Crow disagrees. The PLRA provides at Section 3626(b)(2) that a defendant in a prison conditions action will be entitled to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. These findings were not made as part of the consent decrees in the instant case or any order approving or amending the consent decrees. Therefore, if the case were reopened, the Defendants would be entitled to immediately terminate the prison conditions provisions of the consent decrees. Under the circumstances, the Judge holds that it is reasonable for the counsel to advise against attempting to reopen the case for the purpose of enforcing the consent decree conditions. In determining whether to appoint the counsel, a district court should consider the merits of the litigant's claims, the litigant's ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims. The "merits" of the Movants' claims do not appear to warrant the appointment of the new counsel. For this and the other reasons relied upon previously in orders which rejected the reopening of the case, Judge Crow denied the motions and amended motion for new counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 13, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/SIqI1q from Leagle.com. Leslie Keith Kimball, Plaintiff, represented by Dwight A. Corrin, Roger M. Theis, Hinkle Law Firm LLC, Stephen W. Kessler & William J. Rich -- bill.rich@washburn.edu -- Washburn University School of Law. Rickey Ray Redford, Robert (nmi) DeMass, Thomas H. Porter, Dennis (nmi) House, Robert Francis Smith, Jr., Lyle C. Sanders, Donald E. Alexander, Anthony R. Palocioz & Joseph F. Edwards, Plaintiffs, represented by Dwight A. Corrin, Stephen W. Kessler & William J. Rich, Washburn University School of Law. Raymond Roberts, Defendant, represented by Charles E. Simmons, Kansas Department of Corrections & Whitney L. Casement -- wcasement@gseplaw.com -- Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP. Thomas Odell Kelly, Movant, pro se. Kenneth Jackson, Movant, pro se. Kenneth D. Leek, Movant, pro se. Artis Swafford, Movant, pro se. Reginald D. Stewart, Movant, pro se. Charles E. Simmons, Defendant, represented by Timothy G. Madden. Bill Graves, Defendant, represented by Lawrence J. Logback -- llogback@slln.com -- Simpson, Logback, Lynch, Norris, PA, Timothy G. Madden & Whitney L. Casement -- wcasement@gseplaw.com -- Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, LLP. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Brown-Henry Sues Over Unwanted Telephone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA BROWN-HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00122 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 7, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to cellular phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff contends that for approximately 5-6 months, KDS and/or its agents called her on her cellular telephone using an autodialer without her consent. She adds that KDS continued to call her after she told its agents they were calling the wrong number and asked them to stop calling. The Plaintiff brings this action for injunctive relief and statutory damages for the Defendant's violations of the TCPA. KDS and its wholly owned subsidiaries operate 1,159 Kohl's retail stores across the country. At these stores, KDS sells moderately priced clothing, footwear and accessories for women, men and children; soft home products such as sheets and pillows; and housewares.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Street, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 391-5059 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com KRAFT FOODS: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Ploss Trust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HARRY PLOSS, as Trustee for the HARRY PLOSS TRUST DTD 8/16/1993, on behalf of himself and a proposed class, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KRAFT FOODS GROUP, INC. and MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Defendants, Case No. 15 C 2937 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Edmond E. Chang of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, (a) granted Ploss' motion for class certification, and (b) denief Kraft's motions (i) to exclude Dr. Craig Pirrong's opening report, and (ii) to strike his rebuttal report. Ploss and the other Plaintiffs brought the proposed class-action lawsuit against Kraft and Mondelez Global, alleging violations of the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA"); the Sherman Antitrust Act; and unjust enrichment. In the Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Complaint"), Ploss alleged that Kraft manipulated the wheat-futures market using two schemes: the long wheat futures scheme, and the wash trading scheme. Ploss alleges that Kraft manipulated the wheat-futures market by buying and maintaining an enormous position on wheat futures for the purpose of influencing prices, rather than out of any legitimate need for that quantity of wheat. Specifically, Kraft bought $90 million worth of December 2011 wheat futures contracts, and then refused to liquidate its long position and stopped buying wheat in the cash market. These acts, according to Ploss, falsely signaled to the market that Kraft was satisfying its need for wheat from the futures market rather than the cash market, and caused the wheat prices in the cash market to drop and the price of wheat futures to increase. As a result of the artificial prices allegedly caused by the scheme, all of the Plaintiffs that transacted in December 2011 and March 2012 wheat futures lost money -- that is, the Plaintiffs allege that they either bought at a higher price or sold at a lower price than they would have absent Kraft's allegedly manipulative actions. After a prior motion to dismiss, all that remains are the claims on the long wheat futures scheme. Ploss now seeks to certify the following two classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), comprised of all persons who either: a. purchased a CBT December 2011 or a CBT March 2012 futures contract after Oct. 31, 2011 except that purchases of CBT March 2012 futures contracts made after Dec. 14, 2011 qualify for inclusion in the Class only to the extent they were made in liquidation of a short position in the CBT March 2012 contract (whether an outright short position or as part of a spread position) which was sold between November 1 and Dec. 14, 2011 inclusive; or b. sold put options or purchased call options on the CBT December 2011 contract or on the CBT March 2012 contract after Oct. 31, 2011 except that sales of put options or purchases of call options on the CBT March 2012 contracts made after Dec. 14, 2011 qualify for inclusion in the Class only to the extent they were made in liquidation of a position in the CBT March 2012 contract (whether an outright position or as part of a spread position) which was initiated between November 1 and Dec. 14, 2011 inclusive. In support of the motion, Ploss first submitted an opening expert report authored by Dr. Craig Pirrong. In the opening report, Pirrong opined, among other things, that Kraft caused artificially high prices in the December 2011 and March 2012 wheat futures markets, thus causing the Plaintiffs' damages. Kraft, unsurprisingly, opposes the class-certification motion. To rebut Pirrong's report, Kraft submitted the expert report of Dr. James Overdahl, who attempted to poke holes in Pirrong's causation opinions. Ploss then submitted a rebuttal report written by Pirrong, which responded to Overdahl's criticisms. Kraft moves to exclude Pirrong's causation opinions and to strike parts of the rebuttal report. Judge Chang finds that Ploss has satisfied the Rule 23 Requirements: (1) typicality; (2) the adequacy of class representatives; (3) predominance; and (4) ascertainability. Turning to the challenges to Pirrong's Reports, the Judge holds that because the objected-to material is not critical to class certification, the Court need not decide either of Kraft's motions targeting the expert reports at this time. At this stage, all that Ploss was required to do was show that the class' claims will rely on common evidence. And that Ploss has done, specifically by relying on Pirrong's event study. Ploss need not also prove (yet) that he will actually prevail on the causation question using the event study. The motions are denied without prejudice. For these reasons, Judge Chang granted Ploss' motion for class certification as to the proposed classes. To repeat, the following class is certified on the federal claims and the state law claim -- all persons who either: a. purchased a CBT December 2011 or a CBT March 2012 futures contract after Oct. 31, 2011 except that purchases of CBT March 2012 futures contracts made after Dec. 14, 2011 qualify for inclusion in the Class only to the extent they were made in liquidation of a short position in the CBT March 2012 contract (whether an outright short position or as part of a spread position) which was sold between November 1 and Dec. 14, 2011 inclusive; or b. sold put options or purchased call options on the CBT December 2011 contract or on the CBT March 2012 contract after October 31, 2011 except that sales of put options or purchases of call options on the CBT March 2012 contracts made after Dec. 14, 2011 qualify for inclusion in the Class only to the extent they were made in liquidation of a position in the CBT March 2012 contract (whether an outright position or as part of a spread position) which was initiated between November 1 and Dec. 14, 2011 inclusive. The Court directed parties to confer on the proposed Notice to the Class, starting with Ploss drafting a proposed notice and circulating it to Kraft by Jan. 13, 2020. If practicable, Ploss will file a motion proposing the notice plan in advance of the Jan. 23, 2020 status hearing, the Court adds. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/vUXfzT from Leagle.com. Harry Ploss, as Trustee for the Harry Ploss Trust DTD 8/16/1993, on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell -- CLovell@lshllp.com -- Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, Christopher M. McGrath -- CMcGrath@lshllp.com -- Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Amanda Nicole Miller, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., pro hac vice, Benjamin M. Jaccarino, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, pro hac vice, Gary S. Jacobson, Lovell Stewart Halebain, Ian Trevor Stoll -- IStoll@lshllp.com -- Lovell Stewart Halebian Jaconson Llp & Lori Ann Fanning -- lfanning@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC. Robert Wallace & Joseph Caprino, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Devona Lynn Wells, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.l.l.p., pro hac vice, Douglas A. Millen, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC, Heidi M. Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, Kate M. Baxter-kauf, Lockridge Grindal Naeun P.l.l.p., pro hac vice, Marco Cercone, RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, Robert J. Wozniak, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC & Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC. Nathan Wallace, Plaintiff, represented by W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Devona Lynn Wells, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.l.l.p., pro hac vice, Douglas A. Millen, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC, Heidi M. Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, Kate M. Baxter-kauf, Lockridge Grindal Naeun P.l.l.p., pro hac vice, Robert J. Wozniak, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC & Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC. Kevin Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Douglas A. Millen, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC, Heidi M. Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, Kate M. Baxter-kauf, Lockridge Grindal Naeun P.l.l.p., pro hac vice, Marco Cercone, RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, Robert J. Wozniak, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC & Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC. Richard Dennis, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, Geoffrey M. Horn, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Vincent Briganti, Lowey Dannenbergt, P.C., Christian Levis, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., pro hac vice, Craig Maider, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., pro hac vice, Matthew J. Acocella, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., pro hac vice, Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., pro hac vice & Raymond P. Girnys, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., pro hac vice. White Oak Fund, LP, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, Brian Philip Murray, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas A. Millen, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC, Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Robert J. Wozniak, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC & Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC. Budicak Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, Anthony F. Fata, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Jennifer Winter Sprengel, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. & Mondelez Global LLC, Defendants, represented by Dean Nicholas Panos -- dpanos@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Christopher Graham Wells, Jenner & Block LLP, J. Kevin McCall -- jmccall@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Nicole Amie Allen -- nallen@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Thomas Edward Quinn -- tquinn@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP. KSM HEALTHCARE: Underpays Housekeepers, Hernandez Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ARGELIA ALVARADO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KSM HEALTHCARE INC. D/B/A DREIER'S NURSING CARE CENTER; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV46542 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 27, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as housekeeper. KSM Healthcare Inc. d/b/a Dreier's Nursing Care Center is a nursing facility offering the therapy and care in Glendale, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Meghan Maertz, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203 Agoura Hills, CA, 91301 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com Meghan@OLFLA.com LANDS' END INC: Uniforms Cause Health Problems, Workers Claim ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit by workers at Lands' End, Inc., and Lands' End Outfitters, Inc., alleges negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. According to the complaint, since May 29, 2018, the Plaintiffs have been required to wear newly-issued work uniforms manufactured by the Defendants. These Uniforms are high stretch, wrinkle and stain-resistant, waterproof, anti-static, and deodorizing. The Defendants used various chemical additives and finishes to achieve these characteristics. The combination of these additives and finishes has an allergic and sensitizing effect on the human body, even if those several additives and finishes are relatively safe in their individual respective quantities. The Uniforms contain chemical additives and finishes including chromium, antimony, mercury, formaldehyde, fluorine and bromine in excess of industry-accepted levels for garments. Since the introduction of the Uniforms, the Plaintiffs and many other Delta Employees have suffered a myriad of health problems as a result of the excessive allergen and sensitizing properties of the Uniforms. The uniforms caused health complications such as skin rashes, headaches, fatigue, breathing difficulties, hair loss, low white blood cell counts and nausea. Lands' End, Inc. manufactures men's, women's, and children's apparel and accessories. The Company produces and distributes swimwear, clothing, bedding, totes, furniture, bath accessories, uniforms, outerwear, and various related products. Lands' End offers its products through its catalog and website worldwide. The case is captioned, as STEPHANIE ANDREWS; JANELLE AUSTIN; PHYLLIS HEFFELFINGER; KELLI HEIST; VIRGINIA MATHIOS; JANET MURPHREE; DANA SMITH; HOPE TUCKER; LISA UDDIN-BARNESWRIGHT; MICHELE WARNER; LYNDA VALDEZ; JOSEPH ABAMONTE; JULIE ABATE; KIMBERLY ABBEY; KERRY ABRAHAMSEN; RACHEL ABUKHDEIR; CAROL ADAMS-CONNER; KATHY ADAMS; LENEE' ADKINS; JACQUELINE ALLBRIGHT; AUSTIN ALFORD; LEIANNE AL-KHAFAJI; JANA ALLAN; CYNTHIA ALLEN; ALMUDENA PRESAS ALONSO; NICOLE ALVAREZ; BARBARA ALVES; MARINA AMIEVA; LORI ANDERLE; JAMI LYN ANDERSON; RIKA ANDERSON; JAMIE ANGULO; HILARY ARANA; ROCHELLE ARCH-HAYOSTECK; NATALIA ARTEMENKO; STACEY ATKINS; ANNMARIE ANTONELLI; BONNIE AUDSLEY; NINA AVILES; BRANDIS BANKS; DANA BANKS; DEBRA BARETTA; ANGELA BARTHELEMY; JOHN BECKSTRAND; CORI BEHRENDS; REBECCA BEIERSDORG; TIA BELBODA; MAURA BENATTI; CINDY BERG; RENEE BERGLUND; CYNTHIA BERZEL; NICOLE BETSON; JEAN BEVER; KATHLYN BEZ; POLLY BIASUCCI; MARY BIESSENBERGER; SACHA BIGLER; JANET BLACK; THERESE BLACKWELL; MORGAN BLISS; FRANCES BLITZ; KATHLEEN BODENE; ROBIN BODENHEIMER; LORRAINE BOLLA; MARILYN BOWDEN; CHRISTINE BRABECK; JACLYN BRADLEY; JACOB BRAUCHT; KATHLEEN BREEDLOVE; EILLEEN BRENNAN; CHERIE BRENNER; KATE BRITT; SHARI BROWN; EMMA BRYANT; JOYCE BRYANT-BURRUS; DENISE BRYSON; JACQUELINE BUCCI; MARCELLA BULGER; KAYLA BUONO; PASCALE BURGUENO; MARYY JO BURNS; ERIN BURREY; PIA BUSCHER; EMILY BUSKEN; CHA HUI CAIN; ANTONIETTA CALDARELLA; AMANDA CALVERT; CHRISTA CAMPBELL; KATHY CAMPBELL; MARIA CARLISLE; LAURETTE CARNS; ELIZABETH CASSIDY; DARIS CASON; IDA CASTROGUINN; KATHERINE CEDOLA; TIFFANY CHALLIS; EVA CHAUVIN; BECKY CHERRY; DEBRA CHESBRO; EMILY BETH CHEZES; GEORGINA CHU; CAROLINE CIEZ; BREONTA CLARK; ERIN CLEVELAND; RONDA COCHERELL; KAREN COFFMAN; EMMA COLE; AUTUMN COLEMAN; JACQUELYN COLLINS; JOSE COLON-VILLANUEVA; CHRISTY COMBS; CANDACE CONNER KABELA; DONNA CONSTANT; DIANA CONWAY; KATHLEEN COOPER; MICHAEL CORTIS; KATHLEEN COTNOIR; SUSAN COUVILLION; MARSHA COWLING;KRYSTLE COWART; DREDRICK COX; LINDA CREECH; ANGELA CROWELL; RAVEN CURINGTON; CORINNE DALLMAN; LORIE DANA; ELAINE DAVIS; JO-LYNN DAVIS; KATIE DAVIS; TAMARA DEANGELIS; ALEXANDRA DELA; JENNIFER DELAPENHA; DIANA DEL-BARRIO; PAULINE DEMAET; VERONICA DEMAGGIO; SHARON DENNEY; MARSHA DEVANEY; JOANN DEVENY; NANCY DIAMOND; KAYLA DIBELLA; SUZANNE DIFRAIA-ORTEGA; TEODORA DIMITROVA; JOANNA DIRIENZO; KAREN DISANTIS; MARGARET DRISCHLER; NANCY DORMAN; MICHELE DOSS; KATHLEEN DOUGLAS; DAWN DRAKE; LAURA DREWE; LOUISE DUHAMEL; GENARINA DUNCAN; MADONNA DUNN; CYNTHIA DURUSHIA; JAN DYSSEGARD; JOHNNY EDWARDS; JAN EGGE; BRENT EGLAND; SHARON ELBOIM; LISA ERICKSON; ALIXANDRA ERRINGTON; JESSICA ESPINOSA; BRENDA EVANS; DEBBY EVERS; LAWRENCE FARRER; EVA FARRIS; NICOLE FAZIO; STEVE FILLMORE; JAMIE FINE; KIMBERLY FITCH; KATHRYN FLYNN; ASHLEIGH FOOTE; LISA FORTUNA; JILL FOUTS; LORI FOUTY; DEBRA FRANKLIN; AKANE FREEMAN; BELISSA FUENTES; MYRA FUJI; BETTINA GARCIA; SUGAR GARCIA-HALL; KATRENA GARSKE; RACHEL GAROUTTE; BAILEY GARRISON; JACK GAZIS; MICHELLE GENTRY; SARAH GERARD; JANE GERMANN; KATRINA GILLIAM; KIMBERLY GODBY; JOHN GOLD; MARYJO GONDEK; CYNDEE GOODMAN; KATHLEEN GRAY; SHANNON GRAY; JENNIFER GREEN; NEVINE GROULX; CHANDRA GRONVOLD; MELODY GUERRERO; GREGORY GUINN; DEBRA HADLER; FRANCES HALE; NICHOLAS HALL; KRISTINE HAMMER; CLAUDETTE HANDKE; DARLA HANSEN; SAMANTHA HARDING; LINDA HALL-SHIPMAN; HILLARI HARDT; DEBRA HARGIS; SAMRA HARMINDER; KELLY HARRIS; CHRISTINA HART; SPENCER HAYES; STACY HAYES; TIFFANYANNE HAYES; PAM HAYNES; NELLY HEIST; SHAWN HENCHAL; JILL HENDRICKS; LAURA HENNING; CINDY HELD-SZLASA; TANISHA HENRY; SUSAN HENSLEY; AMANDA HEPLER; KIMARA HERBERT; MAGDA HERMANSEN; CHRISTINE HOADLEY; KATHARINE HODGE; LISA HOGAN; HEATHER HOLLISTER; ELLEN HOLLOWELL; HEATHER HOTVEDT; KARI HOUSHOLDER; LINDSEY HOWARD; JEANNIE HOWELL; JULIE HUISMANN; JUMHEE; HWANG; ADELE IAQUINTA; GIOVANNA INGRAM; JEANNE JACKSON; LAURA JACKSON; PAULA JACKSON; KAITLYN JAGIELO; KIMBERLY JARY; KAREN JAY; MIA JESPERSEN; JOEL KINNARD; KARI JOHNKE-HENZLER; BENITA JOHNSON; URSULA ISIDORE; BRIDGETTE JONES; TAMIKA JONES; AMBER JORDAN; IRENE KAFTANUK; ANN KALLSEN; KENNETH KAMINSKI; JACKIE KANE; DAVID KAPLAN; AMANDA KARRICK; CYNTHIA KASMIRSKI; JEAN KATOPODIS; RUTA KAUPIKO; MARIE KEARSE; BRENDA KERN; CINDY KHA; ADEN KIDANE; TERRI KIDD; JENNIFER KIM; VIRGINIA KIMBERLAN; JUDIE KIRKLAND; NATASHA KLEPEC; CAROL KNAIN; REBECCA KOEGER; WENDY KOOPMEINERS; ANNA KOSOVAN; KACI KOTTEMANN; TERESA KOVARS; KATE KOVARY; KRISTEN KOWALCZYK; ELLEN KRAMER; JILL KRUPPA; KERRY KRUSE; TSIPORA KUBA; THERESA KUTSCHALL; RENEE LABBE; JOAN LABOW; MILISSA LACHAUSSEE'; CHRISTINE L'ALLIER; TANA LAMBERT; KAITLYNN LAMOUR; TATYANA LANCASTER; MARGUERITE LARSEN; LISA LARSON; MARIA LAYGO; JONATHAN LAZENBY; SUSANNA LEE; GERALDINE LINDSETH; CARISSA LIZOTTE; GERALEE CORONA; KAREN LEHMAN; ANN MARIE LIBERATORE; LONG LIM; STEPHANIE LITTLE; JENNIFER LONG; MARTHA LONG; DANA LOVE-LINN; CHRISTY LUNDE; KRISTEN MADDICK; KELLY MADER; JOSE MALDONADO; DONNETTE MALOCO; DONENE MANNION; JANINE MARCHILDON; DEBORAH MARSH; ELIZABETH MARZULLO; ELENA MASSIMO; CONNIE MASSMANN; JAMERE MAXWELL; JOHN MAZUROWSKI; MICHELLE MCCARRON; DIANE MCCOMBER; CATHERINE MCDONALD; DAWN MCDONNELL; SHAYLYN MCENTIRE; VICTORIA MCGARRITY; KAITLYN MCINTOSH; SHARON MCINTOSH; ANNE PENNY MCINTYRE; DEBBIE MCLELLAN; STACEY MCNEIL; DEBORAH MCNULTY; KIMBERLY MEADOWS; WILLIAM MEEK; DEBORAH MEISELMAN; BROOKE MESZAROS; ALLISON MILLER; KIMBERLY MILLER; LISA MILLER; MARGARET MILLER; JOAN TORMEY MILTON; JESSICA MIZRAHI; LYNN MOFFET; RICHARD MOGAN; LEYDA MOLINA; DIANA MONTGOMERY- BROCK; BROMLEY MOORE; JILLIAN MOORE; NINA MOORE; VONDA MORGAN; DEBBIE MCLELLAN; PATRICK MORSE; MELISSA MORRILL-FURMAN; BONNIE MURO; DEBORAH MURPHY;WANDA MURRAY; AYTEN NADEAU; NABILA NAIBKHEL; TAUFEEQ NASIR; PAMELA NEALY; ANDREA NECHVATAL; JENEE NEEB; CHERYL NELSON; EVA NELSON; SUSAN NEWLAND; TRANG NGUYEN; DEANNE NICHELSON; SHERYLANN NITTI; BETH NORDYKE; MICHELE NOREEN; YVETTE NUGENT; JENNIFER OBIOFUMA; KRISTINA OLSON; JODY ONDRIEZEK; EVELYN ORGERON; GERDA ORROCK; PATRICE OTERO; SONYA OURLIN; SILVA OSWALDO; PENNY OWENS; GINA PAGE-NELSON; PEGGY PARADEAU; ATHENA PARADIS; LAURIE PARKE; EMMA PARKER; KAYLA PARNELL; STANLEYPARTYKA; NATANIA PAYNE; KIMBERLY PEDRETTI; JEANETTE PEDRONI; JOANNE PERGOLA; JODI PERGOLA; KENDRA PERPICH; JEANETTE PEDRONI; SARA PELOWSKI; SUSAN PENCE; VIRGINIA PEREZ; CHELSEA PERRY; SHERRY PETERS; TINA FONG-PETERSON; NANCY PETRONE; LINDSAY PHELPS; YANICK PICAULT-CADET; ANITA PIERCE; JENNIFER PIERCE; BEATRICE PINON; DINA PINOS; CYNDA POLL; ANNA POPE; ANDREA POWER; SHANA PROVOST; ANTOINETTE QVISTORFF; MELISSSA RAICHART; ANNILA RAJPATTY-KISSOONDATH; MARY REED; PATTY REGISTER; CONSTANCE REID; ANNETTE REJINDERS-KESSEL; MARGARET REMUS; JULIE RICE; ASHLEY ROBERTS; MARY KAY ROBERTS; DEBORAH ROEBER; KRISTIN ROHLF; DEBORAH RUMPZA; KAYLA RUSSELL; TAMMY RUSTAD; STACEY RUTHERFORD; BECKY SALLANDER; DANIELLE SANDERS; MARY-ANN SANDS; JENNIE SANDUSKY; MONICA SANTAMARIA; NAGISA SAUDARGAS; ANGELAMARIA SCHERILLO; CYNTHIA SEDUSTINE; LISA SEIBERT; ELIZABETH SEYMOUR; LISA SHACKELFORD; RACHEL SHANKLIN; PAMELA SHELDON; REBECCA SHELDON; MICHELLE SHERACK; BRENDA SHORKEY; KATIE SIEG; ANDREA SILVAS; AMANDA SIMMONS; MELYNDA SINSLEY; KENYA SKYTTE; JACQUELYN SMELTER; LISA METTELKA SMILEY; ANGELA SMITH; CHRISTINE SMITH; EMILY SNELLGROVE; DEBRA SPAULDING; KAREN SPEASE; STACI SPURLOCK; AYFER STREET; EILEEN STEIGERWALD; JILL STRIETER; SANDRA SVIGGUM; LYNN SYPNIEWSKY; NANCY TALARICO-BORASS DEBRA TALBERT; TANIA TAMAYO-HAGAN; REBECCAH TANGEN; SUSAN TATE; TISHA TAYLOR; TRACY ELIZABETH TAYLOR; DEBORAH KAY THIRKELSON; HOLLY THOMPSON; SUSAN THOMPSON; DEMARRIO THORTON; JULIET THURAB; KIMBERLY TOBIN; CHASE TODD; KRISTIN TOMPKINS; HENRIQUE TORRES; DONNA TOWNS; ANDREA TRZASKA; ANDREA TROUTMAN; DIANA TRUE; KATHLEEN TSCHISHOW; LINDA TUCKER; TINA TUCKER; DEANNA TURNER; KATHRYN UDE; JULIANNE LYNN UMALI; TERI UNSWORTH; TIRANA VAKNIN; VICTOR VALDEZ; ELISSA VALENZANO; WENDY VANDERTUUK; CAROLINE VANGRIEKEN; COLLEEN VANRISSEGHEM; JOHN VANRISSEGHEM; ROSALYN VEGA; MALIN VEJFORS; KERRI VREY; COLLEEN VANRISSEGHEM; GRAEME WAGNER; JESSICA WAGNER; CAROL WALKER; LISA WALKER; WENDE WALKER; TROYE WASHINGTON-CLANTON; CATHERINE WEIDA; EMILY WESLEY; ROBIN WHALEY; DIANE WHITE; VANESSA WILBERT; JENNIFER WILLERT; LISA WILLETE; RANDI WILLETT; APRIL WILHITE; TAMMY WILKINSON; ADREEAN WILLIAMS; KATHY WILLIAMS; JOHANNA WINKLER; BARBARA WINSLOW; TERRI WINSLOW; LISA WOODCOCK; NANCY WOODWARD; LEAH WOPIPKA; LINDA WRIGHT; AMY YON; MARIA YOUNG; BONNIE YOUNKER; ANNA ZALUZHNY; and REBECCA ZETNICK; individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LANDS' END, INC.; and LANDS' END OUTFITTERS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01066 (W.D. Wis., Dec. 31, 2019)[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce A. Maxwell, Esq. TERRELL HOGAN YEGELWEL, P.A. 233 East Bay Street, 8th Floor Jacksonville, FL 32202 Tel: (904) 632-2424 E-mail: Maxwell@terrellhogan.com shicks@terrellhogan.com - and - Donald Winder, Esq. WINDER LAW FIRM 215 S. State Street, Suite 960 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Tel: (801) 440-5536 E-mail: dwinder@winderfirm.com - and - Jay Urban, Esq. URBAN & TAYLOR S.C. 4701 N. Port Washington Road Milwaukee, WI 53212 Tel: (414) 906-1700 E-mail: jurban@wisconsininjury.com rscarletta@wisconsininjury.com LEBO AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Legare Wage and Hour Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- James Legare, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LEBO AUTOMOTIVE INC., a corporation doing business in California, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV03227 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 27, 2020), is brought to collect civil penalties for the Defendant's violations of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated numerous wage and hour laws with respect to the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees by failing to provide accurate and itemized wages statements, payment for all hours worked (including regular wages and overtime), lawful meal periods, lawful rest periods, timely payment during employment, and payment upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him one hour's pay at his regular rate of pay for each day the Defendant failed to provide a meal period in compliance with Section 512 of the Labor Code. The Defendant also failed to authorize and permit the Plaintiff and other employee to take rest periods and mandated by the Wage Order. The Defendant also failed to compensate employees for all overtime, which is calculated at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee selling vehicles. The Defendant is a corporation doing business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Lo, Esq. WORK LAWYERS, PC 22939 Hawthorne Blvd., #202 Torrance, CA 90505 Phone: (866) 496-7552 Fax: (424) 355-8535 Email: Justin@WorkLawyers.com - and - Kevin Mahoney, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net LVNV FUNDING: Faces Ruvalcaba Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LVNV Funding LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Talina Ruvalcaba, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LVNV Funding LLC, Resurgent Capital Services L.P., and Resurgence Legal Group, P.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-00140 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 7, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. LVNV Funding purchases portfolios of both domestic (U.S.) and international consumer debt owned by credit grantors including banks and finance companies, and by other debt buyers. Resurgent Capital provides financial services. Resurgence Legal is a financial services firm focused on recovery of outstanding accounts receivables for creditors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Celetha Chatman, Esq. Michael Jacob Wood, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com - and - Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 726-6160 E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com MARY KAY INC: Court Dismisses Reid Class Suit Over ADA Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case, VALENTIN REID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MARY KAY INC., Defendant, Case No. 19 CV 7201-LTS-BCM (S.D. N.Y.). The class action complaint alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the putative class action has been or will be settled. Accordingly, Judge Swain dismissed the action with prejudice as to the named Plaintiff and without prejudice as to all other Plaintiffs and without costs to either party, but without prejudice to restoration of the action to the calendar of the undersigned if settlement is not achieved within 60 days of the date of the Order. If a party wishes to reopen the matter or extend the time within which it may be settled, the party must make a letter application before the 60-day period expires. The parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain jurisdiction in this matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court to be so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 13, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/BwkC8A from Leagle.com. Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Russel Craig Weinrib, Stein Saks PLLC & David Paul Force -- dforce@steinsakslegal.com -- Stein Saks, PLLC. Mary Kay, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Haar -- jamie.haar@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.. MATSU FUSION: Underpays Deliverymen, Chen Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ GUANGCHENG CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATSU FUSION RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a Matsu Japanese Fusion; J & J ASIAN BISTRO INC. d/b/a Matsu Japanese Fusion; YI CHANG CHEN a/k/a Gary Chen; and MEI FONG CHAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11895 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Chen was employed by the Defendants as a deliveryman. Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Matsu Japanese Fusion is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 MAZDA: Faces Class Action Over i-Activsense Brakes -------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims that Mazda 2018-20 model year vehicles with i-Activsense brakes can become overheated and malfunction, improperly slowing or stopping the car. A copy of the Complaint is available at: https://is.gd/LJcwAI MCKENZIE PAUL: Francois Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHELINE FRANCOIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCKENZIE PAUL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-03205-CEH-AEP (M.D. Fla., Dec. 31, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. McKenzie Paul & Associates, Inc. is a licensed and bonded collection agency who specializes in collections of commercial, retail, dental and medical debt. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaelyn Steinkraus, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. ZIEGLER, P.L. 2561 Nursery Road, Suite A Clearwater, FL 33764 Tel: (727) 538-4188 Fax: (727) 362-4778 E-mail: kaelyn@attorneydebtfighters.com MDL 2672: Bids to File Under Seal in VW Clean Diesel Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING SALES PRACTICES, AND, PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 6406, 6503, 6921 Napleton, No. 3:16-cv-2086-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, for the reasons identified in the Court's Nov. 25, 2019 sealing order, denied: (i) Volkswagen dealers' motion to file under seal portions of their opposition to the Bosch Defendants' motion for entry of a Lone Pine case management order; (ii) the Bosch Defendants' motion to file under seal portions of their reply in support of their motion for entry of a Lone Pine case management order; and (iii) the Bosch Defendants' motion to file under seal portions of their motion to exclude Edward M. Stockton's expert report in support of the dealers' opposition to summary judgment. The parties were directed to file unredacted, publicly-available versions of the documents covered by these motions by Dec. 12, 2019. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 6, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/Z7nAsI from Leagle.com. Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -- rcarey@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer, Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- csz@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer, Conrad and Scherer, LLP633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. MEDICREDIT INC: 5th Cir. Overturns Class Cert. Ruling in Flecha --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James C. Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the class certification order in the case, NINA FLECHA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEDICREDIT, INCORPORATED; FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 18-50551 (5th Cir.), and remanded for further proceedings. Flecha neglected to pay for the medical care she received from Seton Medical Center Hays. To help Seton collect on that debt, Medicredit, a voluntary debt collection service provider, sent Flecha a series of collection letters -- including the one at the heart of the suit. Flecha never contacted Medicredit. But she did contact Seton and ask if she was eligible for any debt repayment programs. Seton informed her that she could enter into a payment plan if she made an upfront payment -- one Flecha could not afford. Over the course of these conversations, Flecha claims she was given the impression that Seton would sue her to collect her debt. In response to both the letter from Medicredit and her subsequent conversations with Seton, Flecha brought the suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") against Medicredit (as well as its surety bondholder, Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland). Flecha alleged that Medicredit's letter made a false threat of legal action against her, in violation of the FDCPA, because Seton in fact never intended to sue her over her unpaid medical debt. Flecha sought class certification. She argued that everyone who received the same letter from Medicredit was likewise falsely threatened with legal action that Seton never actually intended to bring, and that everyone was accordingly entitled to statutory damages under the FDCPA. Both Flecha and Medicredit also filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court denied summary judgment. It concluded that questions of fact remained about (1) whether an unsophisticated consumer would construe the Medicredit letter to threaten legal action, and (2) whether Seton intended to take legal action against Flecha. After disposing of the summary judgment motions, the district court then granted Flecha's motion for class certification and appointed her class representative. The court defined the class as all Texans who had received the same letter from Medicredit that Flecha received: "All persons in Texas from whom Medicredit attempted to collect and who received a form collection letter from Medicredit containing these statements: Your seriously delinquent Seton Medical Center Hays account remains unpaid despite past requests for payment. At this time, a determination must be made with our client as to the disposition of your account. Your failure to cooperate in satisfying this debt indicates voluntary resolution is doubtful. However, if it is now your desire to clear your account, you need to promptly remit the balance in full." Flecha estimates that at least 7,650 people in Texas received such a letter. The Court granted Medicredit's motion for leave to appeal the class certification order under Rule 23(f). On appeal, Medicredit argues that Flecha failed to meet this exacting standard. It contends that the putative class fails the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) as well as the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). Judge Ho agrees. To establish liability under the FDCPA, the class must prove not only that Medicredit's letter threatened legal action, but that it did so despite the fact that Seton did not intend to pursue legal action. Yet Flecha failed to provide any evidence concerning Seton's intent to sue (or lack thereof) -- let alone any evidence of class-wide intent. This lack of evidence concerning Seton's class-wide intent is fatal to class certification, says the Court. Accordingly, Flecha failed to carry her burden to "affirmatively demonstrate" commonality. She failed to demonstrate that her claim that Medicredit falsely threatened to take legal action against class members is capable of classwide resolution. And so that leaves the class without a common issue, rules Judge Ho. Her failure to prove commonality also establishes her failure to prove either typicality or predominance. After all, if there is no common issue uniting the putative class, Flecha's claim can't be "typical of the claims or defenses of the class." Nor can Flecha demonstrate that common issues "predominate over any questions affecting only individual members," when she hasn't even established the existence of a common issue to begin with. In sum, the putative class fails under Rule 23 and cannot be certified, Judge Ho opines. Because the class fails under Rule 23, there is no need to separately decide whether the class additionally fails under Article III. But the standing issues in the case are real. Countless unnamed class members lack standing. But, if there is no class action under Rule 23, then there are no unnamed class members in the suit -- and thus no attendant class standing concerns. If there is no class action, then there is no need to analyze the Article III standing of the unnamed members of a non-existent class. In the case, no one alleges that Flecha herself has an Article III problem. The only issue is whether the unnamed class members have standing. And under Amchem and Ortiz, that standing issue is "moot," because the class fails under Rule 23. Finally, superiority is only one of the numerous conditions that must be met before a class may be certified under Rule 23. Proof of a negative value suit may be necessary to prove superiority -- but it is not sufficient to warrant class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Based on the foregoing, Judge Ho reversed the class certification order and remanded for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/RYs1Br from Leagle.com. Tara Moriarty Kumpf -- tara.kumpf@ogletreedeakins.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Jacob Ward Sparks -- jsparks@spencerfane.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Maura Kathleen Monaghan -- mkmonaghan@debevoise.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Jacob W. Stahl -- jwstahl@debevoise.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Harold W. Williford -- hwwillif@debevoise.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Michael Jacob Wood -- mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Robert Zimmer -- zimmerlawtx@gmail.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Scott James Dickenson -- sdickenson@spencerfane.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. MINCH PROFESSIONAL: Underpays Cleaners, Eder Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- MICHELE EDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MINCH PROFESSIONAL CLEANING SERVICES, LLC; KATHLEEN MINCH; and LEN HARDY, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06088-GJP (E.D. Pa., Dec. 24, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Eder was employed by the Defendants as cleaner. Minch Professional Cleaning Services, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The company's line of business includes building cleaning and maintenance services. [BN] The plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. Michael Groh, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-021 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: PERS of Miss. Sues Over Drop of Stock Price -------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC., JEFFREY S. LORBERBAUM, FRANK H. BOYKIN, GLENN R. LANDAU, and WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER WELLBORN, Case No. 4:20-cv-00005-ELR (N.D. Ga., Jan. 3, 2020), is brought on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased shares of Mohawk's common stock between April 28, 2017, and July 25, 2019, alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants continued making false and misleading statements about the Company's sales growth and demand for its Conventional Flooring Products, the Plaintiff alleges. Then, on July 25, 2019, after the market closed, Mohawk revealed that sales in its Flooring segment were down 7% year-over-year, and that it was again reducing production to control inventory levels and match its supply with customer demand. Accordingly, the Company gave a weak earnings forecast for the third quarter of 2019, which was well below analysts' estimates. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Mohawk's stock dropped from $156.36 per share to $128.84 per share, or nearly 18%, on unusually high trading volume, according to the complaint. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff asserts it and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi is a pension fund established for the benefit of the current and retired public employees of the State of Mississippi. Mohawk is a global manufacturer of flooring products. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lamar Mixson, Esq. Amanda Kay Seals, Esq. BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4100 Facsimile: (404) 881-4111 E-mail: mixson@bmelaw.com seals@bmelaw.com - and - Avi Josefson, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com MSC INDUSTRIAL: Guglielmo Sues Over Disabilities Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. The case is captioned as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00031-LTS (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MSC Industrial is an industrial equipment distributor company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com NATURAL ENERGY: Farber Seeks to Recover Overtime Wage Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chad Farber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATURAL ENERGY FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00301 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 27, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation from the Defendant as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and similarly situated Collective Members typically work at least twelve-hour shifts, seven days a week, for weeks at a time, in some of the harshest working conditions, says the complaint. Despite treating its Day Rate Workers as non-exempt employees, the Defendant failed to properly pay overtime compensation at 1.5 times Day Rate Workers' regular rate of pay. As a result, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendant significantly underpaid the Plaintiff and other Day Rate Workers for overtime hours worked. Plaintiff Farber was employed by the Defendant as Welding Inspector, a day rate worker from June 2018 through October 11, 2019. The Defendant is actively operating at oilfields around the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 300-0375 NCB MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Lisiecki Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHELLE LISIECKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00131-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com NEWELL BRANDS: Court Dismisses Securities Suit Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in IN RE NEWELL BRANDS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 18-10878 (JMV) (D. N.J.) for failure to state a claim pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA") and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The putative class action concerns allegations of securities fraud on behalf of investors who purchased Newell stock between Feb. 6, 2017 and Jan. 24, 2018. The Plaintiff, a pension fund, alleges that Newell and three of its key officers engaged in securities fraud during the Class Period in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities Exchange Commission. Defendant Newell is a corporation which manufacturers and markets consumer products. In April 2016, it acquired Jarden Corp., another global consumer products company. Defendant Michael B. Polk was the President and CEO of Newell at all relevant times. Polk oversaw the Jarden acquisition and integration. When Newell announced the deal with Jarden, Polk ensured investors that there would be a seamless integration of the new organization with strategic advantages including scale to grow, a broader portfolio, and elimination of corporate costs. As to its financial results and guidance, Newell used the terms "core sales growth" ("CSG"), a non-GAAP financial measure, and "normalized earnings per share" ("NEPS"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants issued and reaffirmed false and misleading 2017 financial guidance to investors without a reasonable basis. The crux of Plaintiff's case is that from February 2017 through early September 2017, Newell predicted CSG and NEPS growth that it was ultimately unable to achieve, with the first negative news coming in November 2017. The Plaintiff alleges three categories of alleged material misstatements and omissions. The first category concerns Newell's inventory. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants misled investors regarding high levels of inventory in Newell's retail channel and an increasing trend of inventory "destocking" by customers that was hurting Newell's sales growth and margins. The second area concerns internal price conflicts. The Plaintiff states that the Defendants failed to disclose pricing conflicts between Newell's E-commerce and B&M divisions that was negatively impacting Newell's growth and margins. The final category concerns general operation and managerial problems. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants misled investors as to operational errors and managerial issues between Newell and Jarden following the acquisition. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated various SEC rules. First, it claims that the Defendant violated Item 303 of Regulation S-K, titled "Management's discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations" ("MD&A disclosures"). Second, it alleges that the Defendants violated Item 503 of Regulation S-K, which concerns "risk factors" according to the Plaintiff. Third, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated Item 307 of Regulation S-K, entitled "Disclosure controls and procedures." The Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made numerous materially false and misleading statements and omissions. It alleges that each of the Executive Defendants acted with scienter in that each knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements were materially false and misleading; knew that they would be disseminated publicly; and knowingly participated or acquiesced in the issuance of such statements in violation of federal securities laws. It notes that due to their roles, each Executive Defendant was privy to confidential information about Newell. The Plaintiff filed its Complaint on June 21, 2018. It then filed its first amended complaint (FAC) on Nov. 28, 2018. The FAC alleges two Counts: (I) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5; and (II) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the Executive Defendants. The Defendants moved to dismiss, which the Plaintiff opposed, and to which the Defendants replied. The Plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority on Aug. 12, 2019, to which the Defendants replied on Aug. 22, 2019. The Plaintiff filed a second notice of supplemental authority on Nov. 7, 2019, to which theDefendants replied on Nov. 22, 2019. In Judge Vazquez's view, the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead a Section 10(b) violation. As a result, the Section 20(a) claim also fails. He permits the Plaintiff an additional opportunity to replead consistent with the following analysis. The Plaintiff first alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. He finds that Count I of the FAC suffers from several pleading shortcomings which fall generally into the following areas: (1) material misrepresentations or omissions allegations, (2) PSLRA safe harbor allegations, and (3) Items 303, 503, and 307 allegations. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege a false representation of material fact or omission that makes a disclosed statement materially misleading. Given that it has failed to plausibly plead the first element of Count I, the Judge does not reach the remaining requirements of a Section 10(b) claim. The Judge need not address the PSLRA safe harbor issues given that the Plaintiff has not successfully pleaded its securities fraud claim. However, many of the alleged statements in the FAC involve forward-looking statements. The safe harbor provision of the PSLRA immunizes any forward-looking statement from liability, provided that the statement is identified as such and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language; or is immaterial; or the plaintiff fails to show the statement was made with actual knowledge of its falsehood. The cautionary language appears to fit within the parameters of the statutory safe harbor. The Judge, however, does not make a definitive finding in this regard because he is granting leave to amend. If the Plaintiff chooses to re-assert these claims in an amended complaint, it must provide legal justification as to why each Item it asserts provides a private cause of action or otherwise properly supports a claim. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for control person liability against the Executive Defendants under Section 20(a). The three elements to this claim are (1) the Defendant controlled another person or entity; (2) the controlled person or entity committed a primary violation of the securities laws; and (3) the Defendant was a culpable participant in the fraud. Thus, liability under Section 20(a) is contingent upon sufficiently pleading an underlying violation of Section 10(b) by the controlled person. Because the Section 10(b) claim is dismissed for the reasons stated, the Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim -- Count II -- is also dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Vazquez granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC without prejudice. The Plaintiff will have 30 days to file an amended complaint, which cures the deficiencies noted. If it does not do so, the matter will be dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 10, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/rKFDmw from Leagle.com. HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL as ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY of the HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PENSION FUND, Movant, represented by CHAD A. CARDER -- ccarder@barrack.com -- BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, JEFFREY B. GITTLEMAN -- jgittleman@barrack.com -- BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE & ROBERT A. HOFFMAN -- jgittleman@barrack.com -- BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE. IRON WORKERS DISTRICT COUNCIL (PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY) RETIREMENT AND PENSION PLAN, Movant, represented by DAVID ANDREW BOCIAN -- dbocian@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP. Timothy Lopatofsky, Movant, represented by THOMAS W. ELROD -- telrod@kmllp.com -- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP. Electricity Pensions Trustee Limited as Scheme Trustee of the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme & Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, Movants, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI -- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. Sheet Metal Workers 19 Pension Fund & Yong Ahn, Movants, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA. Northeast Carpenters Benefit Funds, Movant, represented by DANIEL S. SOMMERS -- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC. BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. NEWELL BRANDS, INC., MICHAEL B. POLK, RALPH J. NICOLETTI & JAMES L. CUNNINGHAM, III, Defendants, represented by ISRAEL DAHAN -- idahan@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP. NORTHBRIDGE COMPANIES: Blundo Sues Over Unlawful Community Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Francis Blundo and Sharon Blundo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NORTHBRIDGE COMPANIES and NORTHBRIDGE LAUREL WOOD ASSISTED LIVING, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-11663-FDS (Mass. Cmmw., Jan. 27, 2020), seeks to recover damages, and to enjoin the unfair, deceptive, and unlawful practices of the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the security deposit statute by charging and collecting impermissible up-front fees, sometimes referred to as "Community Fees," at or before the inception of residential residents' tenancies. The Plaintiffs contend that these Community Fees have no particular connection to costs for structures, services, or requirements distinct to Assisted Living Residences. The Plaintiffs add that Northbridge failed to properly handle their and putative class members' security deposits, in violation of the security deposit statute. The Plaintiffs contend that Northbridge implemented the unlawful collection and handling of the funds of its elderly and infirm residents in order to financially exploit the most vulnerable members of society. The Plaintiffs are residents of Plymouth, Massachusetts. Northbridge owns assisted living facilities throughout New England with numerous facilities in Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. LaMothe, Esq. Brian P. McNiff, Esq. FORREST, LaMOTHE, MAZOW, McCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C. 2 Salem Green, Suite 2 Salem, MA 01970 Phone: (617) 231-7829 Fax: (877) 599-8890 Email: mlamothe@forrestlamothe.com bmcniff@forrestlamothe.com NORWALK, CT: Conditional Certification of Collective Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as HOPE COLES, on her own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NORWALK, NORWALK BOARD OF EDUCATION, and NORWALK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01436-JCH (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order: 1. permitting conditional certification of this collective action; and 2. authorizing, under court supervision, notice to all similarly situated employees who were employed by Defendants. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Norwalk is a U.S. city located in southwestern Connecticut. The Norwalk City School District's Board of Education is an elected board that oversees all operations of the District.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com - and - Ryan Daugherty, Esq. DAUGHERTY LAW GROUP, LLC. P.O. Box 1131 Stamford, CT 06904 Telephone: (646) 859-1674 Facsimile: (203) 724-2394 E-mail:rdaugherty@daughertylawgroup.com OCWEN LOAN: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Bess Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NANCY BESS, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC, Defendant, Case No. C15-5020 BHS (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, denied both (i) Bess' motion for class certification, and (ii) Ocwen's motion to exclude expert testimony. In 2000, Gary Bess purchased a single-family residence in Port Orchard, Washington. In 2007, Gary Bess married Nancy Bess. Gary Bess and Nancy Bess resided at the Bess residence. In November 2007, Gary Bess obtained a mortgage loan from GMAC Mortgage, LLC. The loan was secured by a Deed of Trust on the Bess residence. Although Gary Bess is identified as the sole borrower on the Deed of Trust, both Gary Bess and Nancy Bess executed the Deed of Trust. The Deed of Trust obligates the borrower to "pay when due the principal of, and interest on, the debt evidenced by the Note and any prepayment charges and late charges due under the Note." If the borrower fails to comply with the Deed of Trust's provisions, the lender or its successors and assigns may take certain actions to secure the property. On May 27, 2012, Gary Bess died intestate. Nancy Bess declared that when her husband died, she became the sole owner of the Bess residence. She declared that a few months later, she purchased a small cabin, staying in the cabin occasionally and the Bess residence regularly. The loan obligations for the Bess residence became delinquent following Gary Bess' death. Bess declared that on Oct. 29, 2013, Ocwen's vendor CoreLogic changed the locks on the Bess residence. In deposition, Bess testified that she changed the locks back within eight days and her locks remained on the property from early November 2013 until February or March 2014 when they were changed again. Bess declares that she believes Ocwen charged her inspection and property preservation fees each time it entered her home. She declares that Ocwen initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings on March 7, 2014 and foreclosure was completed on July 29, 2014. On Nov. 10, 2014, Bess filed a class action complaint against Ocwen in the Kitsap County Superior Court for the State of Washington. On Jan. 12, 2015, Ocwen removed the case to the Court. On Jan. 13, 2015, Ocwen filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted with leave to amend on March 16, 2015. On March 27, 2015, Bess filed her first amended complaint. Bess alleged the following claims against Ocwen: (1) common law trespass; (2) statutory trespass; (3) violation of RCW 7.28.230; (4) violation of the Deed of Trust Act; (5) violations of the Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"); (6) breach of contract; and (7) unjust enrichment. On April 9, 2015, Ocwen filed a second motion to dismiss, which the Court granted with leave to amend on June 1, 2015. On June 9, 2015, Bess filed a notice of intent not to amend. On June 18, 2015, the Court dismissed Bess' claims with prejudice. On July 6, 2015, Bess filed a notice of appeal. On March 9, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its memorandum disposition affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding, and on April 2, 2018, the Ninth Circuit entered its mandate. On March 15, 2019, Bess filed a motion to certify a class with the following membership: All persons who own or owned real property in Washington subject to a deed of trust or mortgage serviced or held by Ocwen whose property Ocwen or its agents Altisource or CoreLogic entered prior to the completion of a foreclosure sale and changed one or more lock between Nov. 10, 2010 and July 7, 2016. On June 7, 2019, Ocwen responded to the motion for class certification. On June 28, 2019, the Court denied Ocwen's motion to stay. On July 26, 2019, Bess replied to her motion for class certification. On July 31, Ocwen surreplied seeking to strike all testimony from Bess's expert Dr. John A. Kilpatrick, which Bess submitted in support of her motion for certification. On Aug. 9, 2019, Ocwen filed a motion to exclude Kilpatrick's testimony from the class certification record. On Aug. 26, 2019, Bess responded. On Aug. 29, 2019, Ocwen replied. On Nov. 21, 2019, Ocwen filed a notice of supplemental authority. Judge Settle concludes that though Kilpatrick appears to have substantial credentials in his field, Bess fails to persuade the Court that the methodology he proposes is sufficiently reliable as a common methodology such that damages "could feasibly and efficiently be calculated once the common liability questions are adjudicated." Following the Ninth Circuit's instruction that the appropriate consideration at certification is the weight and persuasiveness of evidence, not its admissibility, the Court finds Kilpatrick's methodology has little or no persuasive value but denies Ocwen's motion to exclude. Giving Kilpatrick's proposed methodology little or no weight, the Judge finds that Bess has failed to show individual issues regarding the rental value of each property would not predominate if the class were certified as proposed. Therefore, he denies the motion to certify the class. Accordingly, Judge Settle denied both (i) Bess' motion for class certification, and (ii) Ocwen's motion to exclude expert testimony. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/hojmxp from Leagle.com. Nancy Bess, Plaintiff, represented by Clay M Gatens -- clayg@jdsalaw.com -- Honea Lee Lewis -- leel@jdsalaw.com -- at JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD; Michael Duane Daudt -- mdaudt@tmdwlaw.com -- at TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian M Forbes -- brian.m.forbes@klgates.com -- Robert W Sparkes -- robert.sparkes@klgates.com -- Joanne M Hepburn -- joanne.hepburn@klgates.com -- at K&L GATES LLP. OMAHA, NE: Court Narrows Claims in MOPOA Suit Over Housing Code --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, METROPOLITAN OMAHA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and ROOSEVELT LEE, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF OMAHA, JEAN STOTHERT, in her individual and official capacity; JAY DAVIS, in his individual and official capacity; PAUL KRATZ, in his individual and official capacity; JANE DOES, and JOHN DOES, Defendants, Case No. 8:19CV341 (D. Neb.), Judge Laurie Smith Camp of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska granted in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff Metropolitan Omaha Property Owners Association, Inc. ("MOPOA") is a Nebraska non-profit corporation. It consists of approximately 1,000 individuals and entities that own and operate real property located in Omaha, Nebraska. The Defendants include the City of Omaha and a list of city officials, including Mayor Jean Stothert, Superintendent of Permits and Inspections Jay Davis, City Attorney Paul Kratz, and unknown Jane and John Does who the Plaintiffs anticipate are agents or representatives of the City. The action arises out of an earlier class action lawsuit in the Court, in which MOPOA brought a number of claims regarding the City's housing code. The parties settled that action, and the Court adopted the terms of the settlement agreement through a consent decree. The parties to the Consent Decree agreed to certain amendments of the Omaha Municipal Code and established standard operating procedures which were to serve as the official policies of the City's Permits and Inspection Division. On Nov. 17, 2015, the City adopted the Vacant and Abandoned Property Ordinance ("VAPO"). The VAPO went into effect Dec. 2, 2015. The stated purpose of the VAPO is to establish a mechanism to protect residential and non-residential neighborhoods from becoming blighted through the lack of maintenance and security of abandoned properties. The VAPO authorizes the Superintendent of the City's Permits and Inspection Division to investigate properties that may be abandoned, vacant, or neglected, as defined by the VAPO, and to notify the responsible party of its obligation to register the property under the VAPO. A responsible party must complete the necessary maintenance and security measures, such that the property no longer requires registration, within 30 days of receiving notice from the City or register the property pursuant to the VAPO. A registration fee of $500, payable by the responsible party, is due at the time of registration as well as an additional $500 for each 90-day period during which the property is registered. Plaintiff Roosevelt Lee is an African-American male who resides in and owns real property in Omaha, Nebraska. Lee is a member of MOPOA. He owns rental property in Omaha. In 2018, Lee's property was registered as abandoned and/or vacant under the VAPO. The City did not provide Lee with notice prior to his registration, give him an opportunity to cure, or permit him to appeal or contest the registration. On Aug. 6, 2019, the Plaintiffs brought the action, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, alleging seven claims for relief. Count III alleges the VAPO is unlawful and unconstitutional because it violates the Consent Decree, unjustly enriches the City, is discriminatory toward, and has a disparate impact on, minorities, and violates the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Count V of the Complaint alleges the VAPO is unconstitutional in its entirety, and that eight sections are unconstitutional for numerous reasons. Count I of the Complaint seeks an order from the Court finding the Defendants in contempt for breaching the Consent Decree. Count II of the Complaint alleges the VAPO is an unconstitutional tax under the Nebraska Constitution. Count IV of the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"). Count VI alleges violation of procedural due process. Plaintiffs' final claim for relief, Count VII, alleges that the VAPO, and the City's enforcement thereof, constitutes an unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 21 of the Nebraska Constitution. The Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, seven claims for relief arising out of the City's enactment of the VAPO. The Plaintiffs generally allege that these claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981-1983, 1985, 3613; the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and the Court's inherent power to enforce its own orders, judgments, and decrees. The Plaintiffs also generally allege that the Defendants should be held liable both in their individual and official capacities as coconspirators. They allege the VAPO constitutes a breach of the Consent Decree, is an unlawful and unconstitutional tax, violates the Fair Housing Act, is unconstitutional, deprives them of procedural due process, and constitutes an unlawful taking without just compensation. On Sept. 27, 2019, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, seeking dismissal of the Plaintiffs' action with prejudice. The Defendants argue that the Complaint does not give sufficient notice to the individual Plaintiffs of the claims against them. They further argue that the Plaintiffs allege only conclusory legal allegations and bring every conceivable claim against every conceivable defendant in a "kitchen sink" or "shotgun" complaint. Judge Camp granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. All claims against Defendants Jean Stothert, Jay Davis, Paul Kratz, Jane Does, and John Does are dismissed without prejudice. Counts III, IV, V, and VII are dismissed, without prejudice. Count VI, to the extent it alleges the VAPO facially deprives the Defendants of due process, is dismissed without prejudice. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is otherwise denied. Among other things, the Judge finds that Count I of the Complaint states a plausible cause of action for breach of the Consent Decree. First, the Plaintiffs refer to the Consent Decree elsewhere in the Complaint and seem to argue that a violation of the Consent Decree somehow implicates Section 1983. However, they may not enforce the Consent Decree through Section 1983. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are limited to enforcing the Consent Decree through the motion for contempt. Second, MOPOA negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree in exchange for dismissing MOPOA I. Lee, a member of MOPOA and representative of the putative class, has had the VAPO enforced against him. His property was registered under the VAPO as abandoned and/or vacant. Under the VAPO, a responsible party of a registered property incurs a duty to pay $500 to the City or a lien will be imposed on the registered property. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have alleged standing to assert that the Defendants breached the Consent Decree. Third, the Judge finds that the provisions have been enforced against Lee and other members of MOPOA. Lee's property has been registered as abandoned and/or vacant, and as a result he has incurred an obligation to pay $500 or suffer a lien on the property. As for Count II, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the VAPO is an unconstitutional or unlawful tax. The Plaintiffs allege the VAPO is, in effect, a tax on abandoned, vacant, or neglected properties the City was without power to enact. The VPRA explicitly applies only to villages and cities of the first or second class. Omaha is a city of the metropolitan class. Also, the Defendants argue the Legislature could have preempted the City in the VPRA but chose not to. The Nebraska Supreme Court has not allowed for such implied grants of authority. The Clerk is directed to amend the caption to remove Defendants Jean Stothert, Jay Davis, Paul Kratz, Jane Does, and John Does. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 10, 2019 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/sQs4rb from Leagle.com. Metropolitan Omaha Property Owners Association, Inc. & Roosevelt Lee, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason M. Bruno, SHERRETS, BRUNO LAW FIRM & Robert S. Sherrets, SHERRETS, BRUNO LAW FIRM. The City of Omaha, Defendant, represented by Jennifer N. Taylor, CITY OF OMAHA. PALMCO ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abramson Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- STEWART ABRAMSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALMCO ENERGY PA L.L.C d/b/a INDRA ENERGY, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01675-MJH (W.D. Pa., Dec. 30, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Palmco Energy PA L.L.C d/b/a Indra Energy is a family owned and operated energy supply company offering electricity and natural gas to homes and businesses in several states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayton S. Morrow, Esq. MORROW & ARTIM, PC 304 Ross Street, 7th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-1250 E-mail: csm@consumerlaw365.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com PAPA JOHN'S: DeSalvo Sues Alleging Violation of Disabilities Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Papa John's USA. The case is captioned as Brett DeSalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Papa John's USA, Inc. and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00171-ODW-MAA (C.D. Cal., Jan. 7, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, demanding $5 million in damages. Papa John's was founded in 1993. The company's line of business includes owning or leasing franchises, patents, and copyrights, which they in turn license others to use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq. Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com PEP BOYS: Al Zinnah Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Deductions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sikder Al Zinnah, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack of Delaware, Inc., Case No. 701394/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Jan. 27, 2020), is brought to recover the Plaintiff's unpaid wages and unlawful wage deductions pursuant to the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 45-50 or more hours a week for the Defendant but the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and all those similarly situated class members all their wages, including overtime and non-overtime wages. The Defendant also failed to display federal and state minimum wage/overtime posters as required by NYLL, says the complaint. Plaintiff Al Zinnah was employed by the Defendant from June 2019 to September 12, 2019. The Defendant was engaged in the business of servicing and repairing automobiles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Phone: 718-740-1000 Fax: 718-740-2000 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com POCH PERSONNEL: Faces Samuels Employee Class Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Poch Personnel Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Virginia Samuels, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Poch Personnel Inc., a Michigan Corporation; Midwest Construction Services Inc., a Michigan Corporation; Poch Staffing Inc., a Michigan Corporation; and Trillium Driver Solutions Inc., a Michigan Corporation; and Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2020-00272496-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super, Sacramento Cty., Jan. 3, 2020). The case alleges violation of employment-related laws. The Defendants provide staffing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com POLK COUNTY, FL: Class Cert. Bid in Conrad Case's Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CONRAD CASE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRADY JUDD, in his official capacity as Polk County Sheriff, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00607-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington entered an order on Jan. 28, 2020, denying Plaintiff's Rule 23 motion for class certification. The Court says, "Given the peculiar situation in which Case only worked the equivalent of 31 workweeks (less than 8 months) over a 16-year period, Case's situation would not be representative of the class. Case fails to satisfy the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b): adequate representation." Mr. Case initiated this putative class action on March 11, 2019, alleging Sheriff Judd violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act by denying him and other class members promotions due to their military service, and by denying veteran preferences under Florida Statutes.[CC] PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE: Marazzito Sues Over Unknown Documentary Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL MARAZZITO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE GROUP LLC and FERNANDO COSTA, Case No. MID-L-000106-20 (N.J. Super., Middlesex Cty, Jan. 6, 2020), arises from the Defendants' practice of inflating vehicle sale prices by adding an unitemized and unspecified "Documentary fee" to the total price charged for its vehicles, in violation of the Automotive Sales Practices Regulation and the Consumer Fraud Act. On October 3, 2019, the Plaintiff went to Premier Automotive' dealership in Belleville, New Jersey, and purchased a used 2004 Jeep Liberty. Premier Automotive provided the Plaintiff with a form called the "Retail Buyer's Order." The Retail Buyer's Order is a form used in the car dealership industry to disclose the total price of the vehicle being sold, and the components of the total price, such as options, dealership fees, motor vehicle fees, and sales tax. The Retail Buyer's Order form used by Premier Automotive includes a pre-printed line item labeled "Documentary fee." The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have adopted the practice of adding a charge of $199 or more to the total price of vehicles sold at retail, described as a "Documentary fee" in the sales documents, without further specification or itemization. The Plaintiff asserts that because the Defendants failed to specify each actual documentary service charged in exchange for the purported "Documentary fee," they were prohibited by the ASP Regulation from charging the fee, and that the Plaintiff and all other consumers, who were charged these prohibited fees, suffered ascertainable loss in the amount charged. The action seeks treble damages on behalf of the Plaintiff and other consumers, who were charged the Defendants' prohibited "Documentary fee." The action also seeks statutory damages of not less than $100 on behalf of the Plaintiff and the putative class members pursuant to the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. Premier Automotive operates a car dealership located at 372 Washington Ave., in Belleville, New Jersey. Mr. Costa, is the owner and principal of Premier Automotive.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Wolf, Esq. WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC 1520 U.S. Hwy 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08920 Telephone: (732) 545-7900 Facsimile: (732) 545-1030 E-mail: awolf@wolflawfirm.net - and - Henry P. Wolfe, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF HENRY P. WOLFE LLC 17A Joyce Kilmer Ave. N New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1951 Telephone: (732) 325-3500 tel E-mail: henry@wolfeconsumerlaw.com PRO TREE: Court Approves Settlement in Hernandez Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Francisco Hernandez, the Plaintiff, v. Pro Tree Service, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18−cv−04503 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Cole entered an order granting a motion for approval of the Parties' stipulation of settlement, according to the docket entry made by the Clerk. As reported by the Class Action Reporter, the Defendant has agreed to fund a Total Settlement Amount of $78,500. The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at time and a half their regular rate for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks.[CC] Attorney for the Plaintiff is: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1224 Chicago, IL 60604 Pro Tree provides tree trimming, tree removal, land clearing, and more to Chicago and the surrounding suburbs.[CC] PROSHARES TRUST: Court Dismisses Second Amended Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") in IN RE PROSHARES TRUST II SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 19cv0886 (DLC) (S.D. N.Y.). SVXY is a derivative financial product that loses value when stock market volatility rises and gains value when the market is calm. On Feb. 6, 2018, the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") halted trading for several hours in SVXY. When trading resumed in the late morning, the SVXY share price had suffered a sharp drop. The putative class action is brought on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired SVXY shares between May 15, 2017 and Feb. 6, 2018. The Plaintiffs principally assert that a May 15, 2017 Registration Statement and related filings for the SVXY Fund contained material omissions. ProShares Trust II is a Delaware statutory trust that manages investment funds with combined assets of $29 billion. Among the investment funds managed by ProShares are inverse and leveraged exchange-traded funds ("ETFs"). The SAC alleges that ProShares is one of the world's largest managers of these types of ETFs. During the Class Period, the Fund's declared "investment objective" was to achieve results that corresponded to the inverse (-1x) of the daily performance of the VIX Short-Term Futures Index. For example, if the VIX Short-Term Futures Index decreased by 5% on a given day due to low market volatility, the Fund's investment objective was to increase by 5% that same day. Purchasing SVXY shares allowed investors to hedge investment risk and diversify investment portfolios. The SAC asserts five causes of action: (1) that all the Defendants are liable under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, for distributing a materially misleading registration statement; (2) that the ProShares Defendants are liable as control persons under Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection with the Section 11 violations; (3) that the ProShares Defendants committed fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; (4) that the ProShares Defendants are liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, in connection with the Section 10(b) violations; and (5) that the ProShares Defendants violated Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K. On Sept. 27, 2019, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' SAC pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. This motion became fully submitted on November 1. The Defendants argue that the heightened pleading requirements applicable to the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim also should apply to their Section 11 claim, because it is "grounded in fraud." Judge Cote finds that it is not necessary to determine which standard should be used to review the Plaintiffs' Section 11 claim. The Section 11 claim fails regardless of which standard applies. The Registration Statement discloses the primary omission alleged by the Plaintiffs -- that the late-afternoon rebalancing of the Fund's portfolio could cause illiquidity in the VIX futures contract market. The Registration Statement makes clear that "substantially all" of the Fund's assets were invested in VIX futures contracts. It explains that these assets can be "highly volatile" and that the Fund could "experience large losses when buying, selling, or holding such instruments." It further warns that this volatility could result in an "adverse impact" beyond the impact of "any performance-based losses of the underlying indexes." The SAC's allegations of other deficiencies also fail. First, the Registration Statement explains that potential losses could result from rebalancing occurring between 4:00 and 4:15 p.m. Second, the Plaintiffs' argument that the Registration Statement is misleading for not disclosing that losses could occur in a matter of "minutes" fails on account of the described disclosures. Third, their argument that the Registration Statement failed to adequately warn investors that losses would not necessarily correspond to the inverse of the VIX Short-Term Futures Index is unpersuasive. Finally, the Plaintiffs' argument regarding the table estimating losses over one year fails, too. The warning suffices to alert investors that market illiquidity could cause "significantly" worse returns than what is shown in the table. No reasonable investor reading the Registration Statement would understand otherwise. Turning to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Judge finds that the Registration Statement adequately warns that the degree of risk could change over time depending on liquidity in the VIX futures contracts. The SAC does not adequately plead that there was a duty to update the Registration Statement, as it already disclosed precisely what the Plaintiffs allege was omitted -- that the degree of risk could increase over time. Finally, as to the Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K, the Judge finds that events that are not reasonably likely to be material under Item 303 are not among the most significant factors rendering an offering speculative or risky under Item 105. Also, the Registration Statement included "ample warning" of the risks. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Cote granted the Defendants' Sept. 27, 2019 motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court will close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/n1Eu0J from Leagle.com. David A. Ford, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbi ns Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Great Point Capital LLC, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP & Nicholas Ian Porritt, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. Kershner Trading Group, LLC, Movant, represented by Barbara J. Hart -- bhart@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg P.C. Emre Enginarlar & Dibyendu Basu, Movants, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Eitan Kimelman, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman & Peretz Bronstein, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman. Thomas Butler, III, Anthony Ludovici & Lisa Ludovici, Movants, represented by Danielle Suzanne Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Avital Orly Malina, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Erin Whitney Boardman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Lucas E. Gilmore, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Magdalene Economou, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Reed R. Kathreine, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Vincent Michael Serra, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Fei Liu & Stacy Smith, Movants, represented by Danielle Suzanne Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Reed R. Kathreine, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Vincent Michael Serra, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. ProShares Trust II, ProShare Capital Management LLC, Todd B. Johnson, Edward Karpowicz, Michael L. Sapir & Louis M. Mayberg, Defendants, represented by Robert A. Skinner -- Robert.Skinner@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP, Amy D. Roy -- Amy.Roy@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP, Elissa C. Reidy -- Elissa.Uspensky@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP & Jessica M. Bergin -- Jessica.Bergin@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP. ABN AMRO Clearing Chicago LLC, Banca IMI Securities Corp., Barclays Capital Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., HRT Financial LLC, Jefferies LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Knight Execution & Clearing Services, LLC, Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., Mizuho Securities USA LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities, LLC, Timber Hill, LLC, UBS Securities LLC, Virtu Financial BD LLC & Wedbush Securities, Inc., Defendants, represented by Adam Selim Hakki, Shearman & Sterling LLP, Agnes Dunogue, Shearman & Sterling LLP & Daniel Craig Lewis, Shearman & Sterling LLP. Leon Fidel, Defendant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Eitan Kimelman, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman & Peretz Bronstein, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman. QUANTUM GLOBAL: $126K Taafu Suit Deal Denied Initial Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PANIANI TAAFUA, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUANTUM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06602-VKD (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, denied the motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. On Oct. 30, 2018, Plaintiff Taafua filed the action for himself, and on behalf of a putative class, for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), based on a disclosure form used by Defendant Quantum Global Technologies ("QGT") that reportedly included an extraneous liability waiver. Mr. Taafua is asserting two claims for relief based on alleged violation of FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) and Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii). The complaint defines the putative class as follows: All persons in the United States who signed a background check form as administrated by First Contact HR that included an authorization and a liability release clause at any time during the period beginning five years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court. The complaint seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. The Court held an initial case management conference in the matter on Feb. 5, 2019. Shortly afterward, QGT moved to transfer the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), for the convenience of the parties and in the interest of justice, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Taafua opposed that motion, and that matter was fully briefed. However, on May 9, 2019, just prior to the noticed motion hearing, the parties advised that they reached a settlement. For settlement purposes, the class period begins on Oct. 30, 2013 (i.e., five years prior to the filing of Mr. Taafua's complaint) and ends on Dec. 31, 2018. Additionally, the scope of the putative class has been narrowed to QGT applicants and/or employees who were the subject of a consumer report procured, or caused to be procured, by QGT: all individuals who applied for employment with and/or were employed by the Defendant in the United States and were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by the Defendant or caused to be procured by the Defendant through third-party consumer reporting agency First Contact HR during the Class Period. The proposed settlement is non-reversionary and contemplates a release of claims in return for a total payment of $125,902. From the $125,902 Global Settlement Fund, the parties anticipate that $16,000 will be paid to cover settlement administration costs. Additionally, Mr. Taafua's attorneys seek an award of approximately 33.33% of the Global Settlement Fund, or $41,967.33, plus $3,000 in costs, for a total of $44,967.33. Mr. Taafua also requests a $5,000 service award. The remaining $59,934.67 is to be distributed to an estimated class of 1,0415 members as to whom 1,476 consumer reports were obtained. The amount of each individual payment will equal the Net Settlement Fund divided by the number of consumer reports obtained for the Settlement Class Members. The number of reports obtained for each member may vary, and individual members may be entitled to more or less money, depending on the number of reports that were obtained for that individual. Settlement checks that are not cashed within 180 days of issuance will be void. Any unclaimed portion of the Global Settlement Fund will be given as a cy pres award to the Education Fund of the National Association of Consumer Advocates ("NACA"), identified in the moving papers as a non-profit organization. The Settlement Agreement provides that the Global Settlement Fund may be increased at QGT's discretion, if (as verified by the settlement administrator) the number of consumer reports QGT procured increases more than 5% over the original estimate of 1,476. However, the Settlement Agreement also provides that Mr. Taafua has the option to terminate the settlement if QGT declines to increase the Global and/or Net Settlement Fund. Additionally, if (as verified by the settlement administrator) the number of putative class members increases more than 5% beyond the current estimate, then no increase in the Global Settlement Fund is contemplated. However, QGT agrees to pay for any resulting increase in the settlement administrative costs. After discussing two potential third party settlement administrators, and using a bid process, the parties agreed to use JND Legal Administration, which submitted a lower bid. Mr. Taafua now moves for preliminary approval of the settlement. QGT does not oppose the motion. The Court held a hearing on the motion on Aug. 27, 2019. Pursuant to the Court's order, the parties subsequently submitted supplemental briefing on certain issues. According to Judge De Marchi, she is unable to preliminarily approve the class settlement because Mr. Taafua has not demonstrated that the putative class can be certified under Rule 23 or that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. Thus, his motion for preliminary approval is denied. The Judge set a further case management conference for Feb. 4, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss further proceedings and any necessary modifications to the current case management schedule. The parties were directed to file a joint case management statement no later than Jan. 28, 2020. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/sNQaDC from Leagle.com. Paniani Taafua, Plaintiff, represented by Kelsey M. Szamet, Kingsley and Kingsley, APC, Emil Davtyan, Davtyan Professional Law Corporation, Eric B. Kingsley, Kingsley & Kingsley, APC & Liane Katzenstein Ly, Kingsley & Kingsley, APC. Quantum Global Technologies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Melinda S. Riechert -- melinda.riechert@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Aleksandr Markelov -- aleksandr.markelov@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP & Andrew Paul Frederick -- andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Zurakov Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as CINDY ZURAKOV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00128-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff has filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com ROUSSELOT PEABODY: Facility Emits Noxious Odors, Baranofsky Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BARANOFSKY, KIMBERLEY GALE, LAWRENCE ESSEMBER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ROUSSELOT PEABODY INC., Case No. 20CV14A (Mass. Super., Essex Cty., Jan 3, 2020), seeking monetary and injunctive relief for property damage involving thousands of putative class members caused by the Defendant's nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, and trespass. Rousselot owns and operates a gelatin manufacturing facility located in Peabody, Massachusetts. Through its operation of the facility, the Defendant allegedly released, and continues to release, noxious odors that invade the Plaintiffs' property, causing property damage through nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, and trespass. The Plaintiffs contend they and members of the putative class suffer from physical discomfort because of the Defendant's noxious odors, including nausea, vomiting, and headaches. The foul odors emitted from the Plant are offensive, would be offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary health and sensibilities, and have caused property damage, including by interfering with the ability of Plaintiffs and the Class to use and enjoy their homes and property. The invasion of the Plaintiffs' property and that of the Class by noxious odors has reduced the value of that property and has interfered with the use and enjoyment of that property, resulting in damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Essex County.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Doyle, Esq. COLONNA & DOYLE 26 Main Street, 3rd Floor Lynnfield, MA 01940 Telephone: (781) 245-11271 Facsimile: (781) 245-1148 E-mail: bill@colonna-doyle.com - and - Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Laura Sheets, Esq. Matthew Z. Robb, Esq. LIDDLE & DUBIN PC 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207-3101 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Facsimile: (313) (313) 392-0025 E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com lsheets@ldclassaction.com mrobb@ldclassaction.com RUST-OLEUM CORP: Garrard Sues Over Efficacy of Restore Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Allen Garrard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00612 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 27, 2020), arises from the Defendant's marketing and sale of Rust-Oleum Restore products, specifically Rust-Oleum Deck Start Wood Primer, Restore 2X One Coat Solid Stain, and Restore 4X Deck Coat. Rust-Oleum sold Restore Products to Missouri consumers for the purpose of resurfacing wooden structures, but the Company misrepresented, omitted, and concealed material information concerning the efficacy of Restore Products, including (1) Restore Products are more prone to chipping, peeling, and flaking than comparable wood resurfacing products; (2) Restore Products do not last longer than comparable products and, instead, they deteriorate more quickly than comparable products; and (3) Restore Products do not provide enhanced protection that is superior to comparable products despite a premium price charged for Restore Products, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that Rust-Oleum has concealed and omitted material facts relating to the Restore Products in violation of the law and to the detriment of consumers. The Plaintiff adds that Rust-Oleum charges a premium for its products, consumers pay enhanced prices for Restore Products, and that consumers have not received the benefit of their bargain in that they have not received the product they purchased. The Plaintiff purchased his Restore Products in the State of Missouri, and suffered damages as a result of Rust-Oleum's alleged conduct within Missouri. Rust-Oleum Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Vernon Hills, Illinois. Rust-Oleum Corporation is owned by RPM International, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trent B. Miracle, Esq. Eric Johnson, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY 100 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1350 Los Angeles, CA 90245 Phone: (310) 322-3555 Email: tmiracle@simmonsfirm.com ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com - and - Mitchel M. Breit, Esq. Jay Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-7416 Phone: (212) 784-6400 Email: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com - and - Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Amy R. Jackson, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: (816) 945-7110 Fax: (816) 945-7118 Email: matt@williamsdirks.com amy@williamsdirks.com SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA: Faces Okun Civil Rights Suit in C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the County of San Luis Obispo, et al. The case is captioned as Douglas Charles Okun, individually and on behalf of a Class of Persons similarly situated v. County of San Luis Obispo; San Luis Obispo Probation Office; James Salio, Chief Probation Officer; Arnold Nelson, Probation Officer; James Macias, Probation Officer; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00178-PA-GJS (C.D. Cal., Jan. 7, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson. The suit alleges violation of Civil Rights Act. San Luis Obispo is a county in Central California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Stein, Esq. STEIN-CONWAY LAW FIRM, PC 1119 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 748-5243 - and - Bruce W. Nickerson, Esq. BRUCE W. NICKERSON LAW OFFICES 231 Manor Dr. San Carlos, CA 94070 Telephone: (650) 594-0195 Facsimile: (650) 596-0595 E-mail: brucenic@pacbell.net SANDERSON FARMS: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Gamm Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GORDON GAMM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DON PRITCHARD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SANDERSON FARMS, INC., JOE F. SANDERSON, JR., MICHAEL D. COCKRELL, LAMPKIN BUTTS, Defendants-Appellees, Docket No. 18-0284-cv (2d. Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Appellants' complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The case is one of several shareholder suits brought against chicken producers following the wave of antitrust suits and accompanying stock price drops. The complaint alleged as a basis for a securities fraud class action suit, that appellees, producers of chicken, engaged in an illegal antitrust conspiracy, the non-disclosure of which rendered various SEC filings false and misleading under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On Oct. 28, 2016, the Appellants filed a putative class action in the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased Sanderson Farms shares between Dec. 17, 2013 and Nov. 17, 2016. On Feb. 13, 2017, Appellants Gamm and Don Pritchard were appointed as the Lead Plaintiffs, and Pomerantz LLP was appointed the lead counsel. On March 30, 2017, the Appellants filed an amended complaint. On May 18, 2017, at a conference before Judge Berman, the counsel for the parties set a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss and response. Judge Berman, pursuant to his individual practices, requested that the parties submit pre-motion letters. The court explained to the Appellants that, through the pre-motion letters, appellants would be able to determine appellees' "bases" for dismissal, and amend their complaint a second time, accordingly. However, it cautioned that any second amended complaint would be the last amendment, stating, that if the Appellants were to lose the motion to dismiss, the court would not provide further leave to amend. Pre-motion letters were submitted on May 25 and June 1, 2017. On June 15, 2017, the Appellants filed a second amended complaint, alleging that Appellee Sanderson and its CEO Joe F. Sanderson, Jr., CFO Michael D. Cockrell, and COO Lampkin Butts violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making statements that were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose material adverse information and misrepresented the truth about Sanderson Farms' finances and business prospects. The Appellees moved to dismiss for failure to adequately plead the elements of securities fraud on June 29, 2017. On Jan. 19, 2018, the district court granted the Appellees' motion to dismiss with prejudice. Observing that the case was "strikingly similar" to the suit against Tyson Foods, Inc., the district court concluded that because the Plaintiffs fail to support their allegation of a chicken supply reduction conspiracy with particularized facts, they had not properly alleged a Section 10(b) violation. The case was timely appealed. The Second Circuit holds that the Appellants have failed to plead the first element of antitrust conspiracy agreement at even a basic level, much less with particularity. Furthermore, on the second and third elements of an antitrust conspiracy, they have provided no allegations. The complaint is entirely silent as to whether the supply reductions or the Georgia Dock manipulations unreasonably restrained trade, and whether that restraint affected interstate commerce. The complaint merely attempts to establish fraud by innuendo, and accordingly, its pleadings are insufficient. In view of his disposition of the matter, the Second Circuit need not reach the issues of scienter, reliance, or control person liability under Section 20 of the Exchange Act. For the foregoing reasons, the Second Circuit holds that when a securities fraud complaint claims that statements were rendered false or misleading through the nondisclosure of illegal activity, the facts of the underlying illegal acts must be pleaded with particularity in accordance with the requirements of Rule 9 and the PSLRA. Because the Appellants have failed to meet this pleading standard for the underlying allegations of illegal antitrust conspiracy, their complaint was deficient. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed. A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's Dec. 10, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/6LJTCd from Leagle.com. TAMAR A. WEINREB -- taweinrib@pomlaw.com -- (Marc I. Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY, on the brief) for Plaintiffs-Appellants. JOSHUA Z. RABINOVITZ -- joshua.rabinovitz@kirkland.com -- (Robert J. Kopecky -- robert.kopecky@kirkland.com -- Nathaniel J. Kritzer -- nathaniel.kritzer@kirkland.com -- Stacy Pepper -- stacy.pepper@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL and New York, NY, on the brief) for Defendants-Appellees. SEIU LOCAL 668: First Amended Wenzig Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in JANINE WENZIG and CATHERINE KIOUSSIS, Plaintiffs, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 668, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:19-1367 (M.D. Pa.), The Plaintiffs bring the civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. They are both employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Wenzig is employed by the Department of Human Services as a Licensing Supervisor and Kioussis is an Income Maintenance Supervisor. SEIU is a labor union with its headquarters in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and it is the exclusive representative for several bargaining units in the state, including the Plaintiffs' bargaining unit. As members of the bargaining unit represented by SEIU, the Plaintiffs received the benefits of the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between SEIU and Pennsylvania. However, even though they were not members of SEIU, they allege that the union was legally allowed to collect fair share fees from them under Pennsylvania's Public Employee Fair Share Fee Law, since it represented them in collective bargaining. Under state law, SEIU negotiated with the state for the collection of fair share fees from nonmembers, including the Plaintiffs. Under the CBA, prior to June 27, 2018, all employees in the collective bargaining units who were represented by SEIU and who were not union members, such as the Plaintiffs, were forced to pay "fair-share fees" to SEIU as a condition of their public employment. The Plaintiffs further allege that before June 27, 2018, government employers covered by the CBA deducted fair share fees from them and other nonmembers' wages without their consent and, transferred those funds to SEIU, which collected those funds. The Plaintiffs also allege that as of 2018, agency fees were assessed by SEIU at 0.85% of an employee's gross income; union member paid dues of 1.39% of gross income. As such, the Plaintiffs aver that SEIU should have known that its seizure of fair share fees from non-consenting employees likely violated the First Amendment. The Plaintiffs also seek to bring the case as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) for themselves and for all others similarly situated. They define the proposed class as all current and former employees from whom SEIU collected fair share fees pursuant to its collective bargaining agreement with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs raise one claim in their first amended complain (FAC), namely, a First Amendment claim. Specifically, they allege that SEIU violated their and the class members' First Amendment rights to free speech and association, as secured against state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, by requiring the payment of fair share fees as a condition of employment and by collecting such fees. As relief, the Plaintiffs request declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2201(a), declaring that SEIU violated the Plaintiffs' and the class members' constitutional rights by compelling them to pay fair share fees as a condition of their employment and by collecting fair-share fees from them without consent. Additionally, they seek monetary damages in the full amount of fair share fees and assessments seized from their wages, as well as costs and attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988. The Plaintiffs are proceeding on her FAC filed on Oct. 28, 2019. On Nov. 5, 2019, SEIU filed its motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC. On Nov. 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition. SEIU filed its reply brief on Dec. 3, 2019. The Defendant's motion seeks dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). SEIU contends that the Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims against it, in the putative class action, for retrospective monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 should be dismissed since it relied in good faith on the formerly valid Pennsylvania law and longstanding United States Supreme Court precedent that allowed it to collect fair-share fees from public-sector employees who were not members of the union. Judge Mannion concurs with the numerous cases which have found that unions, such as SEIU, that collected fair-share fees from nonmembers prior to Jamus v. AFSCME, and pursuant to state law and Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, can assert the good-faith defense to Section 1983 liability for the First Amendment claims raised by the Plaintiffs. Thus, he will grant SEIU's motion and dismiss with prejudice the Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims seeking to hold the union retrospectively liable under Section 1983. Based on the foregoing, he finds futility in allowing the Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. The Plaintiffs next contend that even if SEIU acted in good faith in receiving fair-share fees, it could not have a good faith belief that if Abood was overruled, it could keep the fair-share fees that it previously collected. Thus, they assert that they have an equitable claim for the return of the fair-share fees SEIU collected from them before Jamus. SEIU counters that the Plaintiffs have no equitable claim for the return of the fees they paid prior to Janus. The Judge concurs with the courts in Diamond v. Pa. State Educ. Ass'n and Hartnett v. Pennsylvania State Education Association, and holds that the Plaintiffs' claim for declarative judgment is moot based on Jamus and, based on the undisputed fact that SEIU stopped collecting fair-share fees from state non-union member employees, including the Plaintiffs, following the Janus decision. Also, as in Diamond, the Judge finds that the voluntary-cessation exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply in the case since the circumstances of the case make it clear that the undisputedly wrongful behavior -- the collection of fair-share fees -- is not reasonably likely to recur after Jamus' changing of the law and the reason that SEIU stopped collecting fair-share fees from public employees in Pennsylvania. Indeed, complying with a Supreme Court decision cannot be considered voluntary cessation. As such, compliance with an intervening Supreme Court decision does not implicate the voluntary-cessation exception to the mootness doctrine. Thus, the Judge will grant SEIU's motion and dismiss with prejudice the Plaintiffs' request for declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201. Based on the foregoing reasons, Judge Mannion granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC filed by SEIU, and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims and request for declaratory judgment. Further, the case will be closed. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 10, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/Isl0Qa from Leagle.com. Janine Wenzig, Plaintiff, represented by Brian K. Kelsey, Liberty Justice Center, pro hac vice, Charles O. Beckley, II, Beckley & Madden, Jeffrey M. Schwab -- jschwab@libertyjusticecenter.org -- Liberty Justice Center, Reilly Stephens, Liberty Justice Center, pro hac vice & William L. Messenger, National Right to Work Foundation, pro hac vice. Catherine Kioussis, Plaintiff, represented by Brian K. Kelsey, Liberty Justice Center, pro hac vice, Charles O. Beckley, II, Beckley & Madden, Reilly Stephens, Liberty Justice Center, pro hac vice & William L. Messenger, National Right to Work Foundation, pro hac vice. Service Employees International Union Local 668, Defendant, represented by Lauren M. Hoye -- lhoye@wwdlaw.com -- Willig, Williams & Davidson, Scott A. Kronland -- skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP & P. Casey Pitts -- cpitts@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP. SHASTA ENTERPRISES: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Addison Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MARI ADDISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHASTA ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A NIGHT TRIPS, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00718-TCK-FHM (N.D. Okla., Dec. 30, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Addison was employed by the Defendant as exotic dancer. Shasta Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Night Trips operates a gentlemen's club in Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Taylor, Esq. 5613 North Classen Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 286-1600 Facsimile: (405) 842-6132 - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com SIRENS: $600K Settlement in Hogan Suit Gets Prelim. Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JESSICA HOGAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLEVELAND AVE RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a SIRENS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-2883 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted (i) the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; (ii) the Defendant's Separate Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; (iii) the Joint Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Class Member Claim Distribution Protocol; and (iv) the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to File the Parties' Joint Proposed Claim Form for Entertainer Subclass Members. Sirens is a Columbus-area strip club. The Plaintiffs allege that the individual Defendants (Chad Sullivan, Francis Sharrak, Michael Sharrak, Dominick Alkammo, and Jay Nelson) are Sirens' owners, managers, or other individual employers, as defined by wage and hour laws. Jessica Hogan is a former Sirens bartender. She also occasionally worked there as an exotic dancer. Ms. Hogan worked at Sirens from approximately August 2013 until June 10, 2015. DeJha Valentine is a former Sirens exotic dancer. She worked at Sirens from approximately October 2015 until the summer of 2017. The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of two subclasses of Sirens' workers -- bartenders and entertainers. Each subclass has separate claims. Plaintiff Hogan brings several claims on behalf of herself and similarly situated bartenders. First, she alleges that Sirens overcharged the bartenders to process credit card tips. Second, Hogan alleges that Sirens required bartenders who performed three or more dances in a night to tip out non-tipped employees, including security guards and disc jockeys. Third, Hogan alleges that Sirens required bartenders to use their tips to pay Sirens for any drawer shortages or overages. Fourth, Hogan alleges that Sirens required bartenders to purchase uniforms and outfits to work at the club, and that because Sirens paid the bartenders tipped minimum wage, these purchases necessarily dropped the bartenders' wages below minimum wage. Fifth, Hogan alleges that Sirens required bartenders to attend mandatory, unpaid company meetings. The Plaintiffs contend that the first three pay policies violate the FLSA's tip credit requirements, and that if Hogan proved any one of these violations, she and her fellow bartenders would be entitled to the difference between full minimum wage and the tipped minimum wage that Sirens paid. If Hogan proved that Sirens unlawfully required her and other bartenders to purchase uniforms, Sirens could be liable for the cost of the uniforms. Finally, if Hogan proved that Sirens required employees to work off-the-clock by attending mandatory, unpaid company meetings, Sirens would be liable for those unpaid wages. Both the FLSA and Ohio law allow prevailing workers to also recover additional damages and attorney's fees. Both Plaintiffs bring straightforward claims on behalf of Sirens' entertainers. Instead of the club paying the entertainers to work there, it is undisputed that the club charged entertainers various fees and rent to work at Sirens. Like many clubs in Ohio, Sirens enshrined this practice in a document called a lease agreement and referred to the practice as the tenant system or the entertainer tenant system. Although the lease agreement outlines Sirens' pay practices, it is the practices, not the agreement itself, that give rise to the Plaintiffs' claims. In other words, the Plaintiffs contend it does not matter whether someone signed the agreement. What matters, they contend, is that a woman worked for Sirens and was not paid for her work -- a policy Sirens concedes that it applied to all entertainers. Sirens also applied these practices to employees who occasionally danced, like Plaintiff Hogan. If the Plaintiffs proved that Sirens' practices violated the law, the entertainers would be entitled to full minimum wage for every hour they worked, plus additional FLSA and Ohio law damages, attorney's fees, and costs. A subclass of entertainers also raised spoliation claims against Sirens. The Plaintiffs raised those claims in two contexts, sanctions and the Ohio tort of spoliation. The Court already granted the Plaintiffs' sanctions request, which the Sirens Defendants moved to reconsider. The spoliation claim would be left for trial or summary judgment, absent the settlement. Although no specific monetary allocation is made for these claims, they will be released by the settlement. The settlement encompasses both monetary and non-monetary relief for the entertainer subclass. The Defendants purport to have fixed their pay practices with respect to the bartenders, so the Agreement provides the bartenders with only monetary relief. Sirens has agreed to pay a total of $600,000 to settle the Plaintiffs' claims. This amount is inclusive of fees, service awards, and most costs. The Plaintiffs contend that Sirens paid the vast majority of its workers nothing for the relevant time frame, about 6.5 years. Payroll records for entertainers do not exist, thus, the Plaintiffs are left to guess at the potential damages. Still, they contend this might provide a reasonable estimate: 20 entertainers at any one time × 20 hours worked per week per entertainer × 52 weeks per year × 6.5 years × approximate minimum wage of $8.20 = $1,108,640 in unpaid wages. The damages do not stop there, however, because Ohio wage law and the FLSA impose additional multipliers on unpaid wages. If combined, the Plaintiffs contend that those multipliers would add another $3,325,920 in liquidated/additional damages and that Ohio's Prompt Pay Act could add even more ($200 per person per pay period). Their antitrust claims also include damages multipliers. None of this accounts for the fees and rent the Plaintiffs and the Entertainer Subclass members paid to the Defendants, which would act as a negative wage and, thus, would also be recoverable (with FLSA/Ohio multipliers), in the Plaintiffs' view, if the case were to go forward. The ultimate result, the Plaintiffs contend, is a potential judgment of around $10 million. To determine what Sirens could pay, the Plaintiffs employed a third-party forensic accounting firm, GBQ Consulting, LLC. Rebekah Smith, who led GBQ's team on the case, provided a list of items she needed to evaluate Sirens' financial position. Sirens produced the requested items. Smith and her team thoroughly reviewed those items and, with Sirens' permission, entered Sirens' business to observe operations. Her evaluation informed the subsequent settlement negotiations. In light of the information she provided, the Plaintiffs' counsel believe the settlement is fair and reasonable. From the $600,000, the Defendants will pay bartenders who file claims 1.5 times their unpaid wages calculated as the difference between full minimum wage and the tipped minimum wage. The claims period (and hence the release) would be limited to Oct. 6, 2012 to Dec. 3, 2015, the date the Defendants claim to have ceased keeping 10% of the bartenders' tip money. If every eligible bartender filed a claim, they would be owed approximately $60,000 in unpaid wages, or $90,000 under the settlement. There are approximately 15 eligible bartenders whose claims are at issue. Unlike the situation with entertainers, the Defendants kept records of the bartenders' wages and hours, so calculating the amounts due is a straightforward exercise. After any bartenders who file claims are paid, the remainder of the $600,000 fund (again after fees, costs, etc.) will be divided among all entertainers who file claims based on the amount of weeks each worked. As the Court is aware, the Defendants' recordkeeping with respect to entertainers poses a problem when it comes to identifying, notifying, and paying these class members. Accordingly, the parties have agreed on a number of provisions aimed at remedying this issue. First, the parties have agreed on a robust notice process consisting of the following: a. The Plaintiffs will transmit by regular mail and email a class notice and claim form to any entertainer for which Defendants have contact information. b. The Plaintiffs will establish a website that will include a copy of the Notice and Claim Form. Entertainers will be able to complete the claim form by electronic signature. The Class Counsel may also post links to that website on their own webpages and social media pages. c. The Plaintiffs will create a Facebook page with links to the Notice and Claim Form. They will promote either the page itself or a relevant post on the page to individuals in Ohio who have expressed an interest in Sirens. d. The Entertainers can submit claims for up to one year. Second, the parties have agreed to a two-step process for verifying entertainers' claims. This is described in the Agreement and a motion to be filed under seal. Third, every entertainer who files a qualifying claim will receive a submission payment of $85 (which also is the minimum payment level for all entertainers). This payment is an advance on any other award they could receive. The purpose of the payment is to encourage class participation and transfer money into the entertainers' hands as quickly as possible. In addition to the monetary relief described, the Settlement Agreement affords entertainers substantial non-monetary relief. First, within 14 days of the Court's preliminary approval of the Agreement, the Defendants will begin to allow entertainers to choose whether to be employees or independent contractors. If an entertainer chooses to be an employee, then the Defendants will comply with all wage and hour laws with respect to that person. Although the Agreement allows Defendants to give entertainers a choice, the Agreement does not shield Defendants from future claims; the Defendants still would be legally responsible if they misclassify an entertainer as a non-employee. Second, if any of the Class Counsel is granted an injunction against any other Ohio strip club regarding the entertainer tenant system, or obtains comparable, non-monetary relief via a settlement, then the Defendants will be required to comply with the terms of that injunction or settlement within 24 months. The purpose for the delay is to give Defendants a benefit for settling now and to keep them from incurring a competitive disadvantage relative to the Defendants' non-settling industry peers. Third, if Defendants Sullivan or Alkammo become owners of a club, they are restricted from engaging in various activities like using an entertainer tenant system, blacklisting entertainers, or colluding with clubs to classify entertainers as non-employees. This restriction lasts for a year. The parties' Proposed Settlement Agreement would award the Plaintiff's counsel $200,000 in attorneys' fees, amounting to one-third of the total settlement amount as well as litigation expenses. The Court will make a final determination as to the award at the final approval stage. The Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to submit a tally of all hours spent on this matter as well as the total for litigation expenses at that time. The Plaintiffs propose incentive awards of $15,000 to Ms. Hogan and $10,000 to Ms. Valentine. Judge Marbley (i) is satisfied that the Proposed Settlement Agreement is not an attempt to negotiate around the FLSA's mandatory requirements of compensating employees for unpaid wages; (ii) the proposed FLSA settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (iii) finds that incentive awards are appropriate in light of the factors listed by the Plaintiff. The Judge approved the proposed notices. The Court will conduct two fairness hearings for approval of the entertainer and bartender classes. The first fairness hearing for the bartender class will take place on July 16, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The second fairness hearing for the entertainer class will take place on Jan. 27, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The parties argue that it is necessary to file the distribution protocol under seal to avoid the possibility that false claims and incorrect and unfair distributions are made. They have narrowly tailored their request to file under seal to only the distribution protocol. Since the parties have demonstrated a need to ensure that the settlement funds are fairly allocated, the Judge finds that the public's interest in disclosure of the distribution protocol is outweighed by the need to ensure the settlement fund is properly distributed. The parties may submit this protocol under seal. Finally, the Plaintiffs have also submitted to the Court for approval the parties' proposed claim form for the entertainer subclass. The Judge approved this proposed claim form. For the reasons stated, Judge Marbley granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval, and the Defendant's Separate Motion for Preliminary Approval. He also granted the parties' Joint Motion for Leave to File Under Seal, and the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to File the Parties' Joint Proposed Claim Form. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 10, 2019 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/9NsCJW from Leagle.com. Jessica Hogan, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Biller -- abiller@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, Andrew P. Kimble -- akimble@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, Jennifer J. Morales -- jmorales@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, Paul M. De Marco -- pdemarco@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC & Rachel S. Bloomekatz -- rachel@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler PLLC. Dejha Valentine, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Biller, Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC &Andrew P. Kimble, Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC. Cleveland Ave Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Sirens, Chad Sullivan, Francis Sharrak, Michael Sharrak, Dominick Alkammo & Jay Nelson, Defendants, represented by Christina Louise Corl -- ccorl@plunkettcooney.com -- Plunkett Cooney & Neil Rockind, Rockind Law, pro hac vice. Buckeye Association of Club Executives & Owners Coalition, Defendants, represented by Anthony R. Cicero -- tonycicero@gocicero.com -- & Luke Lirot, Law Office of Luke Lirot, P.A. NL Corp. Inc., Movant, represented by Scott K. Jones -- sjones@graydon.law -- Graydon, Head & Ritchey, LLP & Daniel J. Knecht -- dknecht@graydon.law -- Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP. Thirty-Eight Thirty, Inc., Movant, represented by Jonathan Bernard Freeman, Altick & Corwin. LL Entertainment LLC, Foresome Entertainment Inc. & Nolan Enterprises Inc., Movants, represented by Charles William Klausman, IV, Klausman Law Ltd.. SIRIUS XM: Dismissal Notice in Sheridan Infringement Suit Rejected ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ARTHUR SHERIDAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-04081-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Plaintiff's notice of dismissal. Typically, a plaintiff may dismiss a case without court approval prior to the defendant's filing of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because the case was filed as a putative class action, however, the parties must submit a request for dismissal that explains why dismissal will not prejudice the unnamed class members whose claims are not being resolved. Accordingly, the Court rejected the Plaintiff's notice of dismissal. The parties are directed to consult the Court's Civil Standing Order and submit a request for dismissal. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 13, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/rJ1ZC2 from Leagle.com. Arthur Sheridan, an individual & Barbara Sheridan, an individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony Lewis Abner -- tonyabner@gmail.com -- Abner & Fullerton LLP, John Michael DeStefano, III -- johnd@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Petrocelli -- dpetrocelli@omm.com -- OMelveny & Myers LLP, Cassandra Lan Seto -- cseto@omm.com -- & Evan Thomas Mayor -- Evan.Mayor@disney.com. Pandora Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Gass -- andrew.gass@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, James K. Lynch -- jim.lynch@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Brittany Nichole Lovejoy -- brittany.lovejoy@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP. SPRINGPOINT SENIOR: Faces Duffy Suit Over Consumer Fraud Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Duffy, as Executrix of the Estates of Donald H. Duffy and Theta I. Duffy, deceased, individually, and in such capacities and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Springpoint Senior Living, Inc., Springpoint at Monroe, Inc., Springpoint at Stonebridge at Montgomery, Inc. Springpoint at Crestwood, Springpoint at Meadow Lakes, Inc., Springpoint at Monroe Village, Inc., and Springpoint at Navesink Harbor, Inc., Case No. MID-L-000577-20 (N.J. Super., Middlesex Cty., Jan. 27, 2020), arises out of the Defendants' alleged consumer fraud scheme directed at one of New Jersey's most vulnerable populations--its senior citizens. The lawsuit seeks money damages and injunctive relief based upon the Defendants' fraudulent and deceitful misrepresentations, fraudulent and deceitful omissions and other marketing misconduct that violated the New Jersey Continuing Care Retirement Community Regulation and Financial Disclosure Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and/or the common law of New Jersey. According to the complaint, the Defendants conceived of and executed a deceptive scheme whereby they made misleading statements, through their marketing and sales materials, to senior citizens and their families, including the Plaintiff, that the Defendants' monthly fees are fixed, when in fact, the Defendants offered discounts off the monthly fees as a matter of practice, but did not disclose this fact in these marketing and sales materials. As a result of this practice, senior citizens and their families, including the Plaintiff, were deceived into believing that the monthly fees charged by the Defendants could not be discounted, when in fact, they could and surreptitiously were, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the class are residents of the Defendants' Monroe Village Health Care Center and Monroe Village Independent Living Community. Springpoint is in the business of owning, managing, and promoting senior citizen living facilities in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher M. Placitella, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. 127 Maple Avenue Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: (732)747-9003 - and - Carl J. Mayer Esq. MAYER LAW GROUP LLC 174 Nassau Street, Suite 414 Princeton, NJ 08542-1040 Phone: (609)921-0253 STATE FARM: Stuart Insurance Suit Deal Gets Prelim. Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JAMES STUART and CAREDA L. HOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:14-cv-4001 (W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O. Hickey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division, granted Plaintiffs Stuart and Hood's Agreed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and as the Representative Plaintiffs, on behalf of a proposed Settlement Class, and the Defendant, all acting by and through their respective counsel, have agreed, subject to Court approval, to settle the litigation upon the terms and conditions stated in the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court. On Dec. 16, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the motion. Judge Hickey preliminarily approved the Stipulation and Proposed Settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable, and granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement in all material respects, subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing. Contingent upon final approval of the Proposed Settlement, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Judge Hickey granted the Plaintiffs' motion for to conditionally certify the litigation Class previously certified herein for settlement purposes. She conditionally certified, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class: All persons and entities that received "actual cash value" payments, directly or indirectly, from State Farm for loss or damage to a dwelling or other structure located in the State of Arkansas, such payments arising from events that occurred between May 1, 2010 and Dec. 6, 2013, where the cost of labor was depreciated. The Judge preliminarily enjoined the Representative Plaintiffs and any Class Member who has not opted out from instituting, maintaining, prosecuting, suing, asserting or cooperating in any action or proceeding, whether new or existing, against any of the Released Persons for any of the Released Claims. JND Legal Administration Co. is appointed to serve as third-party administrator for the Proposed Settlement and to perform such duties as may be ordered by this Court pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation. All notices concerning the Proposed Settlement required by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 have been sent. The Parties have prepared the Class Notice, Claim Form, Publication Notice, and Postcard Notice, which have been submitted to the Court. The counsel for the Parties, along with the Administrator, are authorized to complete any missing information and to make any non-substantive revisions to these documents, as necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Settlement. Within 30 days after entry of the Order, the Administrator will send a copy of the Class Notice and a Claim Form by first-class mail to the last known address for each potential Class Member, according to State Farm's business records (previously provided to the Administrator) and the National Change of Address database, as used by the Administrator previously in the case to mail litigation class notice to the potential Class Members. The Administrator will use its best efforts to complete the mailing of the Class Notice and Claim Form to the potential Class Members not less than 90 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. If any Class Notice and/or Claim Form mailed to any potential Class Member is returned to the Administrator as undeliverable, the Administrator will promptly log each returned Class Notice and/or Claim Form that is returned as undeliverable and provide copies of the log to State Farm's counsel and Class Counsel as requested. The Class Notice and Claim Form will also be available to the Class Members upon request to the Administrator, who will send these documents via first-class mail as requested by any potential Class Member. Upon request, State Farm and the Administrator will provide Class Counsel such reasonable access to the notice process as they may need to monitor compliance with the notice campaign. In addition to the Class Notice and Claim Form mailed in accordance with the preceding paragraphs, the Administrator will establish an automated toll-free telephone number and a settlement website that will contain information on the Stipulation, relevant pleadings, the instructions for submitting opt-out requests, a posted copy of the Stipulation, including exhibits to the Stipulation; further the Administrator will also cause the Publication Notice to be published twice in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette -- the first publication will be within 30 days of the entry of the Order, and the second publication will be no later than 45 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. No later than 15 days before the Final Approval Hearing, the Administrator will mail to each potential Class Member who has not submitted a Claim Form and who has not timely and properly excluded themselves a reminder Postcard Notice with summary information regarding the deadline for Claim Forms, the Settlement website address, and sufficient information to enable the potential Class Member to request a second copy of the Claim Form previously sent to the potential Class Member. At or before the Final Approval Hearing, the parties will file a proof of mailing the Class Notice, the Claim Form, and the Postcard Notice, and of the performance of the Publication Notice identified above, from the Administrator. The costs of providing notice and effectuating all other settlement administration will be borne by State Farm, as provided in the Stipulation. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Proposed Settlement at 10:00 a.m. on June 1, 2020. The Administrator will provide State Farm and the Class Counsel a copy of any and all objections and opt-out requests received by the Administrator. At or before the Final Approval Hearing, the Class Counsel will file with the Court an affidavit from the Administrator stating the number of Class Members who have timely excluded themselves from the Class (opted out) and the number of Objectors, and identifying all such individuals. The Class Members will be provided an opportunity to submit Claim Forms, requesting Claim Settlement Payments in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation. Not less than seven days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the Class Counsel will file with the Court a motion seeking the Court's final approval of the Proposed Settlement and Stipulation and entry of the final judgment. State Farm, in its sole discretion, may also file a brief in support of final approval of the Proposed Settlement. The Proposed Settlement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Class Members. The Parties and the Administrator are directed to implement the terms of the Proposed Settlement in accordance with the Stipulation. Except for proceedings in furtherance of the Proposed Settlement, the Action is stayed pending further order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/yTbMmQ from Leagle.com. Jeff Dennington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & James Stuart, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by D. Matt Keil, Attorney at Law, 406 Walnut St., Texarkana, AR 71854, George L. McWilliams, Law Office of George L. McWilliams, P.C. Century Bank Plaza, 2900 St. Michael Drive Suite 400Texarkana, TX 75503, James M. Pratt, Jr., James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A., 144 W Washington St, Camden, AR 71701, Jason Earnest Roselius -- jason@mroklaw.com -- Mattingly & Roselius, John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson, Post Office Box 618, Texarkana, AR 75504- 0618, William B. Putman, Putman Law Office, 3900 N. Front St., Ste. 101, Fayetteville, AR 72703, A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, 555 E Main S #200, Batesville, AR 72501, Jack Austin Mattingly, Jr. -- jackjr@mroklaw.com -- Mattingly Roselius PLLC State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by John E. Moore -- john.moore@mrmblaw.com -- Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A., Ryan P. Poscablo -- rposcablo@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Beverly A. Rowlett -- beverly.rowlett@mrmblaw.com -- Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A., Heidi Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Jacob Kahn -- jkahn@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes Cancila LLP, Joseph A. Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Nick Kahlon -nkahlon@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, pro hac vice & Tal C. Chaiken -- tchaiken@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice. STERLING CREDIT: Faces Ferrando Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Ferrando, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sterling Credit Corporation, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-00447-WB (E.D. Pa., Jan. 27, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Prior to July 23, 2019, an obligation was allegedly incurred to Freedom Credit Union. Freedom Credit Union contracted with Defendant SCC to collect the alleged debt. On July 23, 2019, Defendant Sterling sent the Plaintiff a debt collection letter regarding the alleged debt owed. Merely one day later on July 24, 2019, the Defendant sent another Letter. The Plaintiff alleges that SCC is harassing to ask a consumer to contact it within five days and has sent a subsequent letter one day later, describing the consumer's actions as a "continued lack of response to our requests." The Plaintiff contends that it is unreasonable to expect the consumer to respond merely one day after receiving the letter, especially when the first letter gives 5 days to respond. To send collection letters one day after another is harassment of the consumer, the Plaintiff asserts. In addition, the language in the second letter is threatening and harassing by describing the consumer as having "chosen to evade our efforts," the Plaintiff adds. The Defendant has no way of determining whether the Plaintiff has chosen to evade the letters and certainly not one day after the first letter was sent, according to the complaint. The letter contains additional threatening language, including the admonition that "ignoring this obligation is only delaying the inevitable." The consumer has no way of knowing what the Defendant means by "the inevitable" and using such frightening terms is nothing more than an attempt to coerce the Consumer into making immediate payment. As a result of the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Philadelphia. Defendant Sterling is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 326-9179 Email: ag@garibianlaw.com SUNPOWER CORP: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNPOWER CORPORATION, Case No. 4:20-cv-00114-PJH (N.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2020), arises from the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Before the Defendant solicited him, Mr. Fabricant contends that he had never consented to receive autodialed calls from SunPower. He never did business with SunPower either. SunPower sells energy-related goods and services, including solar panels. Some of its marketing strategies involve an automatic telephone dialing system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon B. Fougner, Esq. FOUGNER LAW 600 California Street, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 577-5829 Facsimile: (206) 338-0783 E-mail: jon@fougnerlaw.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 Facsimile: (617) 830-0327 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Andrew W. Heidarpour, Esq. HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PPC 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 190-318 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 234-2727 E-mail: aheidarpour@hlfirm.com TECH DATA: Faces Post Suit over Proposed Apollo Global Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH POST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TECH DATA CORPORATION; ROBERT M. DUTKOWSKY; CHARLES E. ADAIR; KAREN DAHUT; HARRY J. HARCZAK, JR.; BRIDGETTE HELLER; RICHARD T. HUME; KATHLEEN MISUNAS; THOMAS MORGAN; PATRICK SAYER; SAVIO W. TUNG; APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, INC.; TIGER MIDCO, LLC; and TIGER MERGER SUB CO., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02352-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 24, 2019) is an action arising from a proposed transaction announced on November 13, 2019, pursuant to which Tech Data Corporation will be acquired by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation. According to the complaint, on November 12, 2019, Tech Data's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Tiger Midco, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), and Tiger Merger Sub Co., a Delaware corporation. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Tech Data's stockholders will receive $145.00 in cash for each share of Tech Data common stock they own. On December 12, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate Adjusted EBITDA; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. Tech Data Corporation is a wholesale distributor of technology products. The Company also provides its customers with advanced logistics capabilities and Value-added services. Tech Data serves value-added resellers, direct marketer, retailers and corporate resellers in more than 100 countries throughout North America, South America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com TECH DATA: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Apollo Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that shareholders say in a federal class action that directors are selling Tech Data Corp. too cheaply through an unfair process to Apollo Global Management, for $145 per share or $5.1 billion. A copy of the Complaint is available at: https://is.gd/F9oBhS TENNESSEE: Parole Violators' Bail Class Action Can Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a class of parole violators who claim that a Tennessee county's bail system is effectively "wealth-based detention" can proceed with their suit against the county and its sheriff, the Sixth Circuit ruled. A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court made its decision, less than two weeks after the case was argued and affirmed a lower court ruling that granted the class's request for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs sued the county and several private probation companies in 2018, claiming their practices of setting bail amounts without consideration of a person's ability to pay and holding those who cannot afford to pay bail in jail are unconstitutional. A district court judge ruled the class was likely to succeed and granted their motion for a preliminary injunction in February, which the county and sheriff appealed. Giles County, located in south central Tennessee, and Sheriff Kyle Helton argued the probationers should have sued the judges who set their bail amounts and denied them hearings but U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton disagreed. Judge Sutton, a George W. Bush appointee, said the class is entitled to see injunctive relief against Helton, who acted on behalf of the state to enforce arrest warrants. Sovereign immunity does not block a suit against a public official who is "actively involved with administering" an alleged violation, the judge said, citing the 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Young. Helton had argued that the constitutional violation alleged by the class occurred when the judges set their bail amounts. Sutton conceded that the judge's actions were part of the process but he outlined the court's reasoning to allow the case to proceed. "Consider the alleged violation to be two actions," Sutton wrote. "Action one: A judge determines a bail amount without considering ability to pay or adequacy of alternatives. Action two: Sheriff Helton detains the probationer until she pays the bail amount." "The alleged constitutional violation is detention on an improperly determined bail amount. The plaintiffs might have employed a different theory and sued the judges, if not immune themselves, for their part in carrying out the alleged harm. But ‘the plaintiff is the master of the complaint' and free to choose between legal theories. Absent some other bar, they are free to sue the sheriff," the judge added. The sheriff also argued that allowing the class to proceed against him would expand the Supreme Court's ruling in Ex parte Young but Sutton disagreed. "[T]his objection suffers from the same flaw as the last," Sutton wrote. "The probationers are free to structure their complaint as they wish . . . It also remains unclear whether the plaintiffs could structure their lawsuit by suing the judges who set the bail amounts. Judges have absolute immunity from suits based on their judicial acts, except in matters over which they clearly lack jurisdiction." Sutton also allowed the case to proceed against Giles County, which raised no objection to the preliminary injunction but instead chose to reserve its arguments for the permanent injunction phase of the case. U.S. Circuit Judges John Nalbandian and Chad Readler, both appointed to the court by President Donald Trump, also sat on the panel. A copy of the Opinion is available at: https://is.gd/UVccS0 TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Tupitza Seeks Overtime Wages for Asst. Managers ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANEE TUPITZA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TEXAS ROADHOUSE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00002-WSS (W.D. Pa., Jan 7, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and her similarly situated co-workers, who have worked for the Defendant as exempt-classified Service Managers, Kitchen Managers, and other exempt-classified Assistant Manager at its corporate-owned restaurant locations. According to the complaint, Texas Roadhouse misclassified the Plaintiff and other Assistant Managers as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and Pennsylvania Wage Laws. The Defendant required the Plaintiff and other Assistant Managers to work more than 40 hours per workweek without paying them any overtime compensation and the Plaintiff and other Assistant Managers did in fact work more than 40 hours per workweek without receiving overtime compensation, the lawsuit adds. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Service Manager in Erie, Pennsylvania, from June 2016 to May 2017. Texas Roadhouse is a casual restaurant chain, which operates approximately 464 company-owned locations across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Michael N. Litrownik, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Alan Quiles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 TREADZ AUTO: $5MM Class Action Lawsuit Certified in Calgary ----------------------------------------------------------- Meghan Grant, writing for CBC News, reports that a Calgary judge has certified a $5-million, class-action lawsuit against a defunct vehicle consignment company, Treadz Auto, whose owner defrauded clients out of more than $2 million. As part of the decision, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Glenda Campbell dismissed the action against Service Alberta and the Alberta Motor Vehicle Industry Council (AMVIC), finding the two did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs. Campbell's decision also offers new details about Treadz owner Sean O'Brien, including that he was granted a licence to sell cars despite AMVIC's knowledge that he had a criminal record for stealing cars 10 years earlier. In 2018, O'Brien was sentenced to three years in prison after pleading guilty to criminal charges, admitting he defrauded Calgary car owners out of more than $2 million. Campbell noted in her decision that the Treadz defendants, which include O'Brien, "failed to respond to the action and have been noted in default." Treadz Auto owner pleads guilty to $2M vehicle consignment fraud The lawsuit alleges Treadz did not pay owners whose vehicles were sold and did not remove liens from the vehicles. The plaintiffs named AMVIC as part of the suit, accusing the watchdog of failing to properly investigate consumers' complaints against Treadz and not compensating them adequately. The lawsuit also named Service Alberta as a defendant, accusing the province of failing to properly oversee AMVIC. But Campbell dismissed the action against Service Alberta and AMVIC, finding there is no merit to allegations the two governing bodies are liable for regulatory negligence. O'Brien initially faced 164 charges Originally facing 164 fraud and theft charges, O'Brien pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud over $5,000. Details of O'Brien's crimes come from an agreed statement of facts read aloud at his plea in September 2018. Treadz Auto's provincial business licence cancelled by regulator Between 2011 and 2014, about 100 people signed contracts with Treadz Auto Group to sell their vehicles on consignment. Each paid $299. But Treadz did not compensate the owners after the cars were sold to unsuspecting buyers. In many cases, those who consigned their cars did not own them outright, leaving victims who continued to pay for a vehicle they no longer owned. The owner of the now-defunct company — which was located on Fairmount Drive S.E. — also re-registered dozens of vehicles in the company's name using fraudulent documents in order to secure a loan from a credit company for nearly $500,000, which was never repaid. AMVIC grants licence despite criminal history O'Brien's lawyer said his client operated successfully and honestly for six years until a number of investors backed out. After O'Brien remortgaged his home, "the house of cards came falling down," said defence lawyer Karanpal Aujla. But O'Brien's criminal activity dates back to the 1990s. In 2004, O'Brien was issued a licence to sell cars. The licence was issued by AMVIC, which can refuse to issue, suspend or cancel a licence if a person has a criminal record. O'Brien, it turned out, had a criminal record dating back to 1993 for what he described as "car theft-related charges." Ten years before he would begin his car consignment company, O'Brien was sentenced to 18 months in jail. Complaints ramp up in 2014 AMVIC staff also noted O'Brien had filed for bankruptcy in the past. Still, the agency granted and continued to renew O'Brien's licence. Complaints against Treadz began to roll into AMVIC the same year it granted O'Brien his licence, according to Campbell's ruling. But the complaints at that time averaged only one a year, and those that involved failure to pay the proceeds of consignment sales were quickly resolved — until 2014. That year, the complaints began rolling into AMVIC, prompting several investigations, which ended with O'Brien's licence cancellation in August 2014. Payouts not received In that same year, the lawsuit's two named plaintiffs — Andrea Scherle and Stacy Rachkewich — became involved with Treadz. Scherle claims the consignment company sold her Dodge Ram but never gave her the money. Treadz sold her Dodge Ram for $53,500, which should have paid off the financing owed to Scotiabank, but that never happened. Treadz Auto complaints greater than police realized Scotiabank came after Scherle for $47,000. She was able to make a claim under AMVIC's compensation fund but that caps out at $25,000. Rachkewich filed a complaint with AMVIC in 2014, alleging Treadz owed him nearly $20,000, the bulk of which was for a Scotiabank financing buyout. Now that the class-action lawsuit has been certified, a date for the trial will have to be set. [GN] TRENDZ BEAUTY: Ghazarian Seeks Damages Over Labor Code Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALINA GHAZARIAN, on behalf of the State of California and all Aggrieved employees as a Private Attorney General v. TRENDZ BEAUTY WEST, INC. a corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV00463 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles, Cty., Jan. 6, 2020), seeks damages and other relief arising from Trendz Beauty's violations of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff states that the Defendants failed to comply with California Labor Code requirements due to erroneous, willful and intentional employment practices and policies. The Plaintiff contends that the identities of the aggrieved employees, who were not timely paid all wages owed, can be ascertained by reviewing the Defendants' time cards and wage statements. The Plaintiff adds that the same is true for the identities of aggrieved employees, who experienced meal break violations, rest break violations, seating violations, and pay stub violations. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, nonexempt employee of the Defendants until January 6, 2019, earning $13 per hour. Trendz Beauty is doing business in the beauty industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. Hilary Silvia, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koulllaw.com hilarv@koullaw.com TWC ADMINISTRATION: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Gibbs Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAURENCE GIBBS, an individual, MATTHEW LUTACK, an individual, BRENT QUICK, an individual, and JESSICA HUENEBERG, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TWC ADMINISTRATION, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-1513 DMS (AGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Time Warner provides video, high-speed data, and voice services to customers in the United States. Defendant Time Warner Cable ("TWC"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Time Warner, directs Time Warner's daily business practices. Plaintiffs Gibbs, Matthew Lutack, Brent Quick, and Jessica Hueneberg worked as customer service professionals ("CSRs") and call center leads for Defendant Time Warner Cable ("TWC" or "Defendant") in San Diego and Ontario, California. Brent Quick was employed as a CSR and Technical Support Professional from 2014 to 2017. Matthew Lutack was employed as a CSR and Technical Support Professional from 2009 to 2016. Laurence Gibbs was employed from 2011 to 2014, working as CSR and Lead. Jessica Hueneberg was employed from 2014 to 2016 as a CSR. In these customer service roles, the Plaintiffs assisted customers over the phone regarding issues related to sales, billing, and technology support. At all times relevant to the action, the Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees. As such, they were entitled to scheduled meal and rest periods. TWC maintained a policy regulating off-the-clock work, meal breaks, and rest breaks. Despite the policy, the Plaintiffs contend TWC's phone system required off-the-clock work at the beginning of their shifts. As such, they allege TWC required off-the-clock work because they spent time loading their programs before clocking in. In addition to off-the-clock claims, Plaintiffs Quick, Gibbs, and Hueneberg testified to missing meal breaks because their jobs involved fielding high volumes of customer service calls during their shifts. Further, they all testified to notifying supervisors of either missed meal or rest breaks. On May 28, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the present motion for class certification. They move for class certification on all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked in a call center as a Customer Service Professional, Customer Service and Billing Professional, Technical Support Professional, Technical Support and Billing Professional, and/or Call Center Lead, between April 20, 2013 and the date of class certification, who have not signed an arbitration agreement with the Defendant as of the date the complaint was filed. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of employees from the Defendant's San Diego, CA and Ontario, CA offices. The Defendant's corporate records indicate 536 putative class members in their San Diego office, and over 300 in their Ontario office. Of that larger group, the Plaintiffs move for class certification for the following individual sub-classes: (1) the off-the-clock subclass, including employees who were not paid for all hours worked, in any pay period within the class period; (2) the overtime subclass, including employees who were not provided with overtime pay during the class period, including only employees who worked more than eight hours in any given day and more than forty hours in any given week during the class period; (3) the meal break subclass, including employees who worked more than five hours and were not provided with uninterruptable meal periods of at least 30 minutes or delayed meal periods that began after the fifth hour of work; (4) the rest break subclass of employees who were not provided with uninterruptable rest breaks of at least ten minutes for each four hours of work; (5) the wage statement subclass including employees who were not provided with accurately itemized wage statements for all hours worked; and (6) the waiting time subclass of employees who were not paid all wages due and owing at the time of separation. On July 26, 2019, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on all of the Plaintiffs' claims. On Aug. 14, 2019, the parties stipulated to the Court deciding the motion for summary judgment prior to the present motion for class certification. On Jan. 3, 2020, the Court granted this motion in part and denied it in part, finding triable issues of fact for all the named Plaintiffs' off-the-clock claims for work performed prior to clocking in, Plaintiff Hueneberg, Gibbs, and Quick's meal break claims, and Plaintiff Gibbs' rest break claims, and any related wage statement and waiting time claims. Therefore, class certification will only be addressed with respect to those claims. Judge Sabraw finds that although the Plaintiffs point to a series of recent cases granting class certification for off-the-clock claims, in each of those cases, the off-the-clock and overtime violations resulted from a company-wide policy or practice. Unlike those cases, there is no common policy or practice in the instant case. She also finds that the off-the-clock subclass's claims do not appear to depend upon a common contention of such nature that it is capable of classwide resolution. Therefore, the Plaintiffs fail to meet the commonality requirement for their off-the-clock claims. The Plaintiffs also fail to meet Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirement for predominance, rules the Court. Looking at the named Plaintiffs alone, their off-the-clock claims do not derive from the Defendant's common policy or practice, but rather out of individualized experiences with their supervisors. Each of the four named Plaintiffs had different supervisors, and though the outcomes of their experiences were largely the same, determining whether their claims raised triable issues of fact necessitated in-depth analysis of their individual depositions, including individualized accounts of conversations with their supervisors. At trial, each Plaintiff would need to testify regarding their experiences with their supervisors. Moreover, each Plaintiff would need to prove TWC had knowledge of the off-the-clock work, necessitating testimony from each of their supervisors. The putative class includes over 800 class members. This class is not sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. As with their off-the-clock claims, the elements establishing liability are fact-intensive and vary between employees depending on their experiences with their supervisors. Given the large size of the class, and that employees had different supervisors with different experiences, the meal and rest break claims raise individual issues and are not sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. The Wage Statement and Waiting Time Penalties claims derive from the described claims. Because these claims fail to meet the requirements of commonality and predominance, these claims also fail, the Court adds. Because the Judge finds that the Plaintiff failed to establish commonality for any of their claims, the requirements of typicality and adequacy need not be addressed. Finally, the Plaintiffs' claims fail to meet the predominance requirement. Therefore, the remaining Rule 23(b) requirements will not also be addressed. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sabraw denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/CsB2qf from Leagle.com. Carmen Fuller, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Markham -- dmarkham@markham-law.com -- The Markham Law Firm, Walter L. Haines -- whaines@uelglaw.com -- United Employees Law Group, PC & Maggie K. Realin -- mrealin@markham-law.com -- The Markham Law Firm. Laurence Gibbs, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Matthew Lutack, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Brent Quick, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David R. Markham, The Markham Law Firm, Walter L. Haines, United Employees Law Group, PC, Lisa Rose Brevard, The Markham Law Firm & Maggie K. Realin, The Markham Law Firm. Jessica Hueneberg, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Markham, The Markham Law Firm, Maggie K. Realin, The Markham Law Firm & Lisa Rose Brevard, The Markham Law Firm. TWC Administration, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Joseph Scott Carr -- scarr@kcozlaw.com -- Kabat Chapman & Ozmer LLP, Joseph W. Ozmer, II -- jozmer@kcozlaw.com -- Kabat Chapman & Ozmer LLP, Paul G. Sherman -- psherman@kcozlaw.com -- Kabat Chapman & Ozmer LLP, pro hac vice & Shawna M. Miller -- smiller@kcozlaw.com -- Kabat Chapman & Ozmer LLP, pro hac vice. ULISES PHARMACY: Underpays Pharmacy Technicians, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN ALMAZO-RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULISES PHARMACY INC. d/b/a Ulises Pharmacy; NUESTRA FARMACIA INC. d/b/a Nuestra Pharmacy; NUESTRA LUZ PHARMACY INC. f/k/a BUENA VIDA PHARMACY INC. d/b/a Nuestra Luz Pharmacy f/d/b/a Buena Vida Pharmacy; DIVINA FARMACIA, INC. d/b/a Divina Pharmacy; SUPER VIDA PHARMACY INC. d/b/a Super Vida Pharmacy; QUALITY CARE PHARMACY INC. d/b/a Quality Care Pharmacy; FARMACIA POPULAR INC. f/k/a ULISES'S PHARMACY, INC.; ULISES VARGAS, SR., and ULISES VARGAS, JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07290 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 31, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Almazo-Ramirez was employed by the Defendants as pharmacy technician. Ulises Pharmacy Inc. d/b/a Ulises Pharmacy distributes pharmaceutical products. The Company offers prescription, drugs, vitamins, beauty aids, diaper, health supplement, and other medical products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. Leanghour Lim, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 UNION LOCAL 237: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Amended Wynn Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRIAN WYNN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AWILDA GUZMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOSE OTERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOHN WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KEVIN FULTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNION LOCAL 237, I.B.T., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-962 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment entered on March 13, 2019 dismissing the Plaintiffs amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) on res judicata grounds. In 2014, the Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against their employer, the New York City Housing Authority ("NYCHA"), and their labor union, Defendant-Appellee Union Local 237, I.B.T. ("Wynn I"). The Plaintiffs, all of whom are Black or Hispanic, alleged that NYCHA paid them less than similarly situated white employees and that their Union tacitly approved and encouraged the discriminatory compensation scheme, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, the Equal Protection Clause, and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"). In March 2017, the District Court (Schofield, J.) granted summary judgment in favor of NYCHA and the Union, finding that the record contained insufficient evidence of discriminatory animus. The Court affirmed the judgment on appeal. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a second action against the Union ("Wynn II"), this time alleging that the Union violated Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by allowing NYCHA to pay them less than similarly situated white employees. The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that their claims were precluded by res judicata. The Plaintiffs then filed the timely appeal. For substantially the same reasons as are set forth in the District Court's thoughtful opinion, the Second Circuit concludes that the earlier adjudication of Wynn I precludes the Plaintiffs' Title VII claims in Wynn II. The Plaintiffs do not contest that the first two elements of res judicata are satisfied, nor could they: In Wynn I, the District Court granted summary judgment to the Union based on the merits of Plaintiffs' discrimination claims. And, as the District Court aptly observed in Wynn II, the Plaintiffs' claims in Wynn I and Wynn II rest on the same factual allegations, namely: that (1) the Plaintiffs worked for NYCHA as "Caretakers P," a position involving the application and removal of wall plaster; (2) NYCHA paid "prevailing wages" to "Mason Helpers" (another class of NYCHA employees with different job responsibilities), but not to Caretakers P; (3) the employees who worked as Caretakers P were predominately Black and Hispanic, while the employees who worked as Mason Helpers were predominately white; and (4) the Union tacitly acquiesced to the allegedly discriminatory compensation system. Notwithstanding this factual overlap, the Plaintiffs advance three arguments to support their position that res judicata does not bar them from asserting their Title VII claims in Wynn II. First, they contend that they could not have filed these claims in Wynn I because they did not exhaust their administrative remedies under Title VII until after they initiated their first suit against NYCHA and the Union. Second, the Plaintiffs argue that res judicata does not apply because Wynn I and Wynn II assert different theories of discrimination. Third, and finally, the Plaintiffs seek to avoid the res judicata bar by relying on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. As for the first argument, the Second Circuit finds the argument unpersuasive, however, because failure to exhaust under Title VII in an administrative forum does not exempt a claim from the application of res judicata in a judicial forum. As for the second argument, the factual allegations at issue in Wynn I and Wynn II are essentially identical. And for the third and final argument, the Second Circuit finds the Ledbetter Act does not save the Plaintiffs' Title VII claims from the application of res judicata. The Ledbetter Act's generous accrual provisions apply to only "traditional pay-discrimination claims" that challenge discriminatory compensation decisions. The Second Circuit has considered the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments and concludes that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment. A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's Dec. 13, 2019 Summary Order is available at https://is.gd/3YBwGm from Leagle.com. LEE NUWESRA -- lnuwesra@optonline.net -- Law Offices of Lee Nuwesra, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. ALEXANDRA HOWELL -- info@abgllaw.com -- Archer, Byington, Glennon & Levine LLP, Melville, NY, for Defendant-Appellee. UNITED AIRLINES: Flores Suit Over Airfare Insurance Kickback Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Jorge Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, PATRICIA FLORES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, Defendant, Case No. 18 C 6571 (N.D. Ill.). On its website, United sells tickets for the air transportation it provides. After a customer such as the Plaintiff has chosen a flight but before she has purchased it, United offers the customer the option to purchase travel insurance. United's customers are not required to purchase travel insurance in order to purchase a ticket to fly, but they are required either to accept or reject the option of travel insurance. While using the Defendant's website to purchase a ticket for air travel, Flores was offered the option to purchase travel insurance, and she accepted. The Plaintiff purchased a travel insurance policy from United's website on Feb. 23, 2018. She does not say how much she paid. At no point during her transaction to purchase travel insurance did United disclose to her that it had a financial interest in her purchase of travel insurance, but it did. When the Plaintiff learned that Defendant United would receive a cut of the money she paid for insurance, Flores brought the suit, asserting claims for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the RICO ("Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act") statute, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment. According to the Plaintiff's complaint, United has also concealed and/or failed to disclose to state regulators the fact that it receives a commission or kickback every time a customer elects to purchase a travel insurance product through its website. She alleges that the price of the travel insurance is set by the insurer, not United. The Plaintiff alleges that neither the dates of travel nor the route affects the insurance price. She alleges the price for each travel insurance policy purchased on United's website is based solely on the overall ticket price. The Plaintiff also alleges that because the price of travel insurance incorporates an illegal commission paid to United, customers pay an inflated price. In Count I, the Plaintiff asserts that defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ICFA"). In Count IV, the Plaintiff seeks relief for unjust enrichment. In that claim, too, she alleges that United was unjustly enriched when she purchased travel insurance. In Count II, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated the RICO Act by making false statements in email messages and on a website in furtherance of a scheme to deceive the Plaintiff into believing that when they purchased a travel insurance policy on the Defendant's website, the price displayed represented the cost of the policy. In Count III, plaintiff asserts conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d). The Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim, among other reasons. Judge Alonso granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Judge dismissed Counts I and IV without prejudice, and dismissed Counts II and III with prejudice. The Judge denied as moot the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations. The Plaintiff is granted 35 days in which to file an amended complaint, should she so choose. Among other things, Judge Alonso found that (i) the Plaintiff has not stated a claim under the ICFA because she has not alleged that the transaction occurred primarily and substantially in Illinois; (ii) the Seventh Circuit has held that, where a party fails to state a claim under the ICFA, she necessarily fails to state a claim for unjust enrichment; and (iii) the Illinois statute is plainly one that regulates the business of insurance, and RICO is not a statute that specifically relates to the business of insurance. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 10, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/azdR6I from Leagle.com. Patricia Flores, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chad Emerson Bell, Korein Tillery, George A. Zelcs -- gzelcs@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery, Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Korein Tillery, Llc & Alec H. Schultz -- aschultz@leoncosgrove.com -- Leon Cosgrove, Llp. United Airlines, Defendant, represented by Patricia Brown Holmes -- pholmes@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, Sondra A. Hemeryck -- shemeryck@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP & Sarah Elizabeth Finch -- sfinch@rshc law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila. VALDEZ PAINTING: Faces Brasier Employment Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valdez Painting, Incorporated, et al. The case is captioned as Shaun Brasier, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Valdez Painting, Incorporated and Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2020-00272761-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 7, 2020). The suit alleges violation of employment related laws. Valdez offers painting services for small office to large building or warehouse.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arash S. Khosrowshahi, Esq. 1010 F St., Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814-0839 Telephone: (916) 573-0469 Facsimile: (866) 700-0787 E-mail: libertymanlaw@gmail.com VIGLIOTTI ENTERPRISES: Cordova Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Sady Lopez Cordova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VIGLIOTTI ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a VIGLIOTTI LANDSCAPE SERVICE CENTER, and CHARLES VIGLIOTTI, as an individual, Case No. 2:20-cv-00452 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to recover damages for their egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, arising out of the Plaintiff's employment with them. Although the Plaintiff worked for 63 or more hours per week during his employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants willfully failed to post notices in conspicuous place at the location of their employment of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements of the NYLL and the FLSA. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a landscaper. VIGLIOTTI ENTERPRISES, LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office in Westbury, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 VIGLIOTTI ENTERPRISES: Cordova Sues Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Sady Lopez Cordova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VIGLIOTTI ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a VIGLIOTTI LANDSCAPE SERVICE CENTER, and CHARLES VIGLIOTTI, as an individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-00705 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to recover damages for their egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, including the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act, arising out of the Plaintiff's employment with them. Although the Plaintiff worked for 63 or more hours per week during his employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a landscaper. VIGLIOTTI ENTERPRISES, LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office in Westbury, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 WELLSPACE HEALTH: Faces Hewitt-King Labor Suit in Sacramento ------------------------------------------------------------ An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellspace Health. The case is captioned as VANESSA HEWITT-KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLSPACE HEALTH; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00272021-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 24, 2019). Wellspace Health offers health care services. The Company provides medical, prenatal care, addiction counseling, pediatric, dental, and pregnancy testing services. Wellspace Health serves patients in the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. David Yeremian and Associates 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: 818-230-8380 ********* 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 ***