/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200210.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 10, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 29 Headlines 500.COM LIMITED: Faces Sun Suit in N.J. Over Drop in Share Prices ABI JAPANESSE: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Neri Says ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Williams Sues Over Debt Collection Letter ALLERGAN INC: K.P. Suit Moved to District of New Jersey AMAZON.COM: Rober Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Wages AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Weiss Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection ASSETCARE LLC: Murray Files FDCPA Suit in Florida AUSTRALIA GOV'T: Climate Activists and Lawyers Itching to Sue BATH PLANET OF ARKANSAS: Stafford Files FDCPA Suit in Arkansas BEAUTY BIOSCIENCES: Kiler Files Suit in New York BOEING COMPANY: Sued by James for Hiding Design Flaws of 737 MAX BP EXPLORATION: Gets Summary Judgment Granted in Escobar Action BRIA HEALTH SERVICES: Yegger Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages BUCKEYE RV: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Dingus Claims CH ROBINSON: Faces Moore PACA Suit Alleging False Accountings CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Rease Sues Over Unsolicited Text Ads COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Suarez Seeks to Certify Ex-Employees Class CONFI-CHEK INC: Garza FCRA Suit Moved From E.D. Cal. to S.D. Tex. CUSTOM TRUSS: Nunez Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay Under FLSA CYTOSPORT INC: Deal in Clay Suit Denied Preliminary Approval DAY & ZIMMERMANN: Court Denies Recusal Motion in Waters Labor Suit DELTA DENTAL: Faces Endodontics Antitrust Suit in N.D. Illinois DENNY'S INC: Fails to Pay All Wages Due, Deleon Labor Suit Says DINO PALMIERI: Protective Order Bid in Torres FLSA Suit Denied DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Prentice Balks at UnitedHealth Merger Deal DIV HOLDINGS: King Sues Over Unsolicited Text Advertisements DR. DENNIS GROSS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Conner Says DVA CONTRACTING: Violates FLSA/NYLL Over OT Pay, Landaverde Says ECOLAB INC: NJ District Court Certifies Class in Charlot FLSA Suit ENDO HEALTH: Mentasta Sues Over Epidemic Addiction to Opioid Drug FACEBOOK INC: Faces Reveal Chat Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme FCA US: Trial Court Lifts Victoria Suit Stay, Sets Pretrial Dates FEEJAYS LLC: Crosson Files Suit Under Disabilities Act FIC AMERICA: Cannon Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data FIRST SOLAR: Court Rules on Bids to Bar Testimonies in Smilovits FOURPOINT ENERGY: Rounds Suit Moved From Colo. to W.D. Oklahoma FRIENDS HEALTH CARE: Faces Kim ADA Suit Over Unlawful Discharge GARCIA DELIVERS: Villatoro Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Installers GENOVA PRODUCTS: Green Seeks Wages and Benefits Under WARN Act GLOW CONCEPT: Bunting Alleges Violation of ADA in New York GREAT WASTE: Marin Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA GROGAN LAW GROUP: Chelminski Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey HANKOOK TIRE: Dionysius Sues over Unpaid Overtime HART GROUP: Faces Rosales Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts HEARTFELT HOME: Lucas Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA HENLEY PROPANE: Brown Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages HUUUGE INC: 9th Cir. Upholds Arbitration Bid Denial in Wilson Suit INFINITY INSURANCE: Gets Summary Judgment Upheld in Hallums Suit INFORMATICA LLC: Flynn FLSA Suit Moved From Calif. to W.D. Texas INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Court Affirms FINRA Award in Singh Fraud Suit KALAMATA RESEARCH: Van Elzen Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts KELLY SERVICE: Use of Consumer Report Violates FCRA, Stanley Says KITTRICH CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Krumm Fraud Suit L'OCCITANE INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Desalvo Alleges LAKE ARBOR: Ruseell Class Suit Remanded to State Court LAWRENCE COUNTY, PA: Webster Moves to Certify Class of Appellants LENDING TREE: Faces Nathan TCPA Suit Over Auto-Dialed Phone Calls MACY'S INC: Chiaraluce et al. Sue over Linen Products Thread Count MARDI GRA: LaRock Suit Removed to Massachusetts District Court MAWKS EDELWEISS: Aniszewski Suit Dismissed Due to Settlement MDL 2592: Objections to Private Deal Terms in Xarelto Suit Denied MG 19501 BISCAYNE: Fails to Pay Sous Chefs Overtime, Mizell Says MILANO MENSWEAR: Faces Mahoney ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania MME CAPITAL: Abante Rooter Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls NATIONAL CREDIT: Carter Asserts Breach of FDCPA NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Lopez Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California NCAA: Baugus II Sues over McNeese Football Athletes' Injuries NESAMA FOOD: Inga Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages NEW YORK, NY: Weaver Suit Over Civil Rights Violations Dismissed NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Class Certification Sought in Baleja Suit NORTHWELL HEALTH: Carrero Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under NYLL OCWEN LOAN: Pantano Consumer Credit Suit Remanded to State Court OMEGA PROJECT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Morrison Claims ORACLE CORP: Sunrise Firefighters' Suit Dismissed w/ Leave to Amend P.C. RICHARD: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA in New York PEARSALL CANDY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Mahmood Claims PRAIRIE FARMS: Darby Sues over Mislabeled Vanilla Ice Cream PROFESSIONAL BUILDERS: Naiman Alleges Telephone Privacy Invasion PUBLIC HEALTH: Lauzurique Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages QUICKEN LOANS: Sued by Winters Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls RALPHS GROCERY: Yannoulatos Sues Over Failure to Provide Seats RENUE SYSTEMS: Sierra FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. New York RESURGENT CAPITAL: Mack's Bid for Class Certification Granted RSI HOME: Rodriguez Suit Moved to Central District of California SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Portnoy Named Lead Plaintiff in Sec. Suit SAUCE VENTURES: Conner Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act SAYEH PETROLEUM, INC: Mikich Files Suit in California SL DISTRIBUTION: Macedonia's Bid to Certify Under Submission SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Philip Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages SPORT LA. INC: Underpays Laborers, Aguilon et al. Allege SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: Sebastian Suit Deal Gets Final Court OK SYSCO CORP: $500K Settlement in Martin Suit Gets Final Approval TALLGRASS ENERGY: Faces Fisk Suit Over Merger With Blackstone TEXAS: Court Dismisses Class Claims in Hoffman Prisoner Suit TFS DINING: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Heath Claims TRANS UNION: Lynn Sues Over Practices That Violate FCRA & NY FCRA TRANSUNION LLC: Improperly Prepares Credit Reports, Khaimov Says UHS OF HARTGROVE: Kelley Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data USM ACQUISITION: Underpays Part-time Employees, Bentley Says VISKASE COMPANIES: 2 Classes of Workers Certified in Thomas Suit VITAMIN COTTAGE: Levine Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages VUUZLE MEDIA: Faces Fabricant Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy W.D. WRIGHT CONTRACTING: Underpays Technicians, Bailey Alleges WAWA INC: Sills Sues in Pennsylvania Over Fraud-Related Claims WRIGHT MEDICAL: Thompson Suit Balks at Proposed Sale to Stryker ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Mararac Alleges Illegal Labor Practices ********* 500.COM LIMITED: Faces Sun Suit in N.J. Over Drop in Share Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- FENGJUN SUN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 500.COM LIMITED, ZHENGMING PAN, and QIANG YUAN, Case No. 2:20-cv-00485 (D.N.J., Jan. 15, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a class action on behalf of persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded 500.com securities between April 27, 2018, and December 31, 2019, inclusive. On December 31, 2019, the Company issued a press release announcing a Special Investigation Committee was formed by the Board of Directors to investigate illegal money transfers and the role played by consultants following the arrest of one current consultant and two former consultants by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office. On this news, shares of 500.com fell $0.91 per share or over 10% to close at $7.52 per share on January 2, 2020, the following trading day, damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased 500.com securities during the Class Period and was economically damaged thereby. 500.com, through its subsidiaries, purports to provide online gaming services primarily in the People's Republic of China and Europe. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com ABI JAPANESSE: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Neri Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marcos Leon Neri, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Abi Japanese Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Abi Sushi, Abumi Japanese Cuisine Inc. d/b/a Abi Sushi, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-00581 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and others minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery person, but he had additional unrelated inside duties, such as cleaning the restaurant and packaging soy sauce. He asserts that he was working roughly 68 hours per week. He alleges that the Defendants did not provide a time clock, sign in sheet, or any other method for employees to track their time worked. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff did not need to track his time because he was not paid based on the hours he worked. Instead, he was paid a fixed salary that did not vary based on his hours. As a result, the Plaintiff's effective rate of pay was always below the statutory federal and state minimum wages in effect at relevant times. In addition to his pay, the Plaintiff generally received tips for his delivery work, which he pooled with the other delivery people. However, the Defendants never provided the Plaintiff with any notices or information regarding the "tip credit." The Defendants did not keep records of the tips received by the Plaintiff, says the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff contends that he and others similarly situated are entitled to: compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law; back wages for overtime work for which the Defendants willfully failed to pay overtime premium pay; compensation for the Defendants' violations of the "spread of hours" requirements of the NYLL; and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL, because the Defendants' violations lacked a good faith basis. The Defendants owned and operated a sushi restaurant in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 563-9884 Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Williams Sues Over Debt Collection Letter -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accounts Receivable Management Professional Services LLC. The case is captioned as Janice Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Accounts Receivable Management Professional Services LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-00033 (W.D. Ky., Jan. 15, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Greg N. Stivers. The suit alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act involving deceptive and misleading debt collection letter. The Defendant is a debt collector company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: 201-282-6501 E-mail: info@steinsakslegal.com ALLERGAN INC: K.P. Suit Moved to District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled K.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERGAN INC.; ALLERGAN USA INC.; AND ALLERGAN PLC, Case No. 7:19-cv-09151, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on January 7, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00242 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Brian R. Martinotti and referred to Magistrate Joseph A. Dickson. Allergan, Inc. offers medical devices and over-the-counter products for ophthalmic, neurological, medical aesthetics, medical dermatology, breast aesthetics, obesity intervention, and urological diseases. Allergan serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Shawn Staples, Esq. 230 Westcott St., Suite 120 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 980-4381 Facsimile: (713) 980-1179 AMAZON.COM: Rober Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Wages ------------------------------------------------------- James Rober, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC and MICHAEL D. DEAL, Case No. 20-0131 (Mass. Cmmw., Feb. 3, 2020), is brought to seek relief for the Defendants' violations of state wage and hour laws by failing to pay their employees earned wages on the date of termination, in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act. On January 27, 2020, the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff's employment. The Defendant also terminated 90 other delivery drivers on this same date. As of his date of termination, the Plaintiff had performed 19.37 hours of work for which he had not been compensated, the Plaintiff states. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and his fellow delivery drivers their earned wages on the date of their termination. To date, the Defendant owes the Plaintiff and similarly-situated employees earned wages. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a delivery driver on July 22, 2019. Amazon is a retail and distribution company operating in multiple states, including Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Stephanie C. Ozahowski, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 338-9400 Email: nfo@mass-legal.com rm@mass-legal.com sco@mass-legal.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Weiss Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- SALOMON WEISS on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers V. AMERICAN EXPRESS LEGAL; ALEXANDER FINK, ESQ. AND AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00259 (E.D.N.Y., Jan 15, 2020), seeks redress for the Defendants' illegal practices concerning collection of debts, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In November 2019, the Plaintiff received a complaint that was filed against him on November 19, 2019, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland. The lawsuit was filed by Defendant Fink of AEL, on behalf of their client, American Express Company. Upon receipt of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff mailed out a letter to AEL disputing the alleged debt. The Plaintiff however, received no response. On December 18, 2019, the Plaintiff again mailed a letter of dispute to AEL, also with no response. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants as a matter of procedural practice and pattern never intend to follow through with the validation rights they purportedly provide in initial communications. He adds that the Defendants, when receiving written disputes as a matter of procedural practice and pattern do not provide verification and intentionally denied his dispute rights afforded to him under the FDCPA. AEL is a debt collector. AMEX is a national bank and the original creditor to whom the alleged debt was owed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668-6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com ASSETCARE LLC: Murray Files FDCPA Suit in Florida ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assetcare LLC. The case is styled as Karmiec Murray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Assetcare LLC, CF Medical LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00219 (M.D., Fla., Jan. 28, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Assetcare is a receivables management company that is dedicated exclusively to medical accounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zeig, Esq. Zeig Law Firm, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33024 Tel: (754) 217-3084 Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com AUSTRALIA GOV'T: Climate Activists and Lawyers Itching to Sue ------------------------------------------------------------- Cait Kelly, writing for The New Daily, reports that as Australia experiences the worst bushfire season on record there are growing calls for a class action against the federal government for the lacklustre response to climate change. Emboldened by a recent case in the Netherlands where citizens successfully mounted a class action against their government for its failure to act on the climate crisis, there are mounting calls to do the same here. One change.org.au petition to rally support for a class action has received more than 63,000 signatures. "The government has failed to increase its emissions targets," it reads. "Failed to increase the renewable energy target and failed the people of Australia. "We are now witnessing the effects of the climate emergency first hand, and still the government sits on its hands." But mounting a class action against the government over the issue is "uncharted territory" and highly complicated, said Australian Lawyers Alliance's Greg Barns. "There is certainly a strong and compelling moral argument that government inaction, in the face of uncontradicted expert evidence warning about the increased risk of number or, and magnitude of fires, should compel it to pay compensation to those impacted by the fires," he told The New Daily. One argument thrown around for a class action is the historical precedent taken after Black Saturday fires in which 173 people died. The defendants, power distributor SP Ausnet and assent manager Utility Services Group, were forced to pay out a record $495 million to 5000 victims. Proving the link between a government's response to climate change and the loss of lives and properties is a lot more difficult, Mr Barnes said. "In a legal sense, it is more complex because it has to be shown that there is a causal link between government inaction and the damage caused," he said. "A class action can't be ruled out and needs close analysis from high-quality lawyers, but class actions in Australia are difficult to launch let alone for parties to succeed." In December, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a landmark ruling which ordered the country's government to reduce emissions by at least 25 per cent, compared with 1990 levels, by the end of 2020. The reason Australians couldn't follow a similar approach is that we don't have a bill of rights, said lawyer George Newhouse. "The critical element that is missing here is that the Dutch are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and Australia has no equivalent to it and our Constitution does not contain any meaningful human rights or environmental protections," Mr Newhouse said. "That's the main reason why the case is unlikely to be followed." A class action might be out of the question but climate change litigation, at least against companies, is on the rise. Australia has so far had the second-highest number of climate cases globally after the United States and the nation's financial regulators have been warning about an increase of litigation for years now. On top of that, in 2016 a legal opinion by Noel Hutley QC and Sebastian Hartford-Davis identified climate change as a material financial risk to businesses. As a result, Australian company directors might be legally obliged to consider and report on the risks. If not a class action -- what? The bushfires have put Australia's climate policy under the spotlight. In the last few months millions of people have signed petitions asking governments to do something, said change.org.au's campaign director, Nic Holas. "It's been massive. We've had so many petitions started," he said. "We have had millions of people desperately trying to make change happen, and what I often say is that people turn to us when they're being failed by the state and it's no different with this crisis." One, calling for the federal government to declare a climate emergency was started by neurologist turned reluctant climate change activist Dr Kate Ahmad and has more than 200,000 signatures. "I'm surprised it's not higher," she said. "Studies show more than 60 per cent of Australians want action right now. I wish more people would sign it, I think we need bigger numbers. "We need action right now." Mr Barns said Australian courts had a history of catching up with new threats. "I think we are seeing an emerging new area of law around climate change and the role of civil and criminal law," he said. "The history of the law in Australia has been that in response to new and emerging causes of damage to people and property the courts have been prepared to extend liability and legislators to introduce laws designed to ensure accountability. "We would be outraged if government promoted cigarette smoking or removed mitigation measures -- this is an analogy." [GN] BATH PLANET OF ARKANSAS: Stafford Files FDCPA Suit in Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bath Planet of Arkansas, LLC. The case is styled as Jeremy Stafford, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. The Bath Planet of Arkansas, LLC and Chris Cusick, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-06005-RTD (W.D., Ark., Jan. 22, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Statutes: Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Bath Planet of Arkansas provides comprehensive bathroom remodeling services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. Sanford Law Firm PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com BEAUTY BIOSCIENCES: Kiler Files Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------ Beauty Biosciences LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Beauty Biosciences LLC doing business as: Beautybio.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00342 (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 22, 2020). Beauty Biosciences LLC is a privately held company in Dallas, TX and is a single location business, categorized under Beauty Salons.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com BOEING COMPANY: Sued by James for Hiding Design Flaws of 737 MAX ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip James, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00761 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 3, 2020), arises from the Defendant's misrepresentations and concealments of design flaws in BOEING 737 MAX series aircraft. The lawsuit seeks compensation on behalf of the Plaintiff and more than 2,000 pilots, who relied on BOEING's representations that the BOEING 737 MAX series aircraft was not only "safe," but that it offered the "greatest flexibility, reliability and efficiency in the single-aisle market" and that becoming certified to fly the MAX would be an excellent career choice. The Plaintiff says when he decided to qualify to fly the MAX, he relied on BOEING's many representations and its consistent and deliberate concealment of the MAX's many design flaws--including but not limited to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (the "MCAS"). This critical information was available only to BOEING, so the Plaintiff was required to place his complete trust in BOEING regarding the MAX's airworthiness, as well as his ability to manage potential inflight problems when operating the MAX. When BOEING's misrepresentations and concealments were finally discovered, the MAX was grounded and the Plaintiff suffered economic damages, including lost wages, reduced flying time, termination, and retraining costs, according to the complaint. But for BOEING's concealment of the design flaws, the MAX would never have been certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (the "FAA") and Plaintiff would never have committed his career to flying the MAX. BOEING--and BOEING alone--caused his damages and must be held accountable, the Plaintiff contends. For the reasons, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, requests entry of a judgment against BOEING in an amount that will make the members of the proposed classes whole, as well as deter BOEING and other manufacturers from prioritizing corporate profits over human life. Plaintiff is an Australian citizen, who was employed to fly internationally for Samoa Airways, the flag carrier for Samoa and has been a commercial pilot for almost 20 years and has previously flown almost exclusively BOEING aircraft. BOEING designs, manufactures and markets the MAX airplane.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick M. Jones, Esq. Sarah M. Beaujour, Esq. PMJ PLLC 100 South State Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 255-7976 Email: pmj@patjonespllc.com smb@patjonespllc.com - and - Joseph C. Wheeler, Esq. Karina D. Galliford, Esq. IALPG PTY LTD (T/AS INTERNATIONAL AEROSPACE LAW & POLICY GROUP) ID, 7/139 Junction Road Clayfield, Queensland, Australia 4011 Phone: +61 7 3040 1099 Email: jwheeler@ialpg.com kgalliford@ialpg.com BP EXPLORATION: Gets Summary Judgment Granted in Escobar Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned GUILLERMO ESCOBAR, Plaintiff, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "E" (2), Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-9170 (E.D. La.), Judge Susie Morgan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Co. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to harmful substances and chemicals after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Plaintiff Escobar alleges that during the Deepwater Horizon incident, he was employed by Industrial Labor and Equipment Services to perform response activities. During this work, he allegedly was exposed to oil, dispersants, and other harmful chemicals. He said he was diagnosed on Feb. 28, 2013 with chronic conjunctivitis, and other chronic conditions related to his exposure such as chronic nasopharyngitis. On Oct. 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") action against the Defendants, pursuant to the terms of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement ("MSA") in In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 ("MDL 2179"). The Plaintiff alleges his diagnosed medical conditions complained of were legally and proximately caused by his exposure to the substances and chemicals during his response activity efforts. On Nov. 14, 2019, the Defendants filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff failed to file any opposition by the deadline imposed by the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Judge Morgan finds that because the Plaintiff has failed to designate any expert to testify at trial, he will not be able to establish his medical diagnoses and causation at trial. The only summary judgment evidence before the Court relating to the Plaintiff's medical diagnosis, or an inference of causation, is a three-page Examination Report from Industrial Medicine Specialists ("IMS") dated Feb. 28, 2013. Likewise, in the case, the Plaintiff has not retained any expert to testify on his behalf at trial and he did not disclose to the Defendants any experts in compliance with the Court's deadline. Furthermore, the IMS report is not competent summary judgment evidence. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff belatedly designated his examiner from IMS as an expert, any such testimony would be inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. There is no evidence the IMS examiner conducted his examinations with information that is critical to proving causation in the lawsuit, such as knowledge of what chemicals he was exposed to, the toxicological effect of those chemicals, or the degree of his exposure. Without this critical information, the IMS examiner's opinions would be based on speculation and insufficient facts and data and therefore would be excluded as unreliable. As a result, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on all claims. Accordingly, Judge Morgan granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants, BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Co., and against Escobar. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/aZSF7a from Leagle.com. Guillermo Escobar, Plaintiff, pro se. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company, Defendants, represented by Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Catherine Pyune McEldowney -- CPM@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley and Anderson LLC, Devin C. Reid -- dcreid@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Georgia Lee Lucier -- georgialucier@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Kevin Michael Hodges -- khodges@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP & Scott C. Seiler -- scseiler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis. BRIA HEALTH SERVICES: Yegger Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Nande Yegger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bria Health Services, LLC and TRN Milwaukee, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-144 (E.D. Wisc., January 30, 2020) is a collective and class action brought against the Defendants for their unlawful compensation system in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws (WWPCL). Plaintiff, who worked as Medical Technician at Defendants' "BRIA of Trinity Village" location in Wisconsin, alleges that Defendants operated unlawful compensation system that deprived current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of their wages earned for all compensable work performed each workweek. Furthermore, Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of herself and all other similarly-situated current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of Defendants for purpose of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorney's fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. Defendant BRIA Health Services owns, operates, and manages various locations such as rehabilitation, skilled nursing, and assisted living facilities, in the States of Wisconsin and Illinois. Defendant TRN Milwaukee, a skilled nursing facility located at 7500 West Dean Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53223, is owned, operated, and managed by BRIA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Tel: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 BUCKEYE RV: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Dingus Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Dingus & Spenser Sanders, On behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. Buckeye RV, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00612-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 3, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay employees overtime wages, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant suffered or permitted the Plaintiffs to work more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks, entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs allege they were not fully and properly paid in accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs also allege they were required to clock out for meal periods but they did not have a bona fide meal period of 30 minutes under the wage and hour laws and attendant regulations. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as service technicians and a Parts Specialist. The Defendant manufactures recreational vehicles and accompanying parts and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com CH ROBINSON: Faces Moore PACA Suit Alleging False Accountings ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID MOORE d/b/a MOORE FAMILY FARMS; TERRY LUSK, JASON LUSK, AND JUSTIN LUSK d/b/a JTJ FARMS; KEVIN RENTZ, AMANDA CALHOUN RENTZ, DENNIS BRUCE RENTZ, and KARLA JO RENTZ d/b/a RENTZ FAMILY FARMS; KEVIN COGGINS d/b/a MEK FARMS; BOWLES FARMING COMPANY, INC.; AGROPECUARIA LOS AMERICANOS S.C. de R.L. de C.V.; PHIL SANDIFER & SONS FARMS LLC; JMB FARM LLC; POWE FARMS MANAGEMENT LLC; CA COMERCIAL, S.A.C.; GLOBAL FRESH, S.A.C.; and PEPAS TROPICALES DEL PERU, S.A.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC. d/b/a C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, INC., C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, and ROBINSON FRESH, Case No. 0:20-cv-00252-DSD-TNL (D. Minn., Jan. 16, 2020), stems from the Defendants' alleged collective unlawful conduct in violation of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930. According to the complaint, CHR Worldwide breached its duties owed to the Plaintiffs under the PACA and its regulations by providing false and incomplete accountings to the Plaintiffs under the parties' agreements. Such accountings did not truly and correctly account for the results of consignment sales and particularly did not accurately reflect the true freight cost, as well as seed, pallet rental and other third-party rebates received. The Plaintiffs contend that CHR Worldwide actively sought to prevent the discovery of the breach of its duties under PACA regulations by providing the Plaintiffs with only the false and incomplete accountings created by Famous accounting software and by failing to make disclosure to the Plaintiffs and other consignment growers of the true freight costs and revenues recorded in third-party truckers' online portal Navisphere and Compass and by not disclosing seed, pallet rental and other rebates received from payments made by the Plaintiffs to such third-party suppliers. The dual set of books maintained by CHR Worldwide facilitated this practice, the Plaintiffs allege. CHR Worldwide was founded in 1905 and originally engaged in sourcing services of buying, selling, and marketing of fresh fruits, vegetables, and other perishable items. Over time CHR Worldwide began providing freight transportation services and logistics solutions to companies of all sizes, in a wide variety of industries but, in addition to its new transportation and logistics services, CHR Worldwide continued its original business of sourcing fresh produce.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig A. Stokes, Esq. STOKES LAW OFFICE LLP 3330 Oakwell Court, Suite 225 San Antonio, TX 78218 Telephone: (210) 804-0011 Facsimile: (210) 822-2595 E-mail: cstokes@stokeslawofffice.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Rease Sues Over Unsolicited Text Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Rease, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00150 (D. Conn., Feb. 3, 2020), is a brought for legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in sending automated text messages advertisements to the cellular telephone of the Plaintiff and numerous other individuals across the country, in clear violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. All of the subject text messages received by the Plaintiff were transmitted by or on behalf of the Defendant without his requisite prior "express written consent," according to the complaint. And indeed, the Defendant actually transmitted the text messages at issue in this case to the Plaintiff and all other putative Class members in an automated fashion and without human intervention, with hardware and software that had the capacity to store, produce, and dial random or sequential numbers and that received and stored telephone numbers and then dialed such numbers automatically. Because the Plaintiff's cellular phone alerts him whenever he receives a text message, each unsolicited text message transmitted by or on behalf of the Defendant to his Number invaded his privacy and intruded upon his seclusion upon receipt, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Florida. Charter Communications, Inc. is a telecommunications and mass media company that offers its services to over 26 million customers in 41 states under the "Spectrum" branding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 S. Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06110 Phone: + 1 (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: + 1 (860) 920-5242 Email: ames.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: + 1 (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: + 1 (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: +1 (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: +1 (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Suarez Seeks to Certify Ex-Employees Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled GIOVANNA SUAREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, and CALIBURN, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-24573-JLK (S.D. Fla.), seeks to have this class certified: Any employee of Defendant Comprehensive Health Services, LLC or Defendant Caliburn, LLC who was not given a minimum of 60-days advance written notice of termination and whose employment was terminated as a result of a "mass layoff" or "plant closing" as defined in 20 C.F.R. Section 639.3 and 29 U.S.C. Section 2101 under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification [WARN] Act of 1988 within the applicable statutory period. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint her as class representative, appoint the law firm of Florin Gray Bouzas Owens, LLC as class counsel and authorize notice to all class members. Comprehensive is a for-profit corporation that contracted with the United States to operate a shelter in Homestead, Florida, that housed unaccompanied minor children arriving to the United States from Central America (the Facility). Comprehensive terminated the Plaintiff and hundreds of similarly situated employees on or within 30 days of November 1, 2019. The termination was caused by a mass layoff or plant closing at the Facility. However, Comprehensive neither provided her and the other class members at least 60-days' advance written notice of their termination, nor paid or provided benefits to them during the 60-day period, as required by the WARN Act, the Plaintiff alleges.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miguel Bouzas, Esq. Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Scott L. Terry, Esq. FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Telephone: (727) 254-5255 Facsimile: (727) 483-7942 E-mail: miguel@fgbolaw.com wolfgang@fgbolaw.com scott@fgbolaw.com CONFI-CHEK INC: Garza FCRA Suit Moved From E.D. Cal. to S.D. Tex. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as David Garza, Naser Alzer, Margarita Hernandez, Kimberly Kennedy, Amandeep Singh, and Samah Haider, on behalf of themselves and of others similarly situated v. Confi-Chek, Inc.; Peoplefinders.com; Enformion, Inc.; and Advanced Background Checks, Case No. 2:18-cv-01968 (Filed July 16, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston) on Jan. 16, 2020. The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00175 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Confi-Chek Inc. provides public record and investigative information services. PeopleFinders.com is a public records business located in Sacramento, California. Enformion Inc was founded in 2005. The company's line of business includes providing computer processing and data preparation services. Founded in 1992, Advanced Background Check, Inc. is a professional, full-service pre-employment screening and public records retrieval firm.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephanie R. Tatar,Esq. TATAR LAW FIRM APC 3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (323) 744-1146 Facsimile: (888) 778-5695 - and - Thomas J. Lyons, Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 - and - William David George, Esq. BAKER WOTRING LLP 600 Travis Street, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 980-6513 Facsimile: (713) 980-1701 The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Lee, Esq. Christopher J. Truxler, Esq. Eric E. Suits, Esq. John Drury, Esq. Pamela Q. Devata, Esq. Selyn Hong, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-1589 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 - and - Joshua Heath Escovedo, Esq. WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN 400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 558-6181 Facsimile: (916) 446-1611 CUSTOM TRUSS: Nunez Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- BERNABE NUNEZ and ISAI PEREZ v. CUSTOM TRUSS LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and IVA KUTLOVA, Case No. 9:20-cv-80050-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 16, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs performed hours of service for Custom Truss in excess of 40 hours during one or more workweeks, for which Custom Truss failed to properly pay additional overtime premiums. Rather than properly pay the Plaintiffs overtimes wages, as is mandated by law, Custom Truss would have the Plaintiffs "sign in" on a group time sheet and would pay them their normal salary, rather than time and one-half. The Plaintiffs were employed by Custom Truss in the area of general labor. Mr. Nunez was employed from Oct. 1, 2016, through Jan. 7, 2019, while Mr. Perez was employed from Oct. 1, 2015, through Feb. 14, 2019. Custom Truss manufactures custom wood trusses and truss systems for builders and homeowners throughout South Florida and the Caribbean.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Lustig, Esq. Robert C. Johnson, Esq. PIKE & LUSTIG, LLP 1209 N. Olive Ave. West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 855-7585 Facsimile: (561) 855-7710 E-mail: pleadings@pikelustig.com CYTOSPORT INC: Deal in Clay Suit Denied Preliminary Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CHAYLA CLAY et al., Plaintiffs, v. CYTOSPORT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The class action alleges false advertising involving Muscle Milk protein shakes and powders. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the case. The Plaintiffs propose to amend the class definitions for settlement purposes to encompasses all persons in the United States (including its states, districts or territories) who purchased specified products during a certain period of time. The proposed class definitions could therefore encompass purchasers other than consumers. According to the operative complaint, the purpose of the action is to enforce consumer protection laws. A class action was certified on this basis, and all class representatives are consumers. However, Judge Lorenz finds that neither the proposed settlement nor the proposed notice makes a distinction between consumers, who purchased the products for personal use, and other purchasers, such as wholesalers, retailers, and fitness clubs, who purchased them for resale. The Plaintiffs have not shown that extending the class definition as proposed meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), or that the settlement on these terms would be fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e). The release provision also precludes a broader scope of claims than allowed by Hesse v. Spring Corporation, the Court opines. Furthermore, without specific briefing of the legality and constitutionality of the provision, the Court is not inclined to approve a settlement enjoining the class members from "assisting others" in filing claims against the Defendant. The Court next finds that the proposed notice program is insufficiently presented for the Court to evaluate whether its distribution and content meet the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2), (e)(1) and due process. The proposed Class Administrator, Angeion Group, proposes an advertising campaign consisting of "targeted internet banner notice," print publication notice in People Magazine and Sports Illustrated, sponsored notice on two class-action related websites (www.topclassactions.com and www.classaction.org), a dedicated settlement website for the action and a toll-free phone line. Only the proposed long-form notice, which presumably will only be posted on the dedicated settlement website, has been provided for review. In addition to the lack of specificity, the proposed notice raises two questions, the Court continues. First, in the consumer class action context, notice may be posted in places frequented by the class members or through third parties, for example retailers. Second, neither the Plaintiffs nor the Class Administrator explain why Sports Illustrated was selected for publication notice, but an appropriate women's' interest publication was not. In addition to the circulation numbers, the selection of publications should be justified in terms of probability of reaching the class members. The proposed notice provides for claim submission by mail or online by filling out an appropriate form, which is to be included in the notice. On the other hand, it appears that requests for exclusion may only be submitted by mail. It also appears that the proposed notice will not include an exclusion form. The Court is not inclined to approve a settlement where submitting a notice of exclusion is more onerous than submitting a claim. The procedure for objecting to the settlement is not adequately explained to the class members and is made unduly onerous, the Court adds. The Court will not approve a proposed notice which restricts objections beyond what is required by Rule 23(e)(5). The proposed notice also must make clear that making an objection does not preclude a class member from submitting a claim. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lorenz denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary settlement approval without prejudice to re-filing after curing the foregoing defects. For guidance regarding class notice, claim processing, objections, exclusions, and final settlement approval briefing, the parties may refer to Dashnaw et al. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., case no. 17cv159-L-JLB. Finally, with any renewed motion, the Plaintiffs are requested to email to the Court's efile address editable Word versions of the proposed class notice materials, including the claim form and exclusion form. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/mG95nS from Leagle.com. Chayla Clay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Marino -- amarino@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Jason J. Thompson -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz PC, pro hac vice, Nick Suciu, III, Barbat Mansour & Suciu PLLC, pro hac vice, Trenton R. Kashima -- trk@classactionlaw.com -- Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP & Jeffrey R. Krinsk -- jrk@classactionlaw.com -- Finkelstein and Krinsk. Erica Ehrlichman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Logan Reichert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy L. Marino, Marino Law, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz PC, pro hac vice, Trenton R. Kashima, Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP & Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Finkelstein and Krinsk. Chris Roman, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz PC, pro hac vice & Trenton R. Kashima, Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP. Cytosport, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Aaron D. Van Oort -- aaron.vanoort@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Christine R.M. Kain -- christine.kain@faegrebd.com -- Faegre & Benson LLP, pro hac vice, David P. Burke -- dburke@neildymott.com -- Neil Dymott Frank McFall & Trexler, Sarah Lynn Brew -- sarah.brew@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Tyler A. Young -- tyler.young@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew I. Kaplan -- matthew.kaplan@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis & West LLP. DAY & ZIMMERMANN: Court Denies Recusal Motion in Waters Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, John Waters, Plaintiff, v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-11585-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for recusal. The case is a putative class action which arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Day & Zimmerman has failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the law. Pending before the Court are the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and motion to stay. The Plaintiff has also filed a motion to disqualify and asks the judicial officer assigned to the session of the Court to recuse himself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 455. Before the Court can consider the other pending motions, it must address the Plaintiff's motion for recusal. The Plaintiff states that one of his several attorneys, Attorney Gordon, has represented a party in an unspecified, separate and confidential matter concerning "Slade Gorton & Company Inc." The judicial officer does have a relationship with Slade Gorton & Co., Inc., a Massachusetts corporation ("SG & Co."), and is recused from matters involving its retained counsel, Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Judge Gorton finds that the Plaintiff provides no material information, however, about the matter in question. Nor does Plaintiff offer any factual basis to support his contention that the impartiality of the judicial officer might reasonably be questioned. Because the Plaintiff has not as yet provided any colorable reason for the assigned judicial officer to recuse himself, Judge Gorton denied the Plaintiff's motion to disqualify, without prejudice. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended motion, he is directed to provide more relevant information about the alleged grounds for recusal, including but not limited to: (1) the particular SG & Co. matter in question; (2) the parties to the dispute; (3) the involvement of Attorney Gordon and whether his client is adverse to SG & Co.; (4) the basis for the claim that the matter is confidential; and (5) the current status of the matter. If there are legitimate reasons for doing so, the Plaintiff may file confidential material related to his renewed motion under seal, with full disclosure to defendant, but the Plaintiff's request to set a discovery schedule for the counsel to seek confidentiality waivers will be denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/qJzmp4 from Leagle.com. John Waters, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Josephson -- mjosephson@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac vice, Philip J. Gordon -- pgordon@gordonllp.com -- Gordon Law Group, Richard J. Burch -- rburch@brucknerburch.com -- Bruckner Burch PLLC, pro hac vice & Richard M. Schreiber -- rschreiber@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac vice. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keri L. Engelman -- keri.engelman@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael J. Puma -- michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice. DELTA DENTAL: Faces Endodontics Antitrust Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- Endodontics of New Mexico, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00798 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 3, 2020), arises from a contract, combination, or conspiracy among the Defendants and their co-conspirators to allocate territories of operation within the United States and its territories, in violation of the Sherman Act and the New Mexico Antitrust Act. The Defendants are DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY; DeltaUSA; DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION; ARIZONA DENTAL INSURANCE SERVICE, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF ARKANSAS, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA; DELTA DENTAL OF COLORADO; DELTA DENTAL OF DELAWARE, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; HAWAII DENTAL SERVICE; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF IDAHO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF ILLINOIS; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF INDIANA, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF IOWA; DELTA DENTAL OF KANSAS, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF KENTUCKY, INC.; MAINE DENTAL SERVICE CORP.; DENTAL SERVICE OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MICHIGAN, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA; DELTA DENTAL OF MISSOURI; DELTA DENTAL OF NEBRASKA; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW JERSEY, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF NEW MEXICO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW YORK, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF OHIO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF OKLAHOMA; OREGON DENTAL SERVICE; DELTA DENTAL OF PENNSYLVANIA; DELTA DENTAL OF PUERTO RICO, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF RHODE ISLAND; DELTA DENTAL OF SOUTH DAKOTA; DELTA DENTAL OF TENNESSEE, INC.; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF VERMONT, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF VIRGINIA; DELTA DENTAL OF WASHINGTON; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC.; DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN; AND DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF WYOMING. The Plaintiff is a New Mexico dental practice that accepts Delta Dental insurance plans and provides services to patients insured by Delta Dental in return for reimbursements from Delta Dental. As dental insurance companies, the Delta Dental State Insurers contract with dental practices, including the Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes, for rates at which the Delta Dental State Insurers agree to reimburse dental practices for dental goods and services provided to patients with Delta Dental insurance plans. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in the antitrust scheme in order to suppress compensation paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes at rates that are below levels that would prevail in a competitive marketplace to dentists, who are members of the Delta Dental provider network. According to the complaint, although the Delta Dental State Insurers are independent companies, all are members, or affiliates of members, of the Delta Dental Plans Association. The Defendants facilitated the alleged conspiracy through the Delta Dental Plans Association, including by requiring each Delta Dental State Insurer to enter into uniform contracts with the Delta Dental Plans Association. These contracts restrict each Delta Dental State Insurer to an assigned territory, prevent Delta Dental State Insurers from competing with each other, and restrict the Delta Dental State Insurers from offering dental insurance plans outside of the Delta Dental brand. The Delta Dental State Insurers have each secured market power within their assigned territories, and the Defendants, as a unified enterprise, have secured market power over the market for dental insurance across the United States, the Plaintiff contends. Leveraging their market power, the Defendants agreed to fix the reimbursement rates at which they reimburse Delta Dental Providers for services provided to patients with Delta Dental insurance at below-market levels. Because each of the Delta Dental State Insurers has market power in its assigned territory, Delta Dental Providers have no choice but to accept patients with Delta Dental insurance and accept the anticompetitive reimbursement rates required by the Delta Dental insurance plan, the Plaintiff asserts. The Defendants' anticompetitive practices significantly impacted the Plaintiff and Class members during the Class Period, according to the complaint. Unlike other professional industries in which inflation-adjusted incomes have increased in recent years, average inflation-adjusted net income for dentists has steadily declined over the past decade, due in part to the conduct of the Defendants. Meanwhile, the Defendants' revenues have increased over the same time period. If Delta Dental State Insurers could compete with each other in the territories in which other Delta Dental State Insurers operate, the resulting competition would provide dentists with more opportunities to receive fairer compensation, the Plaintiff avers. Endodontics of New Mexico is a dental services provider located in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Delta Dental State Insurers are predominantly not-for-profit dental services corporations that, in the words of the Delta Dental Plan Association, collectively comprise the "nation's leading provider of dental insurance."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle Shamberg, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 750-1265 Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. Richard D. Schwartz, Esq. Joshua T. Ripley, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: ecramer@bm.net pmadden@bm.net rschwartz@bm.net jripley@bm.net DENNY'S INC: Fails to Pay All Wages Due, Deleon Labor Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Myra Deleon and Karla Jimenez, as individuals and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. DENNY'S INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01082 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay all wages due. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants failed to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; to provide legally compliant rest periods; to provide accurate itemized wage statements upon payment of wages; to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees; and to reimburse employees for necessary business expenditures. According to the complaint, the Company failed to pay to the Plaintiffs wages for work during meal periods during which they and the proposed class were ostensibly "duty-free." The Plaintiffs contend that Denny's was obligated to pay them overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours of work in one day or 40 hours in one week and double-time compensation for hours worked in excess of 12 hours in one day. To the extent that the Defendant required the Plaintiffs to work the uncompensated, off-the-clock hours on top of a regular shift of 8 hours or more, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiffs proper overtime and/or double-time rates for hours worked off-the-clock as required by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a waitress. DENNY'S INC. franchises the majority of its approximately 1,600 branded restaurants world-wide but directly owns and operates numerous locations in California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Edward Kim, 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 ekim@mahoney-law.net DINO PALMIERI: Protective Order Bid in Torres FLSA Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAHIANNA TORRES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DINO PALMIERI SALONS, INC., et al, Defendants, Case No. 1:19 CV 1501 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Donald C. Nugent of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Vacate and For Protective Order. The Defendant filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's Emergency Motion, and the Plaintiffs filed a Reply in support of their request. The motion asks the Court to (1) vacate its Marginal Entry Order dated July 31, 2019; (2) issue a protective order enjoining the Defendants from engaging in improper communications with putative class members; and, (3) issue an order invalidating any arbitration agreement previously signed by a putative class member, which would waive the member's right to participate in the collective action. The parties agree that the Defendants communicated with the putative class members by email, and solicited employees to enter into an arbitration agreement that would waive any right to bring or participate in any class, representative or collective action against [Dino Palmieri] under the FCRA, FLSA or similar state and local wage and hour claims, including as a class member or opt-in. Based on the language of the email communications, the arbitration agreement, and all other available and relevant information, the Judge Nugent finds that the Plaintiffs' motion should be denied. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants' Motion for extension of time to file response/reply to Motion for Conditional Certification, Expedited Opt-In Discovery, and Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs contained misrepresented that the Plaintiffs had not provided the Defendants with a written demand for damages, which was supposed be one of the potential triggers for the running of Defendants' response time. The Court granted the Defendants' request for extension. It has since accepted and considered the Defendants' opposition, and has ruled in the Plaintiffs' favor on the Motion for Conditional Certification. Judge Nugent denied as moot the motion to vacate the Court's July 31, 2019 ruling. The lawsuit was filed in State court and removed to the Federal District Court on July 1, 2019. On Sept. 29, 2019, approximately a month after filing their Answer to the Complaint, Dino Palmieri sent stylists an email stating that the Salon is being sued by former stylists and outlining very generally the claims contained in the lawsuit. There is no mention in the email that the suit was filed as a class or collective action. Contrary to the Plaintiffs' assertions, Judge Nugent finds that the Defendants communications did mention that a lawsuit by other employees was pending, and stated that the arbitration agreement was intended to keep money out of a named Plaintiff, Dena Marinelli and her attorney's hands, which at least suggests that it would block the signing employees from joining in the pending suit. A monetary incentive of $50 was provided and the communications made clear that signing the agreement was voluntary and no negative action would occur if an employee chose not to sign. Many of the statements cited as lies or fraud were statements of opinion rather than statement of fact. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' brief misconstrued or misread as false many statements that are facially truthful. Although the arbitration agreement could conceivably fall into the category of communications that may discourage persons from opting into the class," which are concerning, not all communications of this type are improper. It is certainly conceivable that an employer who improperly pressures or misleads employees into signing agreements that would eliminate their right to participate in a pending class action could be considered abusive and result in an injunction, none of the information currently before the Court indicates that Dino Palmieri's email, or any other communications between Defendants and their employees to date, rise to this level. Finally, as the Plaintiffs have noted, the benefits of an FLSA collection action depend on employees receiving accurate and timely notice concerning the pendency of he collective action, so they can make informed decisions about whether to participate. The conditional certification issued by the Court on Dec. 18, 2019 makes clear that te notice will go to all employees who fit the putative class definition whether or not they have signed an arbitration agreement. If there are any questions as to the potential preclusive effect of that agreement on the employees ability to opt-in to the action, those questions can be raised by the individuals who are actually a party to those agreements at the appropriate time. The effect and enforceability of the arbitration agreements is an individualized issue better suited for disposition at a later time. For reasons stated, Judge Nugent denied the Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Vacate and For Protective Order at this time. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/uPIkVi from Leagle.com. Dahianna Torres, Dena Marinelli, Chelsea Amata & Katie Kauble, Plaintiffs, represented by D. Patrick Kasson -- pkasson@reminger.com -- Reminger Co., Marianne B. Stockett -- mstockett@reminger.com -- Reminger Co., Brian C. Lee -- blee@reminger.com -- Fadel & Beyer & Daniel C. Egger, Reminger Co. Dino Palmieri Salons, Inc. & Dino Palmieri, Defendants, represented by Barry Y. Freeman -- bfreeman@bdblaw.com -- Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs. DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Prentice Balks at UnitedHealth Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID A. PRENTICE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC., BRIAN GRIFFIN, PHILIP R. HAGERMAN, BENJAMIN WOLIN, REGINA BENJAMIN, DAVID C. DREYER, KENNETH KLEPPER, SHAWN C. TOMASELLO, UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, and DENALI MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00068-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from a proposed transaction pursuant to which Diplomat will be acquired by affiliates of OptumRx, Inc. On December 9, 2019, Diplomat's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, a Delaware corporation and Denali Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to purchase all of Diplomat's outstanding common stock for $4.00 per share in cash. The Tender Offer was set to expire on February 7, 2020. On January 9, 2020, the Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff asserts that the Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation Statement. The Plaintiff contends that the disclosure of projected financial information is material because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses performed by the company's financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion. The Plaintiff is an owner of Diplomat common stock. Diplomat, through its specialty pharmacy and infusion services, helps people with complex and chronic health conditions in all fifty states and Washington, D.C., partnering with payers, providers, hospitals, and manufacturers. The Individual Defendants are directors of the company.[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 - Marshall P. Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: mdees@holzerlaw.com DIV HOLDINGS: King Sues Over Unsolicited Text Advertisements ------------------------------------------------------------ David King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIV HOLDINGS, LLC, doing business as "Jardin Premium Cannabis Dispensary," Case No. 2:20-cv-00231-RFB-NJK (D. Nev., Feb. 3, 2020), is a brought for legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in sending automated text messages advertisements to his cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous other individuals across the country, in clear violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. All of the subject text messages sent to the Plaintiff and the members of the putative Class constituted "advertisements" or "telemarketing" messages within the meaning of the TCPA and its implementing regulations because each such message was aimed at promoting the commercial availability of the Defendant's products and services and ultimately selling such products and services, the Plaintiff alleges. He adds that those text messages were transmitted by or on behalf of the Defendant without his requisite prior "express written consent." Because the Plaintiff's cellular phone alerts him whenever he receives a text message, each unsolicited text message transmitted by or on behalf of the Defendant to his Number invaded his privacy and intruded upon his seclusion upon receipt, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Las Vegas, Nevada. DIV Holdings, LLC is the owner and operator of the "Jardin Premium Cannabis Dispensary," who offers consumers a wide array of cannabis products and pot delivery services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. O'Mara, Esq. THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C. 311 East Liberty Street Reno, Nevada 89501 Phone: + 1 (775) 323-1321 Facsimile: + 1 (775) 323-4082 Email: david@omaralaw.net - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: + 1 (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: + 1 (415) 402-0058 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com DR. DENNIS GROSS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Conner Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MARY CONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DR. DENNIS GROSS SKINCARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00114 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website -- https://drdennisgross.com/ -- is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare, LLC offers beauty products. The Company offers online portal for beauty products such as cleanser, sun protection cream, facial mask, serum, and moisturizer. Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com DVA CONTRACTING: Violates FLSA/NYLL Over OT Pay, Landaverde Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Landaverde, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. DVA CONTRACTING CORP. d/b/a DISANO CONSTRUCTION CO., and DNO EQUIPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT INC. d/b/a DISANO CONSTRUCTION CO., and PIETRO OPPEDISANO, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-00563 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants also violated NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with wage statements containing specific categories of accurate information on each payday, the Plaintiff asserts. According to the complaint, the Defendants required the Plaintiff to work, and he did work, in excess of forty hours per week, or virtually each week, but the Defendants failed to pay him at the statutorily required overtime rate of at least one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for any hours that he worked in a week in excess of forty. Instead, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff a flat daily rate regardless of the total hours that Plaintiff worked in a day or in a week, and that did not include overtime premiums for hours that Plaintiff worked in a week over forty. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a construction and demolition worker in and around New York City. The Defendants operated a Queens-based construction and demolition business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle E. Mietus, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelly, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 ECOLAB INC: NJ District Court Certifies Class in Charlot FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned ANTHONY CHARLOT, ALAN REMACHE, JOSE TEJADA, GREGORY GERMUSKA, GARWYN RICHMOND, MATT RIGGS, CHRISTOPHER HENDLEY, AND KRISTOFFER WRIGHT, Plaintiffs, v. ECOLAB, INC., Defendant, Civ. No. 18-10528 (KM) (MAH) (D. N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The motion for class certification arises from the decision of Defendant Ecolab to classify certain of its employees as exempt from the overtime-wage requirements of New Jersey state law. The employees believe that they are primarily service technicians, entitled to overtime pay; Ecolab maintains that they are primarily salespeople. Ecolab, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Minnesota, sells commercial sanitation products. It contracts with its customers to install its equipment and keep it in good working order by providing routine and emergency maintenance. In return, Ecolab's clients commit to exclusively purchase Ecolab's chemical cleaning products. Plaintiffs Remache and Wright worked in New Jersey for two Ecolab divisions that sell specialized cleaners and sanitizers to the hospitality industry. They were employed by Ecolab as dishwasher repair technicians, positions that Ecolab refers to as route sales managers and service and sales route managers. RMs install, maintain, and repair commercial dishwashers as provided in the lease agreements Ecolab signs with its customers. The two named New Jersey Plaintiffs are former Ecolab RMs. Remache worked for Ecolab as an RM in New Jersey from approximately February 2012 to February 2013. Wright worked for Ecolab as an RM in New Jersey from approximately 2003 through October 2012. On Sept. 11, 2012, several RMs sued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under docket number 2:12-cv-04543. Those RMs asserted claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of Ecolab employees nationwide and also brought claims under the labor laws of Illinois, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington. With respect to the named Plaintiffs only, the parties agreed to crossmove for summary judgment on the retail or service establishment exemption of the FLSA. The parties filed their cross-motions for summary judgment on Dec. 22, 2014. On Sept. 30, 2015, Judge Kiyo Matsumoto granted Ecolab's motion and denied that of the Plaintiffs. Judge Matsumoto's ruling rested solely on the FLSA; it did not address the New Jersey Plaintiffs' NJWHL issues. In April 2016, Ecolab again moved for summary judgment and moved to strike from the amended complaint the class and collective claims. On March 29, 2017, Judge Matsumoto granted the motion for summary judgment on all FLSA claims and on all non-New Jersey state-law claims. Consequently, only the Plaintiffs' New Jersey state law claims remained. On Feb. 17, 2017, Plaintiffs moved to certify the class in the Eastern District of New York. Judge Matsumoto ordered the parties to mediate. Mediation failed and on June 13, 2018, the action was transferred -- still uncertified -- to the District of New Jersey. The parties have since updated the evidentiary record. The proposed class consists of anyone who was employed by Ecolab in New Jersey as a route manager, route sales manager, or service and sales route manager between Sept. 11, 2010 and the present. Approximately 106 people meet those criteria. The Plaintiffs move for class certification and seek to represent a putative class whose members allegedly suffered uniform harm because they were all misclassified by Ecolab. Ecolab alleges that the case is not appropriate for class certification. After a thorough analysis of the Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) requirements, Judge McNulty finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied them all. Therefore, Judge McNulty granted their motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/zFKao5 from Leagle.com. ANTHONY CHARLOT, ALAN REMACHE, Class Representative, JOSE TEJADA, GREGORY GERMUSKA, GARWYN RICHMOND, MATT RIGGS, CHRISTOPHER HENDLEY & KRISTOFFER WRIGHT, Class Representative, Plaintiffs, represented by GLEN D. SAVITS, GREEN SAVITS, LLC. ECOLAB INC, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER IVY FISCHER, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. ENDO HEALTH: Mentasta Sues Over Epidemic Addiction to Opioid Drug ----------------------------------------------------------------- MENTASTA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, Individually and on behalf of a class of Federally-Recognized Indian tribes similarly situated within the boundaries of the State of Alaska v. ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-op-45024-DAP (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 16, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, abatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and civil penalties against the Defendants that marketed, promoted, manufactured, and distributed prescription opioid drugs, which allegedly injured, and continues to injure, the Mentasta Tribe and its Tribal Citizens throughout the State of Alaska. According to the complaint, the Defendants unleashed a devastating epidemic of prescription and non-prescription opioid abuse into federally-recognized Indian tribes, their peoples, and their Indian Lands across the United States, including Alaska. The ravaging effects that the opioid crisis has had on the babies and children born to addicted mothers in Indian Country are permanent, with effects ranging from Non-Abstinence Syndrome babies and children to utter depletion of foster care and educational resources. The Defendants include ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; ALLERGAN FINANCE LLC, f/k/a ACTAVIS, INC., f/k/a WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC.; MALLINCKRODT PLC; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT BRAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SPECGX LLC; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; McKESSON CORPORATION; HEALTH MART SYSTEMS, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; WALGREEN CO.; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES LLC; WALMART INC.; and CVS PHARMACY, INC. The Defendants are companies, which manufactures, distributes, and promotes opioid drugs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Roe Frazer III, Esq. W. Matthew Pettit, Esq. FRAZER PLC 30 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 450 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: 615-647-6464 E-mail: roe@frazer.law trey@frazer.law mpettit@frazer.law - and - Lael Echo-Hawk, Esq. MTHIRTYSIX, PLLC 700 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Second Floor--The Yard Washington, D.C. 20003 Telephone: 206-271-0106 E-mail: Lael@MThirtySixPLLC.com - and - Little Fawn Boland, Esq. CEIBA LEGAL 35 Miller Ave. No. 143 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: 415 684-7670 E-mail: littlefawn@ceibalegal.com - and - J. Nixon Daniel, III, Esq. Mary Jane Bass, Esq. John R. Zoesch, III, Esq. BEGGS & LANE, RLLP 501 Commendencia Street Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: 850 432-2451 E-mail: jnd@beggslane.com mjb@beggslane.com jrz@beggslane.com - and - Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC P.O. Box 2129 Fairhope, AL 36533 Telephone: (205) 252-6127 E-mail: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com FACEBOOK INC: Faces Reveal Chat Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- REVEAL CHAT HOLDCO LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, USA TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (d/b/a Lenddo USA), a Delaware corporation, CIR.CL, INC., a dissolved Delaware corporation, and BEEHIVE BIOMETRIC, INC., a dissolved Delaware corporation v. FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-363 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated seeking to hold Facebook accountable for its alleged overtly anticompetitive conduct. According to the complaint, the company, its executives, and its engineers worked together over years to execute an anticompetitive scheme. They did so with flagrant disregard for competition, for Facebook users, or for the law. Among other things, the Plaintiffs allege, Facebook moved to crush or co-opt competition that existed on its own platform by identifying and categorizing potential market threats, then extinguishing those threats by cutting them off from key application program interfaces ("APIs") in Facebook's Platform--functionality that provided social applications with user data that fueled their growth; and Facebook collected valuable user data from competing platforms, growing its own mobile footprint and constraining the growth of rivals. The Plaintiffs contend that Facebook's users will lack any viable choices for the services Facebook provides to them in exchange for their data. Because Facebook can control the amount of user data and privacy controls that a user of social networks can demand, other networks could not compete with Facebook simply by increasing the value they provide to users or increasing their costs of social data acquisition. The Plaintiffs add that Facebook's market power and the 'social data barrier to entry' protecting its business continue to foreclose consumer choice because users lack a competitive platform to which they can move if they are unsatisfied with Facebook's demands of them, including the level of privacy provided to them to obtain their social data. The Plaintiffs seek trebled damages and injunctive relief under the federal antitrust laws to remedy Facebook's brazen play for dominance, and to stop the Company from further solidifying its unlawful monopoly, barrier to entry, and market power. Reveal Chat is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Bainbridge Island, Washington. LikeBright was founded in 2011 and launched the dating site LikeBright.com that same year. Lenddo is a market leader in alternative credit scoring and identity verification, allowing individuals and small enterprises in emerging markets to leverage their digital footprints, including social media data, to unlock access to financial and credit services to which they might not have access through traditional means. Cir.cl was founded in 2013 and designed an online platform for individuals and communities to manage peer-to-peer marketplace transactions, with the goal of allowing real-time integration of users' various online communities. Beehive was founded in 2013 and designed an identity verification system drawing heavily on social media data through a trademarked and proprietary Social Authentication Technology. Founded in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook is a social media company that provides online services to two billion users around the world.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yavar Bathaee, Esq. Michael Pomerantz, Esq. David L. Hecht, Esq. Adam C. Ludemann, Esq. Brian J. Dunne, Esq. PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP 277 Park Ave., 45th Floor New York, NY 10172 Telephone: (212) 484-9866 E-mail: yavar@piercebainbridge.com mpomerantz@piercebainbridge.com dhecht@piercebainbridge.com aludemann@piercebainbridge.com bdunne@piercebainbridge.com FCA US: Trial Court Lifts Victoria Suit Stay, Sets Pretrial Dates ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CARLOS VICTORINO and ADAM TAVITIAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 16cv1617-GPC (JLB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has issued an order lifting the stay imposed on the case on Nov. 6, 2019 and setting pretrial dates. On Dec. 19, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Defendant's petition for permission to appeal the District Court's order granting class action certification. The District Court lifts the stay imposed on the case on Nov. 6, 2019. Accordingly, Judge Curiel ordered that the counsel to comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3). Compliance was supposed to be by Jan. 24, 2020. Failure to comply with the disclosure requirements could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Counsel were also to meet and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) by Jan. 31, 2020. At that meeting, the counsel was to discuss and attempt to enter into stipulations and agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. The counsel was to exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. The exhibits shall be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). The counsel shall note any objections they have to any other parties' Pretrial Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3). The counsel for the Plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and arranging the meetings of the counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By Feb. 7, 2020, the Plaintiff's counsel was to provide opposing the counsel with the proposed pretrial order for review and approval. Opposing counsel must communicate promptly with the Plaintiff's attorney concerning any objections to form or content of the pretrial order, and both parties shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if any, concerning the order. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections to any other parties' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures shall be prepared, served and lodged with the assigned district judge by Feb. 14, 2020, and shall be in the form prescribed in and comply with Local Rule 16.1(f)(6). The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Judge Curiel on Feb. 21, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. He will set a trial date during the pretrial conference. He will also schedule a motion in limine hearing date during the pretrial conference. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/egajuj from Leagle.com. Carlos Victorino, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett - Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone Law APC, Mark Alan Ozzello - mcampbell@murphycampbell.com - Capstone Law, APC, Robert Kenneth Friedl - robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC, Tarek H. Zohdy - Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone Law APC & Trisha K. Monesi -Trisha.Monesi@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone Law, APC. Adam Tavitian, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Padgett - Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC, Jordan L. Lurie - Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com - Pomerantz LLP, Robert Kenneth Friedl - robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC & Tarek H. Zohdy - Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone Law APC. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Kathleen Ann Wisniewski , 505 N 7th St, St. Louis, MO 63101, Thompson Coburn LLP, 505 N 7th St, St. Louis, MO 63101, pro hac vice, Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy , Thompson Coburn LLP, 505 N 7th St, St. Louis, MO 63101, pro hac vice, Thomas L. Azar, Jr. , Thompson Coburn LLP, 505 N 7th St, St. Louis, MO 63101, pro hac vice, William M. Low , Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP & Edwin Mendelson Boniske , Higgs Fletcher & Mack, LLP, 401 West A Street, Suite 2600, San Diego, CA 92101 FEEJAYS LLC: Crosson Files Suit Under Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------ Feejays, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Feejays, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00344 (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 22, 2020). Feejays, LLC sells sweatpants apparrel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com FIC AMERICA: Cannon Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT CANNON, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIC AMERICA CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2020L000121 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir., Dupage County, January 30, 2020) is a class action brought against the Defendant for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Plaintiff worked as a machine operator and welder at Defendant's Carol Steam, Illinois facility from approximately January 12, 2018 to September 2018. Throughout his work with Defendant, Defendant required Plaintiff and other workers, including direct employees and temporary staffing agency workers, to scan their fingerprints by using a biometric time clock system to record their time worked. The Biometric Information Privacy Acts prohibits a "private entity," like Defendant, from capturing or collecting biometric identifiers or information from an individual unless that private entity first obtains the individual's written consent or employment-related release authorizing the private entity to capture or collect an individual's biometric identifiers and/or biometric information. Defendant is an automotive parts manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com - and - David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. Mara Baltabols, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com docketing@fishlawfirm.com FIRST SOLAR: Court Rules on Bids to Bar Testimonies in Smilovits ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Mark Smilovits, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. First Solar, Inc.; Michael J. Ahearn; Robert J. Gillette; Mark R. Widmar; Jens Meyerhoff; James Zhu; Bruce Sohn; and David Eaglesham, Defendants, Case No. CV12-00555-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.), Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona entered rulings related to the taking of testimonies. Specifically, Judge Campbell: (i) denied the Defendants' motion to exclude Valerie Davisson's testimony; (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Dr. Marietta-Westberg's Testimony; (iii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Dr. Sivaram's Testimony; (iv) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Regan's Testimony; (v) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Reicher's Testimony; and (vi) denied the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Dr. Branz's Testimony. Defendant First Solar produces photovoltaic solar panel modules. Its stock is publicly traded on the NASDAQ stock exchange. The Plaintiffs purchased First Solar stock between April 30, 2008 and Feb. 28, 2012. The Individual Defendants are First Solar officers and executives who purchased or sold First Solar stock during the Class Period while allegedly concealing information from the market about manufacturing and design defects causing faster power loss in certain modules. Steep declines in First Solar's stock price, beginning on July 29, 2010, followed the departure of First Solar's CEO, disappointing financial results, and the release of quarterly financial disclosures reporting the product defects. First Solar's stock fell from nearly $300 per share to less than $50 per share during the Class Period. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in several acts of fraud during the Class Period, including concealing the product defects, misrepresenting the cost and scope of the defects, and reporting false information on financial statements. They further allege that when First Solar later disclosed the product defects and attendant financial liabilities to the market, the stock price fell, causing economic loss to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5. They claim that the Individual Defendants are liable for the alleged Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations as "controlling persons" under Section 20(a). The securities fraud class action is set for trial in January 2020. The parties have filed nine motions to exclude expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The motions are fully briefed. No party requests oral argument or a Daubert hearing. Judge Campbell addresses six of the motions. He will address the remaining motions in a separate order. The Plaintiffs retained Valerie Davisson, a former securities analyst, to opine on several issues related to non-public information First Solar purportedly failed to disclose to investors and analysts. Davisson was asked to opine about: (1) the role of securities analysts with respect to publicly traded companies; (2) the state of the solar panel market and the challenges First Solar faced during the Class Period; (3) the importance of cost per watt, efficiency, product quality, product reliability, and warranty to market participants considering making an investment in First Solar; and (4) whether and how the allegedly concealed information would have materially altered analysts' ability to assess First Solar's stock value. The Defendants move to exclude all of Davisson's opinions, argiung that Davisson has no expertise in the solar industry, that she employs no reliable method in reaching her opinions, that her testimony would confuse the jury, and that she offers impermissible legal conclusions about materiality. Judge Campbell finds that Davisson clearly sets forth the factual bases for her opinions in her report. The Judge assumes she will do so in her testimony, and that the Defendants will clarify on cross-examination any factual assumptions they believe are not actual opinions. The Judge cannot conclude that the jury will be confused by Davisson's testimony. The Defendants may object at trial if they believe Davisson crosses the line into inadmissible legal conclusions. The Defendants' motion to exclude Davisson's testimony is denied. The Defendants offer Dr. Jennifer Marietta-Westberg, a former SEC official and finance expert, to rebut Davisson's opinions. The Plaintiffs move to exclude Marietta-Westberg's testimony about Defendants' risk warnings. Contrary to the Plaintiffs' assertion, Dr. Marietta-Westberg's discussion of the risk warnings is not impermissible "conduit testimony." The cases they cite are inapposite. The Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Dr. Marietta-Westberg's testimony is denied. The Defendants retained Dr. Varun Sivaram to opine on solar technology, including the manufacturing processes and performance of thin-film solar modules, and to respond to certain issues raised in Davisson's report. Dr. Sivaram offers three primary opinions: (1) "It would have been extremely difficult for thin-film manufacturers to have perfectly predicted how thin-film modules would perform in the field during the Class Period"; (2) "It would have been extremely difficult and costly to find deficient or nonperforming modules once they had been deployed in the field during the Class Period"; and (3) "Reliability problems have been common across module manufacturers as the solar [photovoltaic] industry has scaled up rapidly over the last two decades." The Plaintiffs do not dispute that Dr. Sivaram's academic background and experience as a solar engineer qualify him to offer opinions on solar technology. They instead move to exclude his opinions because they are irrelevant to any issue of disputed fact and will not assist the jury. Judge Campbell denied the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Dr. Sivaram's testimony. The Judge finds that Dr. Sivaram is qualified to opine on the solar industry issues he addresses, and the Judge cannot conclude that his proposed opinions are irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial. He will rule on objections at trial, when the context and relevancy of evidence is better understood. The Plaintiffs retained D. Paul Regan, a certified public accountant, to opine about whether First Solar complied with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"), SEC disclosure rules, and MD&A principles when accounting for and disclosing the LPM and heat degradation issues. The Defendants move to exclude Regan's opinions about SEC disclosure rules, MD&A, and First Solar's warranty obligations. Judge Campbell granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to exclude Regan's testimony. The Judge precludes Regan from testifying at trial about SEC disclosure rules and MD&A. Regan may not testify that First Solar had a statutory warranty obligation or an implied warranty obligation. But he may testify about the GAAP implications of First Solar's express warranties (which the Defendants do not challenge), its actual practice of replacing modules that did not yet breach express warranties, or its own internal conclusions about potential statutory or implied warranties if those internal conclusions are clear from documents or testimony. The Defendants may object if they believe Regan crosses the line into impermissible legal conclusions. Judge Campbell also granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Reicher's Testimony. The Defendants retained Dan Reicher, an expert in the renewable energy industry, to opine on whether and how macroeconomic and industry factors affected the solar industry during the Class Period. Reicher offers primary opinions about events during the Class Period. The Plaintiffs assert that Reicher's opinions are not relevant to any issue with the possible exception being the element of loss causation. Judge Campbell holds that Reicher may testify about his five primary opinions with respect to the solar industry, and may opine generally about the effects market forces had on solar companies and the value of their stock, but he may not offer opinions about movements in First Solar stock prices. No expert will be permitted to engage in lengthy factual narratives that are not necessary to the jury's understanding of their opinions. The Court will seek to strike the proper balance at trial between allowing experts to provide some background information and reasonably explain their opinions in a manner helpful to the jury, and avoiding unnecessary factual narratives. More detailed rulings are not possible at this time. Finally, Judge Campbell denied the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Dr. Branz's Testimony with clarifying conclusions. The Plaintiffs retained Dr. Howard Branz, a solar technology expert, to rebut opinions offered by Dr. William Holder, the Defendants' accounting expert. The Defendants argue that the testimony should be excluded because it is improper rebuttal evidence. First, the Court holds that challenging the assumptions of an expert witness' report is a permissible topic of rebuttal testimony. Second, a party cannot make an end-run around expert disclosure obligations by withholding initial expert opinions until rebuttal disclosures. Third, Dr. Branz will not be excluded because he is not an accountant. Fourth, the Defendants claim that the vast majority of Dr. Branz's report is unnecessary because the Plaintiffs already have an accounting expert, Dr. Regan, to rebut Dr. Holder. Finally, the Plaintiffs may call Dr. Branz after Dr. Holder has testified. It will be consistent with his disclosure as a rebuttal expert, and will enable the Court to rule on whether any of his testimony is improper rebuttal testimony. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/2rCkkn from Leagle.com. Mark Smilovits, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Garrett Webster Wotkyns, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Lynn Kroll, Martin & Bonnett PLLC, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Richard W. Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP & Susan Joan Martin -- info@martinbonnett.com -- Martin & Bonnett PLLC. Johnny Hyldmar, Plaintiff, represented by Richard W. Gonnello, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP. Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S. Friedman, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Daniel S. Drosman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle S. Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Hillary B. Stakem, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jason A. Forge, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jessica Tally Shinnefield, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Richard Hanger, Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Luke Brooks, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Marco Janoski, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Mark Solomon, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michael J. Dowd, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ting Liu, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher Dennis Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Cody R. LeJeune, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren J. Robbins, Robbins Geller rudman & Dowd LLP, Darryl J. Alvarado, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jennifer N. Caringal, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Lonnie A. Browne, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Tor Gronborg, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice. British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S. Friedman, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Daniel S. Drosman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle S. Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Hillary B. Stakem, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jason A. Forge, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jessica Tally Shinnefield, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Richard Hanger, Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, Luke Brooks, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Marco Janoski, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Solomon, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michael J. Dowd, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ting Liu, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher Dennis Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Cody R. LeJeune, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren J. Robbins, Robbins Geller rudman & Dowd LLP, Darryl J. Alvarado, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jennifer N. Caringal, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Lonnie A. Browne, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Tor Gronborg, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice. Maverick Funds, Plaintiff, represented by David Thorpe, Dietrich Siben Thorpe LLP. First Solar Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Antony L. Ryan, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Slifkin, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Nathaniel Roth, Osborn Maledon PA, Karin A. DeMasi, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren M. Rosenberg, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Michael T. Reynolds -- mreynolds@cravath.com -- Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Morgan J. Cohen, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca J. Schindel, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Eugene G. Illovsky -- eugene@boersch-illovsky.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, pro hac vice. Michael J Ahearn, Defendant, represented by Antony L. Ryan, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Slifkin, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Nathaniel Roth, Osborn Maledon PA, Karin A. DeMasi, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Michael T. Reynolds, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Morgan J. Cohen, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Rebecca J. Schindel, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice. Robert J Gillette, Defendant, represented by Antony L. Ryan, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Slifkin, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Nathaniel Roth, Osborn Maledon PA, Karin A. DeMasi, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren M. Rosenberg, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Michael T. Reynolds, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Morgan J. Cohen, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice. Mark R Widmar, Defendant, represented by Antony L. Ryan, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Slifkin, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Nathaniel Roth, Osborn Maledon PA, Karin A. DeMasi, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren M. Rosenberg, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Michael T. Reynolds, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Rebecca J. Schindel, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice. Jens Meyerhoff, James Zhu, Bruce Sohn & David Eaglesham, Defendants, represented by Antony L. Ryan, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Slifkin, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Nathaniel Roth, Osborn Maledon PA, Karin A. DeMasi, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren M. Rosenberg, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Michael T. Reynolds, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Morgan J. Cohen, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Rebecca J. Schindel, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice. FOURPOINT ENERGY: Rounds Suit Moved From Colo. to W.D. Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Kenny Wayne Rounds and Randy Carl Smith, on behalf of themselves and on all others similarly situated v. Fourpoint Energy LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Case No. 1:19-cv-02878, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City) on Jan. 15, 2020. The Western District of Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-00052-SLP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Scott L. Palk. FourPoint Energy is a private oil and gas exploration and production company founded by the leadership team of Cordillera Energy Partners following the sale to Apache Corporation in 2012. Founded in 2013, this fourth enterprise is centered around the same acquire/exploit strategy.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Margaret E. Robertson, Esq. Ryan K Wilson, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM 431 W Main St., Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 Facsimile: (405) 234-5506 E-mail: Reagan.Bradford@lanierlawfirm.com maggie.robertson@lanierlawfirm.com ryan.wilson@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Charles V. Knutter, Esq. David R. Gleason, Esq. MORICOLI KELLOGG & GLEASON PC 211 N Robinson Ave., Suite 1350 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-3357 Facsimile: (405) 232-6515 E-mail: cknutter@moricoli.com dgleason@moricoli.com The Defendant is represented by: Craig L. Stahl, Esq. Jeffrey T. Kuehnle, Esq. ANDREWS KURTH 10001 Woodloch Forest, Suite 200 The Woodlands, TX 77380 Telephone: (713) 220-4834 Facsimile: (713) 220-4815 E-mail: craigstahl@andrewskurth.com JeffreyKuehnle@andrewskurth.com FRIENDS HEALTH CARE: Faces Kim ADA Suit Over Unlawful Discharge --------------------------------------------------------------- Jong Hoon Kim, on behalf of Plaintiff and those similarly situated v. Friends Health Care Team, Inc. doing business as and also known as Friends Health Care or Friends Health, Rebecca T. CHO, and Dae J. LEE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00110 (E.D. Va., Jan. 31, 2020), alleges that the Defendants intentionally and willfully violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended by ADA Amendments Act of 2008, in connection with the Plaintiff's unlawful discharge. On March 28, 2019, the Plaintiff was scheduled to undergo a bypass surgery without opening the chest. When the Plaintiff went to the hospital for the surgery, the doctor determined that the Plaintiff had to undergo an open heart surgery. The doctor told the Plaintiff that he would be unable to drive and lift heavy items at least for the next three weeks after the surgery. On April 2, 2019, the Plaintiff met Defendant Dae J. Lee and told him that the Plaintiff had to undergo an open heart surgery and as a result he would not be able to drive and lift heavy items at least for the next three weeks after the surgery and he would need to take days off about three weeks after the surgery. As soon as hearing what the Plaintiff told him, Lee told the Plaintiff that "then you should quit" and fired the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff told Lee that firing him like that was not right and asked Lee to withdraw his decision of discharging the Plaintiff. Lee refused to do so. On the same day, according to the complaint, the Plaintiff met Defendant Rebecca T. Cho and told her what happened with Lee and asked her to override Lee's decision of discharging the Plaintiff. Cho refused to do so. At no time has Lee or Cho suggested that the Plaintiff had any performance problems, nor did he. Lee or Cho failed to ever engage in any discussions with the Plaintiff for a reasonable accommodation for the Plaintiff's disability from the open heart surgery. After the surgery, the Plaintiff was hospitalized for one week. After released, he was emotionally distressed from the unlawful discharge, and suffered from hypertension and had to be admitted at the hospital again for three extra days. To This day, the Plaintiff continues to suffer from the residual effects of his disability. He cannot lift heavy items, says the complaint. Plaintiff Jong Hoon Kim worked for Friends Health from October 20, 2018, until April 2, 2019, as a helper. Friends Health was in the business of senior day care center services and senior home care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq. RYU & RYU, PLC 301 Maple Ave. West, Suite 620 Vienna, VA 22180 GARCIA DELIVERS: Villatoro Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Installers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Ulises Villatoro, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Garcia Delivers Corp. (DBA Garcia Delivers) and Edwin Garcia (Individually), Case No. 2:20-cv-00255-SJF-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2020), seeks to recover under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay and unlawful deductions for the Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers, who have been employed by the Defendants as Installers for Garcia Delivery. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly work for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants, who were ostensibly employed as Installer of Stoves, Microwaves, Dishwashers and Refrigerators. Garcia Delivers is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Merrick, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Web site: http://www.FightForUrRights.com/ GENOVA PRODUCTS: Green Seeks Wages and Benefits Under WARN Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Marie "Angie" Green, Tina Myers, Brandon Perowski, David Kofron, Seth Rottgering, Ashley Conner, Nathaniel Perkins, James Richardson, Keisha Richardson, Keith, Naufel, Darryl Gilbert, Tracy Atkinson, Maria Anderson, Kelsie Travis, Stanley Williams, Todd N. Lawler, Caitlyn Parrish, David L. McClain, Buffy Timmons, Holly Hiett, Andrew Hall, Ashley Jordan-Kozloski, Linda Stokes, Joshua Priddy and Paul Kitt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GENOVA PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00025-TBR (W.D. Ky., Feb. 3, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for collection of unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant permanently laid the Plaintiffs off without advance notice and, later, formally terminated them. The Plaintiffs earned regular compensation and other employee benefits and were damaged by the Defendant's violation of the WARN Act. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant is liable under the WARN Act for the failure to provide them and other similarly situated former employees at least sixty days advance notice of their employment losses, as required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant at its Paducah, Kentucky facility. The Defendant advertises itself on its Web site as one of the world's largest manufacturers of vinyl plumbing products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Wes Sullenger, Esq. SULLENGER LAW OFFICE, PLLC 629 Washington Street Paducah, KY 42003 Voice: (270) 443-9401 Email: wes@sullengerfirm.com GLOW CONCEPT: Bunting Alleges Violation of ADA in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Glow Concept Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Glow Concept Inc., doing business as: Winky Lux, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00340 (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 22, 2020). Glow Concept Inc., doing business as Winky Lux, retails personal care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com GREAT WASTE: Marin Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Mario R. Marin, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals v. GREAT WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-20463-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 1, 2020), is brought to recover money damages for retaliation and unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff regularly worked overtime hours (hours in excess of 40) and he was not paid for all his overtime hours worked, at the rate of time and one-half of his regular rate of pay for all of the overtime worked, according to the complaint. The Defendant also has a custom and practice of deducting meal-period hours automatically, regardless of the fact that the Plaintiff did not take lunch breaks. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a waste disposal driver. GREAT WASTE SERVICES is a Florida Corporation that owns and operates a sanitation or trash collection and recycling business in Broward and Dade County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com GROGAN LAW GROUP: Chelminski Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Grogan Law Group, LLC. The case is styled as Hennie Chelminski, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. The Grogan Law Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00920 (D., N.J., Jan. 28, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Grogan Law Group, LLC is a lawfirm located at 17 Prospect St, Morristown, NJ 07960-6862. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. Zemel Law LLC 1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013 Tel: (862) 227-3106 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com HANKOOK TIRE: Dionysius Sues over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW DIONYSIUS, individually, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HANKOOK TIRE MANUFACTURING TENNESSEE, LP, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00091 (M.D. Tenn., Nashville Div., January 31, 2020) is a purported opt-in collective action filed against Defendant for its alleged failure to pay overtime and off-the-clock work in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Dionysius was employed as an hourly-paid maintenance employee at the Defendant's Clarksville, Tennessee facility during the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of the collective action complaint. Hankook Tire Manufacturing Tennessee, LP is a Tennessee Corporation with its principal address and corporate headquarters located at 2950 International Boulevard, Clarksville, Tennessee 37040. Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid (protective safety geared) employees of Defendant complained that Defendant did not pay them proper compensation of the overtime hours they have worked in excess of their 40 hours per week regular work schedule and other off-the-clock work. Thus, this case is brought by Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages owed. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com - and - Nina Parsley, Esq. PONCE LAW 400 Professional Park Drive Goodlettsville, TN 37072 E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com HART GROUP: Faces Rosales Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts --------------------------------------------------------------- AARON ROSALES, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. THE HART GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:20-at-00061 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Hart Group often places text message calls to persons without having the necessary prior express written consent to do so in violation of the TCPA. Hart Group places these unsolicited text message calls using equipment that has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers, and to dial such numbers, without any need for human intervention. The Plaintiff alleges that the Hart Group's violations caused him and members of the Class to experience actual harm, included aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing text message calls, as well as the violation of their statutory rights. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant. Hart Group is a provider of supplemental life and health insurance benefits for labor unions, credit unions and associations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com HEARTFELT HOME: Lucas Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Lucas, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees v. HEARTFELT HOME HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00029-SPB (W.D. Pa., Jan. 31, 2020), is brought against the Defendant seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours in a week for the Defendant but the Defendant failed to pay overtime premium compensation to her and other hourly employees when they worked over 40 hours in a week. As one of many examples, the Plaintiff was credited with working 81 hours during the period ending September 8, 2019, but was only paid at her straight-time hourly rate of $12.00 for all work hours, including the 41 overtime hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly employee from November 2013 until November 2019. The Defendant, according to its company website, "has been providing specialized health care to clients in Erie, Crawford, Mercer, and Venango Counties since 2002."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com HENLEY PROPANE: Brown Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY BROWN, individually and on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. HENLEY PROPANE, INC., Edward Henley and Brett Henley, individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00007 (E.D. Tenn., Winchester Div., January 31, 2020) is an opt-in collective action brought against Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Timothy Brown was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid employee and he claimed that Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay him and those similarly situated for all hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods at the rate of time and one-half their regular rate of pay. Thus, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated hourly-paid employees aiming to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to them. Henley Propane, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation authorized to do business, and is currently doing business, in the State of Tennessee with its principal place of business being located at 106 E. Fort Street, Manchester, Tennessee 37355. Defendant Edward Henley, the owner and founder of Henley Propane, Inc., exercised operational control over the corporate defendant and its employees during the statutory period, determined Plaintiff's rate and method of pay, and made the decision to pay Plaintiff and Class Members straight time for overtime hours. Defendant Brett Henley, the manager of Henley Propane, Inc., assisted Defendant Edward Henley in determining Plaintiff's rate and method of pay and in making the decision to pay Plaintiff and Class Members straight time for overtime hours. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com - and - Nina Parsley, Esq. PONCE LAW 400 Professional Park Drive Goodlettsville, TN 37072 E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com HUUUGE INC: 9th Cir. Upholds Arbitration Bid Denial in Wilson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HUUUGE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 18-36017 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court denial of Huuuge's motion to compel arbitration against Wilson. Smartphone applications have a ubiquitous presence in our everyday lives. The question of first impression for the Court is under what circumstances the download or use of a mobile application by a smartphone user establishes constructive notice of the app's terms and conditions. Huuuge is the owner and operator of the smartphone app Huuuge Casino, which allows smartphone users to gamble with chips to play casino games. Users can gamble either with a limited number of free chips or with chips purchased through the app. Wilson downloaded the app from Apple's App Store in early 2017 and played Huuuge Casino for over a year. In April 2018, Wilson filed the class action lawsuit, alleging Huuuge violated Washington gambling and consumer protection laws by charging users for chips in its app. Huuuge moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), alleging that Wilson was on inquiry notice of its Terms, which include a binding arbitration provision that prohibits class actions. Huuuge does not require users to affirmatively acknowledge or agree to the Terms before downloading or while using the app. Users can access Huuuge's Terms in two ways: (1) reading the Terms before downloading the app, although the user is not required to do so; or (2) viewing the Terms during game play, which is similarly not necessary to play the game. Either way, the user would need Sherlock Holmes's instincts to discover the Terms. Huuuge claims Wilson is bound by the arbitration provision because Wilson had constructive notice both when he downloaded the app and during its use. Wilson, however, argues the app's Terms were not conspicuous when he downloaded the app or during gameplay. The district court agreed with Wilson and denied Huuuge's motion to compel arbitration. The district court further found that actual knowledge was not an issue because Huuuge did not present any evidence of Wilson's actual knowledge. The Ninth Circuit holds that although the district court did not expressly deny Huuuge's discovery request, it implicitly did so in its reasoning rejecting Huuuge's argument. Whether she review this issue de novo or for abuse of discretion, the result is the same. The Ninth Circuit finds that the district court did not err in not permitting discovery on actual notice before denying the motion to compel arbitration. Huuuge wanted it both ways -- if it won the motion to compel, great; if it didn't win, only then did it want discovery. Although Huuuge had the burden to present evidence of actual notice, it rolled the dice and chose not to pursue additional discovery at the outset, instead moving to stay discovery pending the motion to compel arbitration. Huuuge, as operator of the app, undoubtedly had at least some information probative of actual notice in its control, but it offered nothing on the actual notice issue. Finally, Huuuge waived its discovery request as it was insufficiently raised in a two-line footnote in a reply brief. Put simply, Huuuge's discovery request was too little, too late, the Ninth Circuit says. The Ninth Circuit now turns to the issue of constructive notice. The Ninth Circuit finds that uuuge's agreement is unambiguously a browsewrap agreement. Wilson was not required to assent to Huuuge's Terms before downloading or using the app -- or at any point at all. Huuuge did not notify users that the app had terms and conditions, let alone put them in a place the user would necessarily see. Instead, a user would need to seek out or stumble upon Huuuge's Terms, either by scrolling through multiple screens of text before downloading the app or clicking the settings menu within the app during gameplay. In the absence of actual knowledge, a reasonably prudent user must be on constructive notice of the terms of the contract for a browsewrap agreement to be valid. The burden similarly falls on app operators. Users are put on constructive notice based on the conspicuousness and placement of the terms and conditions, as well as the content and overall design of the app. Even where the terms are accessible via a conspicuous hyperlink in close proximity to a button necessary to the function of the website, courts have declined to enforce such agreements. Huuuge's app is littered with these flaws. Huuuge argues Wilson's repeated use of the app places him on constructive notice since it was likely he would stumble upon the Terms during that time period. However, just as there is no reason to assume that users will scroll down to subsequent screens simply because screens are there, there is no reason to assume the users will click on the settings menu simply because it exists. The user can play the game unencumbered by any of the settings. Nothing points the user to the settings tab and nowhere does the user encounter a click box or other notification before proceeding. Only curiosity or dumb luck might bring a user to discover the Terms. Instead of requiring a user to affirmatively assent, Huuuge chose to gamble on whether its users would have notice of its Terms. The odds are not in its favor. Wilson did not have constructive notice of the Terms, and thus is not bound by Huuuge's arbitration clause in the Terms. The Ninth Circuit thus affirmed the district court's denial of Huuuge's motion to compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Dec. 20, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/Mwa9fG from Leagle.com. Sean Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cecily C. Shiel -- cshiel@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Janissa Ann Strabuk -- jstrabuk@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Benjamin H. Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Eve-Lynn Rapp -- erapp@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, J. Eli Wade-Scott -- ewadescott@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice & Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice. HUUUGE, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Cyrus E. Ansari -- cyrusansari@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Jaime Drozd Allen -- jaimeallen@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Stuart R. Dunwoody -- stuartdunwoody@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE. INFINITY INSURANCE: Gets Summary Judgment Upheld in Hallums Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned SHELITHEA HALLUMS and SAMUEL CASTILLO, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-12138 (11th Cir.), Judge Beverly B. Martin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a trial court order granting summary judgment to the Defendants. Ms. Hallums and Mr. Castillo purchased vehicle insurance which they say is illusory because it insures no risk for which the insured can be liable. They brought a putative class action seeking damages and a declaration that the insurance product is not valid. Infinity is an Indiana corporation that sells insurance products throughout Florida. Its principal place of business is in Alabama. Infinity, directly and through subsidiaries, provides personal automobile insurance, primarily targeted to "urban" and Hispanic drivers in Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas. Infinity Auto Insurance Co. -- an Ohio corporation that sells insurance products throughout Florida, with its principal place of business in Alabama -- is one such subsidiary. Ms. Hallums, a citizen of Florida, leased a 2016 BMW X6 from South Motors BMW, which assigned the lease to Financial Services Vehicle Trust. Mr. Castillo leased a 2017 Land Rover Discovery Sport from Land Rover North Dade, LLC, which assigned the lease to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Both leases required the plaintiffs to maintain liability insurance with limits of $100,000 for bodily injuries per person, $300,000 for bodily injuries per accident, and $50,000 for property damage per accident (commonly referred to as "100/300/50 limits"). Failure to comply with this requirement could result in termination of the lease and repossession of the automobile. Through independent insurance agents, Ms. Hallums and Mr. Castillo separately applied for insurance with Infinity in 2016. Ms. Hallums filed her complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Oct. 27, 2016. She alleged the Endorsement is illusory because it only provides coverage for vicarious liability against lessors, and that liability is foreclosed by the Graves Amendment. Infinity moved to dismiss the complaint, but the District Court denied that motion on Sept. 22, 2017. Following discovery, both sides moved for summary judgment and the Plaintiffs moved for class certification. On April 20, 2018, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Infinity. The District Court held that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims, but their claims ultimately fail because the Endorsement is not limited to coverage for pure vicarious liability claims (and even if it were, a duty to defend would still exist). The Plaintiffs timely appealed. Infinity offers three separate grounds by which the Eleventh Circuit may affirm the District Court ruling: (1) The Endorsement is not illusory because it provides coverage for more than just vicarious liability; (2) The Endorsement is not illusory because it imposes on Infinity a duty to defend lessors from claims of vicarious liability; and (3) The Plaintiffs' action is barred by the filed rate doctrine. The Eleventh Circuit chooses door number two. The Eleventh Circuit finds that the policy imposes a duty to defend on Infinity. Because the Endorsement is part of the insurance contract, and because the Endorsement covers claims of vicarious liability against lessors, a complaint alleging vicarious liability against a lessor would fairly and potentially fall within the policy coverage. Infinity has these duties regardless of whether lawsuits alleging acts within the Endorsement's scope are likely -- or even able -- to succeed in court. And the record shows that lessors continue to be sued under vicarious liability, even after the Graves Amendment. Even if this were a close case, any doubt concerning an insurer's duty to defend must be resolved in favor of coverage. Because the Endorsement imposes on Infinity a duty to defend lessors from claims of vicarious liability, the Endorsement is not illusory, the Eleventh Circuit opines. The Eleventh Circuit need not reach the other grounds put forward by Infinity. A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/dXR9bR from Leagle.com. Eric A. Hernandez -- eric@whlmlegal.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Todd L. Wallen -- twallen@shb.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. John Thomas Richie -- trichie@bradley.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Michael R. Pennington -- mpennington@bradley.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Raoul G. Cantero -- rcantero@whitecase.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Arturo Carlos Martinez -- arturo@whlmlegal.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Ramon Alberto Abadin -- ramon.abadin@sedgwicklaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Christopher Swift-Perez -- cswift-perez@whitecase.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Jermaine Lee -- jlee@whlmlegal.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Diana Nicole Evans -- dnevans@bradley.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. David DeSales Switzler -- dswitzler@stroock.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. INFORMATICA LLC: Flynn FLSA Suit Moved From Calif. to W.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Joseph Flynn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Informatica, LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-06192-HSG (Filed Sept. 30, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin) on Jan. 16, 2020. The Western District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00054-LY to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lee Yeakel. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime compensation Defendant. The Defendant employed Plaintiff in an inside sales role as a Business Development Manager working in its Austin, Texas office from May 2017 to January 2019. The Defendant is a software company that makes and sells enterprise software solutions to businesses' information technology departments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew C. Helland, Esq. Michele R. Fisher, Esq. Jay E. Eidsness, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: helland@nka.com fisher@nka.com jeidsness@nka.com - and - Austin Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 406 Sterzing St. Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (512) 553-9390 Facsimile: (512) 692-2788 E-mail: akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com The Defendant is represented by: Shannon Rea Boyce, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2049 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 712-7304 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Court Affirms FINRA Award in Singh Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CHARANJIT SINGH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, et al., Defendants, Lead Case Civil No. 2:16cv276 (E.D. Va.), Judge Robert G. Doumar of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division confirmed an arbitration award under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA). On June 8, 2016, Charanjit and Parbhur Singh and Brar Family Partnership L.P. ("BFP") filed lawsuits against the Singhs' nephew, Vikas Brar; his financial advising firm, Brar Capital LLC; and Interactive Brokers (IB), an online broker-dealer and securities investment firm. The two lawsuits relate to two IB investment accounts held by the Plaintiffs: the Singhs' joint account established in August 2011 and BFP's account established in March 2012. The Singhs named Vikas Brar of Brar Capital LLC as their designated financial advisor for both accounts. Under the Amended Complaints, by August 2015, both the Joint Account and the Partnership Account consisted almost entirely of options on the VXX, which is an exchange-traded note designed to expose options positions to the CBOE Volatility Index. On Aug. 20, 2015, the Joint Account was allegedly worth $406,794.04 and the Partnership Account was allegedly worth $1.8 million. However, also in August 2015, the stock market plunged, and the value of the Joint Account dropped to a value of -$409,565.95, with a margin deficit of approximately $1.2 million, and the value of the Partnership Account dropped to a value of $651,811.26, with a margin deficit of approximately $1.79 million. To cover these significant margin deficits, IB liquidated the positions in both accounts. After liquidation, both the Joint Account and the Partnership Account had insufficient funds to satisfy their margin debts, so IB demanded approximately $461,000 from the Singhs and $1.72 million from BFP to cover their respective debts. On Nov. 27, 2015, IB commenced arbitration proceedings against the Plaintiffs before FINRA Office of Dispute Resolution alleging breach of contract for failure to pay their account margin debts. In June 2016, the Plaintiffs commenced the captioned lawsuits, which the Court consolidated pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On Nov. 30, 2016, on IB's motion, the Court compelled the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their dispute with IB pursuant to their binding arbitration agreements and stayed the instant litigation pending completion of the arbitration. On April 9, 2019, the FINRA Office of Dispute Resolution issued its Award in the consolidated matter of the arbitrations between IB and the Singhs and between IB and BFP. Such Award constitutes the full and final resolution of the issues submitted by the parties and was decided after the panel considered the parties' pleadings, the testimony and evidence presented at an evidentiary hearing, and the parties' post-hearing submissions. The Award finds the Singhs liable to IB for unpaid account deficits in the amount of $461,225.13, plus interest, costs, and $103,279.07 in attorneys' fees. The Award further finds BFP liable to IB for unpaid account deficits in the amount of $1,720,983.06, plus interest, costs, and $240,984.48 in attorneys' fees. The Award also denies in their entirety all counterclaims filed by the Singhs and BFP in the arbitration. On July 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Vacate or Modify the Arbitration Award. On July 30, 2019, IB filed a cross motion to confirm the arbitration award pursuant to Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate or Modify Award and IB's Motion to Confirm Award were fully briefed. On Oct. 22, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the pending motions. Based on a procedural development that the Plaintiffs brought to the Court's attention, the Court ordered further briefing. They filed their Brief in Response to Court Order on Nov. 6, 2019, and IB filed a Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Confirm Arbitral Award. The parties then each filed a reply. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate or Modify Award and IB's Motion to Confirm Award are now before the Court. Judge Doumar concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their heavy burden of showing any cognizable ground under the FAA or the common law for the Court to vacate or modify the parties' arbitration Award. . The Judge also considered IB's cross Motion to Confirm the Award. Section 9 of the FAA provides that upon a party's application, a court must enter an order confirming an arbitration award if: (1) the parties agreed in the arbitration agreement that judgment may be entered by the court; (2) the award has not been vacated, modified, or corrected; and (3) the moving party has requested the confirmation within one year of the award. IB's motion meets all of the requirements under FAA Sec. 9, the Court finds. First, the arbitration agreements between the parties explicitly state that judgment may be entered on any arbitration award conducted pursuant to such agreements by any court having jurisdiction thereof. Second, the Court has denied Plaintiffs' motion to vacate or modify the Award finding no grounds to grant such relief. Third, IB has made its request for confirmation within one year of the Award, which was issued in April 2019. Accordingly, Judge Doumar (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate or Modify Arbitration Award, and (ii) granted IB's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment consistent with the parties' arbitration award as follows: a. Judgment in favor of IB and against Plaintiffs Parbhur and Charanjit Singh in the amount of $461,225.13 plus interest at the rate of 1% per annum from Aug. 24, 2015, until the award is paid in full, plus $103,279.07 in attorneys' fees and $776.89 in costs. b. Judgment in favor of IB and against Plaintiff BFP in the amount of $1,720,983.06 plus interest at the rate of 1% per annum from Aug. 24, 2015, until the award is paid in full, plus $240,984.48 in attorneys' fees and $1,812.73 in costs. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/Rgy0hp from Leagle.com. Charanjit Singh & Parbhur Singh, Plaintiffs, represented by Arthur Mark Schwartzstein, Arthur M. Schwartzstein, P.C. Interactive Brokers LLC, Defendant, represented by Cameron Scott Matheson -- cmatheson@mmlawus.com -- Murphy & McGonigle PC. Interactive Brokers LLC, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Cameron Scott Matheson, Murphy & McGonigle PC. Brar Family Partnership L.P., Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Arthur Mark Schwartzstein, Arthur M. Schwartzstein, P.C.. KALAMATA RESEARCH: Van Elzen Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID VAN ELZEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KALAMATA RESEARCH SERVICES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and GLOBAL MARKETING RESEARCH SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00072 (E.D. Wisc., Jan. 15, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited, autodialed text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On December 22, 2019, the Plaintiff received an autodialed text message on his cell phone from the Defendants using phone number 877-612-1508. The Plaintiff alleges that he has never given Kalamata or GMRS consent to send automated text messages to him. He adds, that unauthorized text message that was sent by Kalamata and GMRS, harmed him in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed his use and enjoyment of his cellular phone, in addition to the wear and tear. The Plaintiff seeks to obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by the Defendants'conduct. Kalamata is a market research company that conducts phone and text message surveys with consumers. GMRS is a market research company that deals primarily in political polls and voter contact services in which GMRS helps politicians and political organizations get messages out to voters.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com KELLY SERVICE: Use of Consumer Report Violates FCRA, Stanley Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIE STANLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KELLY SERVICES, INC., a Michigan corporation; CENTENE CORPORATION, a Missouri corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-58-2242 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants routinely acquire consumer reports to conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former employees and use information from consumer reports in connection with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff, was jointly employed by the Defendants in the State of California, seeks statutory damages due to the Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the FCRA. Kelly Services is an American office staffing company that operates globally. Centene Corporation is a large publicly traded company and a multi-line managed care enterprise that serves as a major intermediary for both government-sponsored and privately insured health care programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com KITTRICH CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Krumm Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTINE KRUMM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KITTRICH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:19 CV 182 CDP (E.D. Mo.), Judge Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted in part and denied in part Kittrich's motion to dismiss. Kittrich manufactures and sells EcoSMART Insect Repellant. The repellant consists of a formula of naturally occurring active ingredients which the Environmental Protection Agency classifies as "minimum risk pesticides." The repellant comes in a handheld spray bottle, labelled front and back with information and instructions. Plaintiff Krumm alleges she purchased a bottle of the repellant for approximately $6 from a Shop 'n Save retail store in the Summer of 2016. Krumm maintains she "carefully read" the repellant's labelling before making the purchase, and that she used the repellant according to its directions and it was ineffective to repel mosquitos. Consequently, she alleges she would not have purchased it at all, or would have only bought it for a "substantially reduced price." Krumm brings six counts against Kittrich under federal and Missouri state law stemming from the alleged misrepresentations of the repellant's efficacy. In Count I, brought under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), Krumm alleges Kittrich engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the manufacture and sale of its repellant. Krumm brings Count II of her complaint for breach of express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"). Count IV alleges breaches of both an implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Kittrich seeks to dismiss Krumm's complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). First, Kittrich contends Krumm lacks standing to sue, thus the Court should dismiss the case in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In support, Kittrich argues (1) Krumm fails to adequately allege that she suffered a cognizable injury in fact, and (2) her claim is moot because of a pre-litigation tender of payment. Second, Kittrich challenges the factual sufficiency of Krumm's pleadings, and contends that three of Krumm's six counts should be dismissed due to various procedural and/or substantive deficiencies. Finally, Kittrich asserts that the Court should dismiss Krumm's claims on behalf of the nationwide class for lack of personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state (i.e. non-Missouri) purchasers. Judge Perry granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. The Judge granted the Motion as to Count IV, and denied as to all other grounds. Among other things, Judge Perry finds that Count IV of Krumm's complaint alleges breaches of both an implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The disclaimer on the repellant's label explicitly disclaims the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. A reasonable person would have noticed the disclaimer, as it follows bolded and capitalized text stating LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Indeed, Krumm states that she carefully read the repellant's labeling. Judge Perry rejects Krumm's strained interpretation of the disclaimer because there simply cannot be an implied warranty stated -- implied warranties are inherently not stated at all, as they are derived by implication or inference from the circumstances of the transaction. Accordingly, the repellant's conspicuous disclaimer of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness bars any claim premised on the repellant's alleged inability to pass without objection in the trade under the contract description, no matter where such implied warranty may be drawn from on the repellant's label. Count IV is therefore dismissed with prejudice, Judge Perry rules. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/n0pJju from Leagle.com. Christine Krumm, individually and on behalf of all others similary situated, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel -- ykopel@bursor.com -- BURSOR AND FISHER, P.A. Kittrich Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Schmidt -- cjschmidt@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, Herbert R. Giorgio -- herb.giorgio@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP & Jonathan B. Potts -- jonathan.potts@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP. L'OCCITANE INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Desalvo Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRETT DESALVO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L'OCCITANE, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00174 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 7, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website, https://www.loccitane.com/en-us/ is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. L'occitane, Inc. manufactures and sells skincare products, including cleansers, toners, moisturizers, scrubs and exfoliants, eye, and lip care products. L'occitane operates worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 LAKE ARBOR: Ruseell Class Suit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SERITA RUSEELL and DORETHA JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAKE ARBOR 80M TIC, LLC, d/b/a LAKE ARBOR APARTMENTS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-338-MOC-DSC (W.D. N.C.), Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand to State Court. The Plaintiffs contend that the jurisdictional amount of more than $5 million has not been met for the Defendants to remove the class action lawsuit. After conducting jurisdictional discovery, the Defendants now consent to remand, conceding that the jurisdictional amount has not been met. Therefore, Judge Cogburn will remand the action to state court. The Plaintiffs request an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred as the result of the removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). The Judge in his discretion declines to do so, as the Defendants possessed an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. The parties shall each pay their own attorney fees and costs, the Court further added. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/OiscWm from Leagle.com. Serita Russell & Doretha Johnson, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jack Holtzman -- jack@ncjustice.org -- North Carolina Justice Center, Julian Hugh Wright, Jr. -- jwright@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., Sharon S. Dove, Mullen Holland & Cooper & Natalia Maria Botella, Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy. Lake Arbor 80M TIC, LLC, doing business as Lake Arbor Apartments, Lake Arbor Dean TIC, LLC, doing business as Lake Arbor Apartments, Broad Management Group, LLC & Wellington Advisors, LLC, Defendants, represented by Erik M. Rosenwood -- Erik@rosenwoodrose.com -- Hamilton Stephens Steele Martin, PLLC, Jennifer K. Van Zant -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Whitaker Boykin Rose -- wrose@rosenwoodrose.com -- Baucom, Claytor, Benton, Morgan & Wood & D.J. O'Brien, III -- dobrien@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard. LAWRENCE COUNTY, PA: Webster Moves to Certify Class of Appellants ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled SAMUEL T. WEBSTER, individually and as representative of the class v. JODI KLABON-ESOLDO, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00145-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves for class certification pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jodi Klabon-Esoldo is the Prothonotary of the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas. The proposed class consists of all present and future appellants to the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas who obtain a supersedeas (stay) of a Magisterial District Court eviction judgment in a de novo appeal of that judgment. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to declare unlawful and enjoin Defendant Prothonotary's policy, practice, or custom (collectively "policy") of terminating the supersedeas obtained by tenant-appellants in de novo appeals from Magisterial District Court eviction judgments without prior notice or an opportunity to object to the termination, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel G. Vitek, Esq. Kevin Quisenberry, Esq. COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT 100 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 434-6002 E-mail: dvitek@cjplaw.org kquisenberry@cjplaw.org One of the Plaintiff's attorneys certifies that notice was sent to these attorneys of record: Norman J. Barilla, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NORMAN J. BARILLA 111 West Sheridan Avenue New Castle, PA 16105 Telephone: (724) 654-5549 E-mail: nbarilla@barillalawoffice.com - and - Louis M. Perrotta, Esq. LOUSIE M. PERROTTA, P.C. 229 South Jefferson Street New Castle, PA 16101 Telephone: (724) 658-9980 E-mail: lou@louperrotta.com LENDING TREE: Faces Nathan TCPA Suit Over Auto-Dialed Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- REUBEN NATHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LENDING TREE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 8:20-cv-00093 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by auto-dialed calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing auto-dialed calls to cellphone owners, and obtain damages for all persons similarly injured by the Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff alleges that at no time did he provide his cellphone number to the Defendant or provide the Defendant, or any of the Defendant's agents, with prior express consent to call. He adds that he received an autodialed call to his cellphone on December 9, 2019, and heard a pause and click or delayed beep on the call and connection, indicative of an automatic telephone dialing system. Mr. Nathan is the owner and customary user of a cellphone number ending in 1237. Lending Tree is a marketing lead generator and a duly licensed mortgage broker that generates leads via telemarketing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Righetti, Esq. John Glugoski, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 Facsimile: (415) 397-9005 MACY'S INC: Chiaraluce et al. Sue over Linen Products Thread Count ------------------------------------------------------------------ CASSANDRA CHIARALUCE; and JONATHAN FONTAINE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MACY'S INC.; MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC.; MACY'S WEST STORES, INC.; and MACYS.COM, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00081-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 6, 2020) alleges that the Defendants deceive and mislead consumers and the public into believing that their bedding and linen products had higher thread counts than they actually did and, as such, were of better quality, more durable, longer-lasting, softer, and more comfortable for sleeping than products with lesser thread counts. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that as part of a scheme to make their bedding and linen products more attractive, boost sales, and increase profits, the Defendants and their manufacturers and distributors/importers, including Creative Textiles and AQ Textiles, knowingly departed from known, well-established, and long-standing industry standards governing the calculation and advertisement of thread counts by inflating the thread counts on the labels of the products they manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold. The Defendants misrepresented, and continues to misrepresent, the thread count in many of the bedding and linen products it advertises, markets, and distributes throughout the country, resulting in the sale to consumers throughout the United States of bedding and linen products represented to have greater thread counts than their true thread counts. The representation of the false and misleading thread count also deceives and misleads consumers into believing that they are purchasing a product which is of higher quality, durability, longevity, and/or softness, and/or better for sleeping, than products with a lower thread count. As a direct result of the Defendants' improper, deceptive, and unconscionable scheme to misrepresent bedding and linen thread counts, the Plaintiffs and other Class members suffered damages because the inflated thread counts that Defendant represented its products to have induced the Plaintiffs and other Class Members to purchase products that they would not have purchased, or would only have purchased at a lower price, had they known the products' actual thread counts at the time of purchase. Macy's, Inc. operates department stores in the United States. The Company also operates direct mail catalog and electronic commerce subsidiaries. Macy's retail stores sell a wide range of merchandise, including men, women, and children apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home furnishings, and other consumer goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew Legando, Esq. MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS & KLANG, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com - and - Bruce Steckler, Esq. Stuart Cochran, Esq. Kirstine Rogers, Esq. STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com stuart@stecklerlaw.com krogers@stecklerlaw.com - and - Erica Mirabella, Esq. MIRABELLA LAW LLC 132 Boylston St. 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (855) 505-5342 E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com - and - Charles LaDuca, Esq. Brendan Thompson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael McShane, Esq. Clint Woods, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com lkuang@audetlaw.com - and - Charles Schaffer, Esq LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (877) 882-1011 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com MARDI GRA: LaRock Suit Removed to Massachusetts District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Mardi Gra Entertainment, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Leah LaRock, Emily McKay, and Lindsie Cohen on behalf of themselves and and all others similarly situated v. Mardi Gra Entertainment, Inc.; Bino, Inc. doing business as Center Stage; Anthony's Dance Club, Inc.; Anthony Santaniello; Helen Santaniello; Fifth Alarm, Inc.; Sherri-Lynn Via; James Santaniello; and B.S.C. Realty, Inc., Case No. 1779CV704, was removed from the Hampden Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Jan. 15, 2020. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-10083-KAR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Katherine A. Robertson. The Defendants are doing business in the entertainment industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew W. Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: mthomson@llrlaw.com - and - Raymond E. Dinsmore, III, Esq. DINSMORE STARK, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 60 Masonic Street, Suite E Northampton, MA 01060 Telephone: (413) 341-3639 Facsimile: (413) 341-3640 E-mail: RDinsmore@DinsmoreStark.com Defendant B.S.C. Realty, Inc., is represented by: Douglas J. Hoffman, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 367-0025 Facsimile: (617) 367-2155 E-mail: hoffmand@jacksonlewis.com MAWKS EDELWEISS: Aniszewski Suit Dismissed Due to Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable John Robert Blakey dismissed without prejudice the lawsuit captioned Monica Aniszewski v. Mawks Edelweiss, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07195 (N.D. Ill.). According to the Court's Notification of Docket Entry, based upon the representation of the parties, this case has settled and is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice. Absent reinstatement on or before March 20, 2020, the dismissal will convert to one with prejudice without further order of the Court. All pending deadlines and hearings (including the April 6, 2020 trial) are stricken.[CC] MDL 2592: Objections to Private Deal Terms in Xarelto Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the Movants' Objections to Certain Terms Contained in the Proposed Private Settlement in IN RE: XARELTO (RIVAROXABAN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Catherine Robinson, No. 19-06876, Deborah Anderson, No. 19-07007, Gayle Sellers, No. 19-12205, Francis Rixford, No. 19-06961, George Malone, No. 19-06704, Andre Hawley, No. 19-06794, Thomas Kenny, No. 19-06806, Doris Rotolo, No. 19-06706, Claude Wood, No. 19-06997, Curtis Jones, No. 19-06956, Wallace La Londe, No. 19-06989, Kathleen Brodkin, No. 19-06910, Virginia Griffith, No. 19-06844, Nancy Alexander, No. 19-06822, Rafic Redwan, No. 19-06732, MDL No. 2592 (E.D. La.). The current dispute arises out of the private settlement in the multi-district litigation (MDL) case involving the medication known as Xarelto. Beginning in 2014, lawsuits were filed in federal courts throughout the nation against Defendants Bayer Cor., Bayer HealthCare LLC, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bayer HealthCare AG, Bayer Pharma AG, and Bayer AG, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, and Johnson & Johnson. In their suits, the Plaintiffs specifically allege that they or their family members suffered severe bleeding and other injuries due to Xarelto's allegedly inadequate warning label as well as other theories. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determined that the Plaintiffs' claims involved common questions of fact, and that centralization under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Therefore, on Dec. 12, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the Plaintiffs' Xarelto claims into a single multidistrict proceeding ("MDL 2592"). MDL 2592 was assigned to Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to coordinate discovery and other pretrial matters in the pending cases. Subsequent Xarelto cases filed in federal court have been transferred to the Louisiana district court to become part of MDL 2592 as "tag along" cases; at its peak, the District Court had over 30,000 cases in the Xarelto MDL. In February 2015, the District Court issued Pretrial Order #7 appointing members to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC"). Since their appointment, the members of the PSC, their firms, and coordinated counsel have worked on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the litigation. The PSC has expended considerable time and resources to develop the Plaintiffs' claims. It has assembled a "trial package" consisting of various depositions, expert reports, trial transcripts, law memoranda, and briefs used in the development of the litigation. The material is available to any litigant who decides to not opt into the settlement program and instead proceeds to trial. After years of discovery and bellwether trials, the PSC and the Defendants entered into settlement discussions and in early 2019, reached a settlement. On March 25, 2019, they announced the Master Settlement Agreement, a private agreement that was negotiated over the course of several months and reflected compromises on both sides that were informed by years of pretrial discovery, motion practice, and trials. This is an opt-in settlement program and thus far, over 99% of the Plaintiffs in the litigation have chosen to opt into the settlement. After the settlement was reached, 15 new Plaintiffs retained the Mike Love Firm to file claims on their behalf. These new actions were consolidated with the MDL and have the opportunity to opt into the settlement. On Nov. 6, 2019, the Mike Love Firm, representing the moving Plaintiffs, contacted the PSC and the Defendants' counsel to express opposition to the proposed settlement. At the Nov. 7, 2019 Xarelto monthly status conference, the District Court was advised of the Love opposition and the Court instructed Mike Love to file his opposition to the proposed settlement agreement on the record and set the objections for hearing on Dec. 12, 2019. The Movants filed their objections on Nov. 19, 2019. The hearing on Movants' objections was held on Dec. 12, 2019 following the monthly status conference. The Movants' objections target certain terms in the proposed private settlement and seek the following relief: (1) an order striking a number of terms in the settlement agreement, including but not limited to all terms contained in section 10 of the agreement; (2) an order setting a hearing to determine if the Court should conditionally certify a settlement class; (3) an order setting a fairness hearing regarding the fairness of any revised global settlement proposal; (4) an Order striking section 3.8 of the proposed agreement; (5) an order that grants the Plaintiffs additional time to consider enrollment in a court-supervised class settlement; (6) an order appointing additional counsel to serve on a second PSC for plaintiffs not enrolled in the settlement program; and (7) an order abating pending CMO deadlines applicable to the non-settling Plaintiffs until the second PSC is appointed. In response, the PSC opposes the Movants' first request because it asks that the Court "forcibly impose and certify a class settlement on the parties in litigation," which the Court is not authorized to do because this litigation is a multi-district litigation and not a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Additionally, the PSC argues that the Movants do not have standing to ask the Court to either set aside or modify the proposed settlement agreement because they have not opted into the program and are not bound by the terms of the settlement agreement. Moreover, the PSC disputes the Movants' claim that provisions of the settlement agreement are unethical, highlighting the fact that the provisions were only agreed to after consultation with separate ethics counsel and that all attorneys whose clients opt into the settlement can avail themselves of the "safe harbor" language included in the settlement agreement. Finally, the PSC does not see the need for a second PSC to be appointed, as only a small number of firms are declining to opt into the settlement process and all general discovery has already been completed, so only case-specific discovery may be required. Defendants Bayer Corp., et al., also oppose Movants' objections and requested relief for several reasons. First, they emphasize that the Court has no authority to overturn a private settlement agreement between consenting parties and the MDL does not involve a class-action that would authorize the Court to establish a settlement class. Second, the Defendants contend the Movants lack standing to challenge the settlement because they have declined to participate in the proposed settlement and are not bound by its provisions. Third, they assert that the proposed settlement agreement does not impact the Movants' legal rights because they have access to the relevant discovery previously taken in the case and can use the trial package to proceed with their respective cases. Finally, the Defendants do not think there is a need to appoint a new PSC because generic discovery has already been completed and all that remains is case-specific work. First, Judge Fallon concludes that the private settlement agreement does not legally prejudice the Movants because they are free to not opt-in—as they have thus far decided—and proceed with their individual cases utilizing the trial package prepared by the PSC. At best, he only sees a potential "tactical disadvantage" that the Movants may suffer; namely, that the Plaintiffs' counsel who were involved throughout the course of the litigation will no longer be involved in the litigation and will not aid the Movants in preparation of their individual cases beyond what they have already done in preparing the trial package materials. It is not sufficient to support a claim of legal prejudice. Thus, Judge Fallon concludes that the Movants lack standing to contest the settlement agreement. Furthermore, even if they did have standing to challenge the private settlement agreement, Judge Fallon does not agree that the agreement is prejudicial to the Movants. Next, a plain reading of the settlement agreement, along with the PSC's assurances that the entire trial package is available to all the non-settling Plaintiffs, leads the Judge to conclude that the private agreement is not unfair, punitive, or prejudicial to the non-settling Plaintiffs. The Movants are free to not opt into the settlement and instead, proceed with their individual cases. Moreover, because general discovery has concluded in the matter, Judge Fallon does not find it to be necessary to appoint a second PSC at this time. For the reasons stated, Judge Fallon denies the Movants' Requested Relief in its entirety. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order & Reasons is available at https://is.gd/OFZN8p from Leagle.com. Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Leonard A. Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Gerald Edward Meunier -- Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer. Defendant, Defendant, represented by Susan M. Sharko -- susan.sharko@dbr.com -- Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, James B. Irwin, V -- jirwin@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC & Steven Jay Glickstein -- steven.glickstein@kayescholer.com -- Kaye, Scholer, LLP. Jake Woody, Interested Party, represented by Jacob S. Woody -- jswoody@browngreer.com -- BrownGreer PLC. MG 19501 BISCAYNE: Fails to Pay Sous Chefs Overtime, Mizell Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LORENZA MICHAEL MIZELL, and all other similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. MG 19501 BISCAYNE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-20425 (S.D.Fla., January 30, 2020) is a class action brought against the Defendant for their unlawful pay practices and policies such as failure to pay proper overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mizell and those similarly situated are/were employed by Defendant in the position of sous chef at International Smoke, a high end restaurant owned and operated by Defendant in the Aventura Mall in Miami, Florida. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant did not properly pay them overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Moreover, Plaintiff and other similarly situated demand a jury trial and respectfully pray that all the necessary damages they incurred be awarded to them such as unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, the costs of this action, and all recoverable interest. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anisley Tarragona, Esq. Jason D. Berkowitz, Esq. BT LAW GROUP, PLLC 3050 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 205 Miami, FL 33137 Tel: (305) 507-8506 Email: anisley@battorneys.com Jason@battorneys.com MILANO MENSWEAR: Faces Mahoney ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milano Menswear LLC. The case is captioned as JOHN MAHONEY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MILANO MENSWEAR LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00272-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Jan 15, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gene E.K. Pratter. The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Milano Menswear offers suits and formal wear for men and boys of all ages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Glanzberg, Esq. GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC 123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640 Philadelphia, PA 19109 Telephone: (215) 981-5400 E-mail: dglanzberg@aol.com MME CAPITAL: Abante Rooter Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MME CAPITAL, LLC dba MONEY MERCHANT EXPO and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 3:20-cv-00352 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant placed multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on its cellular telephones ending in -7511 in August 23, 2017, and continuing through August 20, 2019, in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA. The Plaintiff seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of MME Capital. MME is a business loan company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323 306-4234 Facsimile: 866 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com NATIONAL CREDIT: Carter Asserts Breach of FDCPA ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Credit Audit Corporation. The case is styled as Simonia Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Credit Audit Corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00368-JCJ (E.D., Pa., Jan. 22, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Statutes: Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. National Credit Audit Corporation is an Illinois collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. Kalikhman & Rayz LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Tel: (215) 364-5030 Fax: (215) 364-5029 Email: erayz@kalraylaw.com NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Lopez Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Eduardo Lopez, an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, LP, a Delaware limited liability company and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV39983, was removed from the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 31, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01031 to the proceeding. The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) recovery of unpaid minimum wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to timely furnish accurate, itemized wage statements; (5) violations of Labor Code § 203; (6) declaratory relief; (7) unfair business practices; and (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy M. Fisher, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (626) 795-4700 Fax: (626) 795-4790 Email: tfisher@scopelitis.com - and - Adam C. Smedstad, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 3214 W McGraw Street, Suite 301F Seattle, WA 98199 Phone: (206) 288-6192 Fax: (206) 299-9375 Email: asmedstad@scopelitis.com - and - Alaina C. Hawley, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46214 Phone: (317) 637-1777 Fax: (317) 687-2414 Email: ahawley@scopelitis.com NCAA: Baugus II Sues over McNeese Football Athletes' Injuries ------------------------------------------------------------- MARVIN BAUGUS II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00091 (S.D. Ind., Jan. 6, 2020) is an action to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of the Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of University of Minnesota, Twin Cities ("UMTC") student-athletes. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those of the Plaintiff experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other UMTC football players from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the Plaintiff and countless former UMTC football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. NCAA is not organized under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal Revenue Service. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-9099 Facsimile: (713) 554-9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com NESAMA FOOD: Inga Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Justo Enrique Inga, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NESAMA FOOD CORP. d/b/a BIG ARC CHICKEN, MOHAMMED EL HATTAB, and ABDELLATIF MAHMOUD, Case No. 1:20-cv-00909 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2020), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day his work shift exceeded 10 hours, liquidated and statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff says he worked over 40 hours per week, and that his work shift would occasionally exceed 10 hours in a single day. He asserts that he was not required to punch a time clock or other time-recording device at the beginning or end of his work shift. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt cook and porter for their restaurant from 2009 until November 1, 2018. He alleges that he was not paid proper minimum wages and overtime compensation. He explains that work he performed above 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law. He adds that at no time during his employment did the Defendants provide him with a weekly wage statement when paying him his cash wages, which explained his gross wages, deductions, and net wages. NESAMA FOOD, owns and operates a restaurant doing business as "Big Arc Chicken," located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central 155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: info@jcpclaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Weaver Suit Over Civil Rights Violations Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case, GEORGE WEAVER; VERA NASEVA; LUZ CONCEPCION; LUIS FLORES, each on their own behalf and collectively on behalf of all others similarly-situated; FIGHT FOR NYCHA, Plaintiffs, v. THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY; GREGORY RUSS, Chair and CEO; THE CITY OF NEW YORK; BILL DE BLASIO, Mayor of the City of New York; GALE BREWER, individually as President of the Borough of Manhattan and acting, collectively, by and through her aide, BRIAN LEWIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-10760 (CM) (S.D. N.Y.). The Civil Judgment is pursuant to the order issued Dec. 20, 2019, dismissing the action. Judge McMahon dismissed Fight for NYCHA's claims without prejudice. The Judge denied the remaining Plaintiffs' requests brought on behalf of others, including their request to proceed as a class action. The Judge also dismissed those Plaintiffs' claims that they assert on behalf of others without prejudice. The Judge dismissed the remaining plaintiffs' own claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Judge declines to consider any state-law claims. Judge McMahon certified under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Court's judgment would not be taken in good faith. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Civil Judgment is available at https://is.gd/zimahW from Leagle.com. George Weaver, each on their own behalf and collectively on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, pro se. Vera Naseva, each on their own behalf and collectively on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, pro se. Luz Concepcion, each on their own behalf and collectively on behalf of all other similarly-situtated, Plaintiff, pro se. Fight For NYCHA, an unicorporated association by and through its Coordinating Committe members Louis Flores and Marni Halasa, Plaintiff, pro se. Louis Flores, each on their own behalf and collectively on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, pro se. NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Class Certification Sought in Baleja Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JOHN BALEJA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SPACE & MISSIONS SYSTEMS CORP. SALARIED PENSION PLAN, ET AL., Case No. 5:17-cv-00235-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), moves for certification of a proposed class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will commence a hearing on March 23, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter K. Stris, Esq. Brendan S. Maher, Esq. Victor O'connell, Esq. John Stokes, Esq. Loren Beck, Esq. STRIS & MAHER LLP 777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 Facsimile: (213) 261-0299 E-mail: peter.stris@strismaher.com brendan.maher@strismaher.com victor.oconnell@strismaher.com john.stokes@strismaher.com loren.beck@strismaher.com - and - Shaun P. Martin, Esq. UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW 5998 Alcala Park, Warren Hall San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 260-2347 Facsimile: (619) 260-7933 E-mail: smartin@sandiego.edu NORTHWELL HEALTH: Carrero Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ramon Carrero, Robert Davenport, Justin Correira, and Dawud Turner, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC. f/d/b/a North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Systems, Inc., Case No. 701865/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Feb. 3, 2020), seeks to recover from the Defendant damages under the New York Labor Law for its systematic failure to pay the Plaintiffs their fully and due wages. According to the complaint, while the Plaintiffs were at their posts, the Defendant required them to work during meal breaks absent compensation for that work. For days when the Plaintiffs worked at least 10 hours in a given day, the Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiffs an additional hour of work at the statutory minimum wage rate then applicable. The Defendant violated multiple provisions of the NYLL in doing so when it failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent for all of the work they performed as the Defendant's employees, the Plaintiffs contend. As a result of this policy and practice, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs and members of the putative Collective and Class overtime compensation when they worked in excess of 40 hours certain weeks, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as a paramedic and emergency medical technicians. Northwell is a Domestic Business Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve Pipenger, Esq. PIPENGER & PARTNERS, LLP 68 Jay Street, Suite 201 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (646) 732-5700 Email: steve@pipengerandpartners.com OCWEN LOAN: Pantano Consumer Credit Suit Remanded to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHERYL PANTANO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-11178-DJC (D. Mass.), Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (i) granted Pantano's motion to remand the matter to state court, and (ii) denied as moot Ocwen's motion for dismissal. Pantano filed the putative class action lawsuit against Defendant Ocwen, alleging violations of Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A, Section 2 and 940 C.M.R. Section 7.04 (Count I). Pantano is a resident of Peabody, Massachusetts, who took on debt to Ocwen in the form of a residential mortgage loan. Ocwen is a corporation with its principal place of business in West Palm Beach, Florida. At all relevant times, Pantano's debt to Ocwen has been allegedly more than 30 days overdue. In the last four years, Ocwen has repeatedly called Pantano's cellular telephone to attempt to collect the amount owed on the mortgage. From November 2017 through January 2018, Ocwen allegedly called Pantano daily and repeatedly more than two times within a given seven-day period. Pantano suffered anger, anxiety, emotional distress, fear and frustration as a result of the calls. On Jan. 16, 2019, Pantano sent Ocwen a letter via certified mail identifying her claim and describing Ocwen's unfair and deceptive acts, pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A, Section 9(3). On March 6, 2019, Ocwen responded to Pantano's letter which did not include a settlement offer. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: all consumers residing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who, within four years prior to the filing of the action, received in excess of two telephone calls regarding a debt from Ocwen within a seven-day period to their residence, cellular telephone, or other provided telephone number. Pantano alleges that there are thousands of Massachusetts consumers who are members of the proposed class. In the original state court civil cover sheet, Pantano sought damages in the amount greater than $25,001 on behalf of the Plaintiff and the class. Pantano instituted the action in Essex Superior Court on April 1, 2019, and Ocwen removed the matter to the Massachusetts federal district court on May 24, 2019. Ocwen removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441 claiming diversity jurisdiction, which requires complete diversity between the parties and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. Pantano has now moved for remand to state court, and Ocwen has moved for dismissal. Pantano makes two arguments with respect to the amount in controversy: (1) the $25,001 figure listed on the state court civil cover sheet took into account class-wide damages and thus is not a meaningful figure for analysis of the amount in controversy; and (2) the fact that the initial action was filed in Superior Court, which has a jurisdictional requirement of at least $25,000 in controversy, is not dispositive of the amount in controversy for purposes of federal jurisdiction. The Court heard the parties on the pending motions and took the matters under advisement. To extent that Ocwen has now belatedly invoked 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2) to avoid remand, Judge Casper notes the following. The Court inquired at the motion hearing about the application of the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") and since that hearing, Ocwen has filed a Supplemental Notice of Removal relying upon, in the alternative to diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332(a), CAFA, for removal. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1322(d)(2), Ocwen has the burden of showing, among other things, that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action [meeting certain criteria as to diversity between the parties. Even assuming the other criteria have been met, Ocwen has failed to show, even on the supplemented record, that the amount in controversy as to the proposed class action exceeds $5 million. In its calculations, it assumes that 12,000 consumers would be in the class, but does not show a reasonable probability that each class member would each receive $400, or even closer to $353. Accordingly, on the current record, to the extent that Ocwen is now seeking to invoke jurisdiction under CAFA to avoid remand, it has failed to meet its burden of same at this time. For all of these reasons, Judge Casper granted the motion to remand. Given her ruling on the motion to remand, the Judge denied as moot the motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/Qnhp7p from Leagle.com. Cheryl Pantano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sergei Lemberg -- slemberg@lemberglaw.com -- Lemberg Law, L.L.C. & Joshua Markovits, Lemberg Law, LLC, pro hac vice. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Richard E. Briansky -- rbriansky@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Joe N. Nguyen, Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP, pro hac vice. OMEGA PROJECT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Morrison Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Allen Morrison, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Omega Project Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00344 (S.D. Tex., January 30, 2020) is a class action brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Omega Project Solutions provides staffing solutions to projects ranging from engineering, power industry, oil and gas, and infrastructure and buildings. Morrison worked for Omega as a Quality Manager on an hourly basis from March 2014 to March 2017. Throughout his employment with Omega, Morrison was paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked (including those hours in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek) with no overtime compensation. Morrison brings this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated workers who were paid by Omega's "straight time for overtime" system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 ORACLE CORP: Sunrise Firefighters' Suit Dismissed w/ Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CITY OF SUNRISE FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ORACLE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04844-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The case is a putative class action for securities fraud brought against Oracle and its officers Safra A. Catz, Mark Hurd, Lawrence J. Ellison, Thomas Kurian, Ken Bond, and Steve Miranda ("Individual Defendants"). Lead Plaintiff, Union Asset Management Holding AG, has filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC") alleging that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The Plaintiff also asserts that Catz, Hurd, and Ellison are liable for violations of federal securities laws as "control persons" of Oracle, pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Finally, it claims Kurian violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act by selling Oracle common stocks. Based on these allegations, the Lead Plaintiff brings the lawsuit on behalf of itself, and other purchasers of Oracle stock between March 15, 2017 and June 19, 2018, alleging that the Defendants misrepresented Oracle's revenue growth within its Cloud segment and the drivers of that growth. The Defendants move to dismiss the CAC. Judge Freeman holds that to successfully state a claim, the Plaintiff must plead with particularity what statements were made, when they were made, why they were false at the time they were made, and how the Defendant who made the statement acted with scienter at the time the statements were made. Because the Plaintiff fails to adequately plead that the Defendants made any false or misleading statements and that they did so with scienter, the motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend. Any amended complaint should be filed by Feb. 17, 2020. Judge Freean requests that the chambers copy of any amended complaint be a redlined version, in color. Failure to meet the deadline to file an amended complaint or failure to cure the deficiencies identified in this Order will result in a dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. For the amended complaint, pursuant to the PSLRA and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the sake of clarity and efficient case management, the Plaintiff is directed to set out in chart form their securities fraud allegations under the following headings on a numbered, statement-by-statement basis: (1) the speaker(s), date(s) and medium; (2) the false and misleading statements; (3) the reasons why the statements were false and misleading when made; and (4) the facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter. The chart may be attached to or contained in the amended complaint, but in any event will be deemed to be a part of the amended complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/IfLfH4 from Leagle.com. City of Sunrise Firefighters' Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Daniel Uslaner -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP. Union Asset Management Holding AG, Appointed Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Abe Alexander, Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, John J. Rizio-Hamilton, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Daniel Uslaner, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Julia K. Tebor, Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP & Mark Lebovitch -- markl@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. Oracle Corporation, Safra A. Catz, Mark Hurd, Lawrence J. Ellison, Thomas Kurian, Ken Bond & Steve Miranda, Defendants, represented by Jordan Eth -- jeth@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Mark R.S. Foster -- mfoster@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP. P.C. RICHARD: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- P.C. Richard & Son, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. P.C. Richard & Son, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00338 (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 22, 2020). P.C. Richard & Son, LLC is in the Household Appliance Stores business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com PEARSALL CANDY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Mahmood Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faisal Mahmood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PEARSALL CANDY INC., SHAZIA SATTAR, ABDUL SATTAR and RATI PATTEL, as individuals, Case No. 2:20-cv-00551 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2020), seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiff's employment. Although the Plaintiff worked for 77 hours or more per week during his employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay him time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from March 2012 until September 2019. PEARSALL CANDY INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office in Cedarhurst, 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 PRAIRIE FARMS: Darby Sues over Mislabeled Vanilla Ice Cream ----------------------------------------------------------- LARRELL DARBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRAIRIE FARMS DAIRY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00151 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2020) alleges that the Defendant mislabeled its vanilla ice cream products. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells vanilla bean ice cream products purporting to contain flavor only from their natural characterizing flavor, vanilla under their Prairie Farms Small Batch brand. The Defendant's Product's include "Premium Vanilla Bean Ice Cream," "Small Batch," "Farmer Owned," "Prairie Farms," "Made with Local Milk & Cream," "Natural Ingredients," a cow and a scoop of the product nestled in a cone, showing specks of vanilla bean seeds and three vanilla beans. The front label statements of "Vanilla Bean Ice Cream" and "Vanilla Bean" are understood by consumers to identify a product where (1) vanilla is the characterizing flavor, (2) vanilla is contained in a sufficient amount to flavor the product, (3) the flavor is derived from vanilla extract or vanilla flavoring and unexhausted vanilla beans, (4) no other flavors in the simulate, resemble, reinforce, or enhance flavoring from vanilla and (5) vanilla is the exclusive source of flavor. The Products are misleading because they do not contain the amount, type and percentage of vanilla beans and vanilla extract or vanilla flavoring as a component of the flavoring in the ice cream, which is required and consistent with consumer expectations. Had plaintiff and class members known the truth about the Products, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc. manufactures dairy products, including milk, cottage cheese, sour cream, dips, yogurt, juices, butter, ice cream, and frozen dessert products. Prairie Farms Dairy serves customers in the State of Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com PROFESSIONAL BUILDERS: Naiman Alleges Telephone Privacy Invasion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sid Naiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Professional Builders, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00976 (C.D. Calif., January 30, 2020) is a class action brought against the Defendant for allegedly invading Plaintiff's privacy by illegally contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In an attempt to promote or sell its services and without prior express consent, Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system and placed multiple calls on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number which is a violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA. Plaintiff brought this action on his behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated who were harmed by the illegal acts of Defendant. Defendant Professional Builders, Inc. is a construction company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, C.A 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 PUBLIC HEALTH: Lauzurique Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Lauzurique, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Case No. 1:20-cv-20464-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 2, 2020), is brought for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees of this action under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff says she regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more work weeks for the Defendant. However, the Defendant has failed to pay time and one-half wages for the overtime hours worked by the Plaintiff for all of their actual overtime hours worked with the Defendant instead paying salaried wages for 40 hours per week but without time and one-half compensation for the overtime hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as "Credentialing Specialists." PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY has operated and done business Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 901-1379 Email: employlaw@keithstern.com QUICKEN LOANS: Sued by Winters Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quicken Loans Inc., Case NO. 2:20-cv-00112-MTL (D. Ariz., Jan. 15, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls and unsolicited unwanted text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A). He adds that the Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which he incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). He asserts that he was never a customer of Defendant and never provided his cellular telephone number to the Defendant for any reason whatsoever. The Plaintiff seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the Defendant's illegal actions. The Defendant is a mortgage lending company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: 800 400-6808 Facsimile: 800 520-5523 E-mail: david@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com RALPHS GROCERY: Yannoulatos Sues Over Failure to Provide Seats -------------------------------------------------------------- John Yannoulatos and Jill Laface, individually, and as representatives of all others similarly situated v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV04200 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 31, 2020), seeks to recover civil penalties arising from the Defendants' violations of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 and the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Ralphs failed to provide them and other similarly situated self-checkout attendants with seats, in violation of the Labor Code. The Plaintiffs assert that they are aggrieved employees and the other employees with similar stationary job functions, including other self-checkout attendants, who were employed by the Defendant in California, are also negatively impacted by the Company's policies. The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendants as self-checkout attendants. Ralphs is a California grocery store chain operation, operating throughout the State of California and in the County of Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andre E. Jardini, Esq. K.L. Myles, Esq. Michael D. Carr, Esq. KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Phone: (818) 547-5000 Facsimile: (818) 547-5329 Email: aej@kpclegal.com klm@kpclegal.com mdc@kpclegal.com - and - Michael V. Jehdian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL V. JEHDIAN, APC 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2150 Glendale, CS 91203-1922 Phone: (818)247-9111 Email: jehdian@lawyer.com RENUE SYSTEMS: Sierra FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Renue Systems of NY-NJ, LLC and Justin Chodos removed the case captioned as Martin Sierra, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. Renue Systems of NY-NJ, LLC, and Justin Chodos, Individually, Case No. 161986/2019, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 15, 2020. The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00399 to the proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges claims of failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as well as failure to pay overtime, failure to compensate for "spread of hours," and notice and recordkeeping violations, including failure to provide accurate wage statement and a wage notice, in violation of the New York Labor Law. Renue Systems is a comprehensive service provider of deep restorative cleaning and maintenance services for the hotel/hospitality, commercial real estate, and gaming industries.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Francis J. Giambalvo, Esq. Mercedes Colwin, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP One Battery Park Plaza, 28th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 269-5500 RESURGENT CAPITAL: Mack's Bid for Class Certification Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Sara L. Ellis grants the motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned YVONNE MACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-06300 (N.D. Ill.). The Court certifies this class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All persons in the State of Illinois who, between September 14, 2017 and September 14, 2018, sought validation of a debt within forty-five days of the mailing of an initial collection letter from Defendants Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. or LVNV Funding, LLC or their agents, and in response received a form letter that included a Section 1692g validation notice. Judge Ellis appoints Yvonne Mack as the class representative and appoints David J. Philipps, Esq., Mary E. Philipps, Esq., Angie K. Robertson, Esq., Larry P. Smith, Esq., and David M. Marco, Esq., as class counsel. According to the Court's Opinion and Order, the Plaintiff defaulted on a consumer debt acquired by LVNV and serviced by Resurgent. After she disputed her debt in response to an initial collection letter, she received another form letter from Resurgent that included language as to how to dispute the debt. She contends that this form letter violated Sections 1692e and 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it used false or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect her debt.[CC] RSI HOME: Rodriguez Suit Moved to Central District of California ---------------------------------------------------------------- RSI Home Products, Inc., et al., removed the case captioned CHRISTOPHER J. RODRIGUEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. RSI HOME PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation; RSI PROFESSIONAL CABINET SOLUTIONS, a corporation; PROFESSIONAL CABINET SOLUTIONS, a corporation; AMERICAN WOODMARK CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1936827 (Filed Dec. 5, 2019), from the California Superior Court, San Bernardino County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 16, 2020. Mr. Rodriguez alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wage and/or overtime pay. He was employed by the Defendants in California as a non-exempt employee from July 2014 to May 2019. RSI Home provides houseware products. The company offers kitchen, bath, cabinet, countertop, and accessory products.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Ashley R. Li, Esq. Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310 315 8200 Facsimile: 310 315 8210 E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com ali@mcguirewoods.com skim@mcguirewoods.com SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Portnoy Named Lead Plaintiff in Sec. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANDREW SALINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS, INC., DOUGLAS S. INGRAM, and SANDESH MAHATME, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-8122 (VSB) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has appointed Bernard Portnoy as Lead Plaintiff and approved Portnoy's selection of the lead counsel. On Aug. 30, 2019, the Class Action Complaint was filed against Sarepta as well as its former CEO and President Douglas S. Ingram, and former CFO and VP Sandesh Mahatme, alleging that Sarepta and the Individual Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Sarepta is a company that focuses on the discovery and development of ribonucleic acid ("RNA")-based therapeutics, gene therapy, and other genetic medicine approaches for the treatment of rare diseases, and one of its potential drug products was golodirsen, a drug being developed for the treatment of duchenne muscular dystrophy ("DMD"). The Complaint alleges that between Sept. 6, 2017, and Aug. 19, 2019, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Sarepta's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, they made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) golodirsen posed significant safety risks to patients; (ii) consequently, the [new drug application] package for golodirsen's accelerated approval was unlikely to receive FDA approval; and (iii) as a result, Sarepta's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of false and/or misleading statements or omissions, those who purchased or otherwise acquired Sarepta securities during the Class Period sustained significant losses and damages. On Aug. 30, 2019, the same day the Complaint was filed, Pomerantz LLP published a notice of the Complaint on Globe Newswire in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). The notice was addressed to all persons or entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired publicly traded Sarepta securities between Sept. 6, 2017, and Aug. 19, 2019," and detailed the claims in the Complaint. The notice informed the Class members that they had until Oct. 29, 2019, to file to seek appointment as the Lead Plaintiff. On Oct. 29, 2019, five Class members filed motions seeking to be appointed Lead Plaintiff and for approval of the lead counsel: - Class members Lee, Judy, and Clay Mills ("Mills Family") moved to appoint themselves as the Lead Plaintiffs and for approval of Gainey McKenna & Egleston as the lead counsel. - Dorian S. Vergos moved to appoint himself as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of Levi & Korsinsky to serve as the lead counsel. - Michael Mountain moved to appoint himself as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of Faruqi & Faruqi as the lead counsel. - Bernard Portnoy moved to appoint himself as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of Pomerantz LLP as the lead counsel. - TJC Services Limited moved to appoint itself as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of Johnson Fistel, LLP as the lead counsel. In response to these motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel, on Nov. 12, 2019, the Mills Family, Vergos, and TJC Services each filed a notice of withdrawal of their motion seeking an order appointing them as lead plaintiffs and appointing Gainey McKenna, Johnson Fistel, and Levi & Korsinsky, respectively, as lead counsel for the class. Mountain filed a notice of non-opposition to Portnoy's motion for appointment of lead plaintiff recognizing that he does not possess the largest individual financial interest among the various movants. On Nov. 13, 2019, Bernard Portnoy filed a notice stating that the other four movants had either withdrawn their motions, or filed a notice of non-opposition, and that his motion was unopposed. On review, the District Court finds that Portnoy is the "most adequate" Plaintiff under the PSLRA, and that the remaining movants have failed to rebut this presumption. Thus, the District Court granted Bernard Portnoy's motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of lead counsel. The District Court denied the remaining motions by the Mills Family, Vergos, Mountain, and TJC Services, for appointment as lead plaintiff. Bernard Portnoy is directed to file a second amended complaint no later than 60 days after the date of issuance of the Opinion & Order. The Defendants are directed to answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint no later than 60 days after Bernard Portnoy serves the second amended complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/GCHyV7 from Leagle.com. Bernard Portnoy, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman , Pomerantz LLP. Andrew Salinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Family Mills, Movant, represented by Thomas James McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston. Dorian A. Vergos, Movant, represented by Gregory Mark Nespole -- gnespole@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. Michael Mountain, Movant, represented by Richard William Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP. TJC Services Limited, Movant, represented by William Scott Holleman -- holleman@bespc.com -- Johnson Fistel, LLP. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Douglas S. Ingram & Sandesh Mahatme, Defendants, represented by Andrew Brian Clubok, Latham & Watkins LLP. SAUCE VENTURES: Conner Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act --------------------------------------------------------- Sauce Ventures, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Sauce Ventures, LLC, doing business as: Truff Hot Sauce, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00343 (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 22, 2020). Sauce Ventures, LLC is a privately held company in Huntington Beach, CA and is a Single Location business. Categorized under Sauces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com SAYEH PETROLEUM, INC: Mikich Files Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sayeh Petroleum, Inc. The case is styled as Charles Mikich, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sayeh Petroleum, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants, Case No. CGC20582385 (Cal. Super., Jan. 22, 2020). The case type is stated as other non-exempt complaints. Sayeh Petroleum, Inc. is in the Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David spivak, Esq. 16530 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 203 Encino, CA 91436 SL DISTRIBUTION: Macedonia's Bid to Certify Under Submission ------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable James V. Selna has taken under submission the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit styled Macedonia Distributing Inc. v. S.L. Distribution Company, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-01692-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.). According to the Court's Civil Minutes, cause is called for hearing and counsel make their appearances. The Court's tentative ruling is issued. The Motion is argued and taken under submission.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Annick Persinger, Esq. V Chai Prentice, Esq. TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP 483 Ninth St., Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 The Defendant is represented by: Dale Giali, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Ave., 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Telephone: (213) 229-9509 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Philip Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Philip, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01111 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2020), is a brought for legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in sending automated text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous other individuals across the country, in clear violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. All of the subject text messages received by the Plaintiff and the members of the putative Class were transmitted by or on behalf of the Defendant without the requisite prior "express written consent" of the Plaintiff or any member of the putative Class, the Plaintiff contends. He asserts that the Defendant actually transmitted the text messages at issue in this case to him and all other putative Class members in an automated fashion and without human intervention, with hardware and software that received and stored telephone numbers and then automatically dialed such numbers. Because the Plaintiff's cellular phone alerts him whenever he receives a text message, each unsolicited text message transmitted by or on behalf of the Defendant to his Number invaded his privacy and intruded upon his seclusion upon receipt, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of North Hollywood, California. SmileDirectClub, Inc. is a "teledentistry" company that does business online and at its over 300 brick-and-mortar retail locations across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: + 1 (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: + 1 (415) 402-0058 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com SPORT LA. INC: Underpays Laborers, Aguilon et al. Allege -------------------------------------------------------- ANIBAL JOSE AGUILON; REYNALDO PEREZ ROSALES; and ELI JOEL PEREZ ROSALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPORT LA. INC. D/B/A H&R LOGISTICS; OLARTE TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC.; HUMBERTO LOPEZ; RALPH OLARTE; MARCIAL OLARTE; and DOES 1 TROUGH 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV00292 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 6, 2020) 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 Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers. Sport La. Inc. d/b/a H&R Logistics is engaged in the trucking industry. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gabriel Sandoval, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GABRIEL SANDOVAL 15260 Ventura Blvd. Suite 1200 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Tel: (213) 262-9884 Fax: (310) 388-0366 E-mail: gsandoval@gslawoffice.com SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: Sebastian Suit Deal Gets Final Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DONOVAN SEBASTIAN, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a Kansas Corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00757-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), Judge Josephine L. Staton of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement as to the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release. Judge Staton approved the parties' Settlement and proposed releases, having found them fair, reasonable, and adequate. For purposes of the Settlement, the Judge has certified the Settlement Classes defined in the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff Donovan Sebastian has been confirmed as class representative. The Court approved as reasonable the Class Representative Enhancement Award to the Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000. Brian J. Mankin of Fernandez & Lauby LLP has been confirmed as Class Counsel. The Court approved as reasonable an $812,500 award for attorneys' fees and an $8,952.56 award for attorney's costs. Simpluris, Inc. has been confirmed as Settlement Administrator. The Court approved Settlement Administration Costs in the amount of $9,473. The Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Final Judgment is available at https://is.gd/VVrzEu from Leagle.com. Donovan Sebastian, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Mankin -- bjm@fernandezlauby.com -- Fernandez and Lauby LLP & Peter Carlson -- pjc@fernandezlauby.com -- Fernandez and Lauby LLP. Sprint/United Management Company, a Kansas Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amy Schaefer Ramsey -- aramsey@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, Gabriel M. Huey -- ghuey@HuntonAK.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Margaret A. Parker -- maparker@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. SYSCO CORP: $500K Settlement in Martin Suit Gets Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN MARTIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SYSCO CORPORATION and SYSCO CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00990-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted final approval to class action settlement and request for attorneys' fees. The Court previously granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the action on July 19, 2019. Following the granting of preliminary approval, the class administrator mailed class notices to all 167 class members on Aug. 12, 2019. The deadline to request exclusion from the settlement and to object to the settlement was Sept. 26, 2019. As of the filing of the Plaintiff's motion for final approval on Nov. 5, 2019, no class member has requested exclusion and no objections have been filed. Moreover, no class members appeared at the final approval hearing. The gross settlement amount is $500,000, and the settlement is projected to pay class members an estimated average payment of $1,999.86. Judge Drozd finds on balance, and after considering all of the relevant factors, that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, Judge Drozd granted the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action settlement, and approved the settlement. Judge Drozd also granted the Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs, an incentive payment, and settlement costs, and awards the following sums: (i) the class counsel will receive $125,000 in attorneys' fees and $26,526.28 in costs; (ii) Named plaintiff John Martin will receive $7,500 as an incentive payment; and (ii) the settlement administrator, ILYM Group Inc., will receive $6,996.35 for settlement administration costs. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 17, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/YGAK1S from Leagle.com. John Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, represented by David Thomas Mara -- dmara@maralawfirm.com -- Mara Law Firm PC, Jessica Renee Corrales -- jcorrales@turleylawfirm.com -- Turley Law Firm, APLC, Jill Marie Vecchi -- jvecchi@maralawfirm.com -- Mara Law Firm, Matthew Evan Crawford , Mara Law Firm, PC, William Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC & Gwendolyne Nicole Ousdahl -- ntrenner@maralawfirm.com -- Mara Law Firm. Sysco Corporation & SYSCO Central California, Inc., Defendants, represented by Diamond M. Hicks -dhicks@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Margaret Rosenthal -- mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Nicholas D. Poper -- npoper@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Sabrina Layne Shadi -- sshadi@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP. TALLGRASS ENERGY: Faces Fisk Suit Over Merger With Blackstone ------------------------------------------------------------- David Fisk, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TALLGRASS ENERGY, LP, WILLIAM R. MOLER, MARCELINO OREJA ARBURUA, GUY G. BUCKLEY, ROY N. COOK, THOMAS A. GERKE, WALLACE C. HENDERSON, MATTHEW J.K. RUNKLE, and TERRANCE D. TOWNER, Case No. 1:20-cv-00155-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 31, 2020), arises from a proposed merger between the Company and affiliates of Blackstone Infrastructure Partners. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the other public holders of the common stock of Tallgrass Energy, LP ("TGE" or the "Partnership") against the Partnership and the members of Tallgrass Energy GP, LLC's ("TGE GP") board of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between TGE and affiliates of Blackstone Infrastructure Partners together with affiliates of Enagas, GIC, NPS and USS (collectively, "Blackstone"). On December 16, 2019, the Board caused the Partnership to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Partnership's shareholders stand to receive $22.45 in cash for each Class A share representing a limited partner interest of TGE they own. On January 21, 2020, in order to convince TGE shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of the Exchange Act, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff contends that the materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy violates both Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9, each of which constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Partnership's shareholders in the Proxy, the Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and misleading, the Plaintiff contends. In particular, the Plaintiff avers, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections for the Partnership that were prepared by the Partnership and relied on by Defendants in recommending that TGE shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by TGE's financial advisor, Evercore Group L.L.C. in support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied. The Plaintiff, a holder of TGE common stock, contends that it is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow the Partnership's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction. TGE is a limited partnership that owns, operates, acquires and develops midstream energy assets in North America. Enagas is a leading international energy company with 50 years' experience. GIC is a leading global investment firm established in 1981 to manage Singapore's foreign reserves. NPS is a public pension fund in South Korea with assets under management of KRW 714.3 trillion ($620 billion) as at September 30, 2019. USS is the corporate trustee of one of the largest private sector pension funds in the UK with assets under management of GBP68 billion as at 31 March 2019 and over 400,000 members across more than 350 universities and other higher education and associated institutions in the UK.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 482-3182 Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com TEXAS: Court Dismisses Class Claims in Hoffman Prisoner Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, FRED HOFFMAN, III, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERY RICHARDSON, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 2:18-CV-00328 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Hilda Tagle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, adopted Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") to Dismiss Certain Claims and to Retain Case. The Court is in receipt of Magistrate Judge Libby's M&R to Dismiss Certain Claims and to Retain Case. It is also in receipt of Plaintiff Hoffman's Objections and Memorandum in Response. Hoffman is imprisoned in the state of Texas and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. He filed the prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. In his complaint, Hoffman named Assistant Warden Corey Furr, Correctional Officer Felix Anazor, Correctional Officer Vichente Martinez, Sergeant Doroteo Fonseca and Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ") Director Lorie Davis. Hoffman claims the Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious seizure condition with strobe flashlights and by causing him sleep deprivation, he additionally alleges he was subject to retaliation. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the use of strobe flashlights by TDCJ staff. Hoffman also seeks to represent other similarly situated inmates. Magistrate Judge Libby issued his M&R on Dec. 13, 2018 as a frivolousness screening pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. After extensive review of the complaint and statement of the relevant legal standards, Magistrate Judge Libby recommends retaining deliberate indifference claims against Furr in his official capacity for injunctive relief. Magistrate Judge further recommends that the Plaintiff's request to proceed as a class action be denied and that the Plaintiff's remaining claims against all the Defendants be dismissed. Hoffman objects to the recommendation primarily on three grounds: (1) Other Defendants are necessary to the litigation and should not be dismissed; 2) It is improper to dismiss his retaliation claim; 3) The Plaintiff's request to proceed as class action is valid because other inmates plan on joining the litigation. Judge Tagle holds that Hoffman's objections to dismissing other parties who allegedly cause him harm are understandable but not necessary. The equitable powers of trial courts are broad and flexible and can be shaped to the necessities of a particular case. As the Magistrate Judge has already indicated, if an injunction is found to be warranted, the best person to effect that injunction can be substituted in place of Furr. Judge Tagle overrules Hoffman's objections regarding the Defendants and adopts the M&R's recommendation to retain the deliberate indifference claims. Regarding retaliation, Judge Tagle finds that Hoffman's complaint combines retaliation claims with the indifference allegations so that the indifference effectively jumpstarts a separate retaliation claim. Such allegations are purely conclusory and accordingly Judge Tagle overrules Hoffman's objection and adopts the M&Rs recommendation to dismiss the retaliation claim. Finally, Hoffman objects to the recommended dismissal of his class claims and argues he has shown the existence of similarly situated plaintiffs who would join this suit. The Plaintiff is not seeking to represent other inmates who are similarly situated to him, but merely filed suit stating he was filing on behalf of others similarly likewise situated to that of the Plaintiff, because other inmates on the McConnell Unit plan on joining the lawsuit. Pro se plaintiffs generally may not serve as class counsel because they are ill-suited to protect the interests of a class, the Court notes. Hoffman as yet has not argued for the permissive joinder of parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Accordingly, Judge Tagle overrules Hoffman's objections and adopts the M&R's recommendation to dismiss the class claims. After independently reviewing the filings, the record, applicable law, and for the foregoing reasons, Judge Tagle adopted the M&R, and overruled the Plaintiff's objections. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/u61pOx from Leagle.com. Fred Hoffman, III, Plaintiff, pro se. Warden Jeffery Richardson, Defendant, represented by Melissa Ann Russo, Office of the Attorney General Law Enforcement Defense Division. TFS DINING: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Heath Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Heath, aka Hazel/Pepper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TFS DINING, LLC, D/B/A YELLOW ROSE; RPM DINING, LLC; JON PERSINGER AND KENNY DOE, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-00119-LY (W.D. Tex., Feb. 3, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for damages resulting from the Defendants evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's tips. The Plaintiff alleges that she was denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to classify her and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors." She adds that the Defendants' practice of failing to pay tipped employees violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision. The Plaintiff worked as a dancer for the Defendants in January 2019 through March 2019. The Defendants own and operate a strip club named YELLOW ROSE.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Phone: (713) 554-2377 Fax: (888) 995-3335 Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com - and - John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN, LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Phone: (310) 507-7924 Fax: (310) 507-7906 Email: john@kristensenlaw.com TRANS UNION: Lynn Sues Over Practices That Violate FCRA & NY FCRA ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Lynn, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. TRANS UNION, LLC, CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE, N.A. AND CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-00549 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2020), seeks redress for the Defendants' illegal practices, which violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FCRA and NY FCRA prohibit furnishers of credit information to falsely and inaccurately report consumers' credit information to credit reporting agencies. The Plaintiff disputed erroneous tradelines associated with a Capital One account and a Chapter 7, U.S. Bankruptcy Court account that appeared on his credit report directly with Trans Union, LLC in November 2019. Thereafter, Trans Union, LLC notified the Plaintiff that it had initiated an investigation into the said disputes. Trans Union's investigation did not resolve the disputes and the Plaintiff subsequently filed a statement of dispute with Trans Union in December 2019 regarding both the Capital One and Chapter 7 accounts. The Plaintiff obtained his consumer credit report from Trans Union, LLC at the end of 2019 and found that Trans Union, LLC had not included the Plaintiff's statements of dispute in the credit report. Subsequent to Trans Union, LLC's receipt of the Plaintiff's statement of dispute, Trans Union, LLC issued consumer reports without in any way indicating to the users of the reports that certain information contained therein was disputed by the Plaintiff and failed to include a copy of the Plaintiff's statement of dispute. Trans Union, LLC intentionally failed to include the statement of dispute with later copies of the Plaintiff's consumer reports, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff, a consumer and a citizen of the State of New York, contends that the Defendants violated the FCRA, since he disputed the accuracy of the information in his credit file and then notified them of the said dispute. Despite having the dispute from the Plaintiff regarding the said Chapter 7 Bankruptcy account, Trans Union, LLC has completely abdicated its obligations to update his credit report as necessary, the Plaintiff argues. Trans Union, LLC is a Credit Reporting Agency that engages in the business of maintaining and reporting consumer credit information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Phone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com TRANSUNION LLC: Improperly Prepares Credit Reports, Khaimov Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ilya Khaimov, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TRANSUNION, LLC and TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00585-KAM-PK (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendant prepared and obtained credit reports concerning the Plaintiff and class members for an impermissible purpose, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Beginning September 2017, Transworld began regularly requesting from Transunion the Plaintiff's credit report to assist them in collecting a debt. Transworld continued to request, and Transunion continued to provide them, a copy of the Plaintiff's credit report, for the purpose of assisting them in collecting the debt for the Driving Ticket. Obtaining a consumer report without a permissible purpose violates the consumer's right to privacy and a core purpose of the FCRA, the Plaintiff contends. He asserts that Transunion, aware that Transworld collects toll violations and other government debts, failed to have a procedure in place to ensure that Transworld would not be permitted to obtain his and the putative class members credit reports for an impermissible purpose. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff has been harmed, by the Defendants invading his privacy and sharing and obtaining the Plaintiff's personal and private information, says the complaint. Plaintiff Ilya Khaimov is a resident of Queens County New York. Transunion is one of the largest credit reporting agencies in the United States and is engaged in the business of assembling and disseminating credit reports concerning hundreds of millions of consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: ari@marcuszelman.com - and - Daniel C. Cohen, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Email: dan@cml.legal UHS OF HARTGROVE: Kelley Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence Kelley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UHS OF HARTGROVE, INC. d/b/a HARTGROVE HOSPITAL, Case No. 2020CH01380 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 3, 2020), is brought against the Defendant, its subsidiaries and affiliates, to redress and curtail its unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric data. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from such situation, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, disseminates, and uses its employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant have violated and continues to violate BIPA because it did not and continues not to: properly inform the Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees' fingerprints, as required by BIPA; obtain a written release from the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate, or otherwise use their fingerprints, as required by BIPA; and; and obtain consent from the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their fingerprints to a third party as required by BIPA. Plaintiff Clarence Kelley worked for Hartgrove as a Mental Health Tech from August 2014 to March 2018. Hartgrove, owns and operates a behavioral health care facility, located in Cook County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Megan E. Shannon, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 233-1550 Fax: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com mshannon@stephanzouras.com USM ACQUISITION: Underpays Part-time Employees, Bentley Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ZACHARY BENTLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USM ACQUISITION, LLC; PREMIER SURFACES ACQUISITION, LLC; CUSTOM PREMIER SURFACES, INC.; PREMIER SURFACES INC.; and CLIO HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00011 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 6, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for 60 days following their respective terminations and failed to make 401(k) contributions and provide them with health insurance coverage and other employee benefits. The Plaintiff Bentley was employed by the Defendant as part-time employee. USM Acquisition Corp produces metal components, valves, and assemblies. USM Acquisition serves aerospace, fluid power and hydraulics, military, defense, and oil and gas sectors in the State of Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Philo, Esq. Anthony D. Paris, Esq. SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE 4605 Cass Ave., 2nd Floor Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 993-4505 Facsimile: (313) 887-8470 E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org tparis@sugarlaw.org - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 Facsimile: (212) 581-2122 VISKASE COMPANIES: 2 Classes of Workers Certified in Thomas Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. D.P. Marshall, Jr., conditionally certifies two groups of employees in the lawsuit styled JAMIE THOMAS and ARGUSTER WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. VISKASE COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00330-DPM (E.D. Ark.). Viskase manufactures food packaging products. Plaintiffs Thomas and Williams worked at the Viskase plant in Osceola. Thomas was paid hourly, and Williams was a salaried shift supervisor. They seek to conditionally certify two Fair Labor Standards Act collectives--one for hourly paid staff and another for shift supervisors--who worked at Viskase since November 2016. Ms. Thomas says Viskase used a rounding system that led to her not being paid for all the hours she worked, including some beyond forty hours a week. Ms. Williams says that despite being salaried, she was not exempt and not paid for hours she worked over forty per week. Viskase says its rounding method complies with FLSA and Ms. Williams was exempt; and it opposes any group action. The Court conditionally certifies the two groups, but only for employees at the Osceola plant. Viskase has other plants, and Plaintiffs Thomas and Williams allege that Viskase used the same pay policies in all of them. "But Thomas and Williams only worked at the Osceola plant, and their key allegations concern only that plant," Judge Marshall opines. The two groups are: * Group 1--All hourly paid workers at the Osceola plant employed after 15 November 2016; and * Group 2--All salaried shift supervisors at the Osceola plant employed after 15 November 2016. Judge Marshall notes that one notice for both groups will do. The Court approves (in general) the proposed forms and overrules Viskase's objections. "But please make some changes to the proposal: update the group definitions to account for the Osceola restriction; change any instance of 'and/or' to 'or; delete the hyphen in 'hourly-paid' every time that phrase appears; in the consent form for shift supervisors, NQ 6-2 at 2, change 'an salaried shift supervisors' to 'a salaried shift supervisor'; and delete section (11) about severance agreements," Judge Marshall wrote. Judge Marshall also rules that Viskase must post notice in its Osceola plant. Notice to group members by U.S. mail or text (at group counsel's election) is fine. There's no need for notice by e-mail, too. One follow-up by postcard or text is fine. If notice is sent by mail, do not enclose the pleadings. Viskase does not have to provide e-mail addresses, but it must provide all the other contact information by February 18, 2020. The opt-in period will close on May 26, 2020.[CC] VITAMIN COTTAGE: Levine Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Levine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC. d/b/a NATURAL GROCERS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00261 (D. Colo., Jan. 31, 2020), is brought to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was required to work more than 40 hours in a workweek while employed by the Defendant in order to complete their job duties. However, in accordance with the Defendant's policy, pattern, and/or practice, they were misclassified as exempt from overtime compensation and were not paid at the mandated rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for the hours they worked over 40 in one or more workweeks because the Defendant classifies them as exempt from overtime, says the complaint. Plaintiff Levine was employed by the Defendant as an "Assistant Store Manager." Natural Grocers owns and operates more than 150 grocery stores in 19 states, mainly throughout the Central and Western United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALEZ, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Phone: (970) 214-0562 Email: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com - and - Jason Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL, LLC 1700 Market Street, Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 278-4782 Facsimile: (215) 278-4807 Email: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com VUUZLE MEDIA: Faces Fabricant Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy --------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VUUZLE MEDIA CORP. d/b/a BOINK LIVE STREAMING LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-01069 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2020), arises from the Defendants' illegal actions in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, the Company used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Company's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Company did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular telephone. The Plaintiff requested for the Company to stop calling the Plaintiff during one of the initial calls from the Company, thus, revoking any prior express consent that had existed and terminating any established business relationship that had existed. Despite this, the Plaintiff asserts, the Company continued to call the Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA. Based on the Plaintiff's experiences of being called by the Defendants after requesting they stop calling, the Defendants failed to establish and implement reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations prescribed under the TCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Los Angeles County, California. VUUZLE MEDIA CORP. d/b/a BOINK LIVE STREAMING LLC is a social media company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com W.D. WRIGHT CONTRACTING: Underpays Technicians, Bailey Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W.D. WRIGHT CONTRACTING, INC.; and WRIGHT TRAFFIC CONTROL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00012-TSB (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 6, 2020) 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 Bailey was employed by the Defendants as technician. W. D. Wright Contracting, Inc. was founded in 1977. The company's line of business includes providing general contracting services such as constructing water and sewer mains. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com - and - Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 715-8711 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com - and - Michael Murphy, Esq. Michael Groh, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com WAWA INC: Sills Sues in Pennsylvania Over Fraud-Related Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wawa, Inc. The case is captioned as ANDREA SILLS, JOSEPH DIVITA, and CORINNE M. MULLEN, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. WAWA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00286-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Jan 15, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gene E.K. Pratter. The suit alleges violation of fraud-related laws. Wawa, Inc. is an American chain of convenience stores and gas stations located along the East Coast of the United States, operating in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven E. Angstreich, Esq. WEIR & PARTNERS 1339 Chestnut St., Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 665-8181 E-mail: sangstreich@weirpartners.com WRIGHT MEDICAL: Thompson Suit Balks at Proposed Sale to Stryker --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP N.V., GARY D. BLACKFORD, JOHN L. MICLOT, ROBERT J. PALMISANO, DAVID D. STEVENS, ELIZABETH H. WEATHERMAN, J. PATRICK MACKIN, KEVIN C. O'BOYLE, AMY S. PAUL, RICHARD F. WALLMAN, STRYKER CORPORATION, and STRYKER B.V., Case No. 1:20-cv-00061-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 15, 2020), alleges violation of the Securities Exchange act of 1934 arising from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Wright Medical will be acquired by Stryker Corporation. On November 4, 2019, Wright Medical's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Stryker. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Buyer commenced a tender offer to purchase all of Wright Medical's outstanding common stock for $30.75 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is set to expire on February 27, 2020. On December 13, 2019, the Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Solicitation Statement omits material financial information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation Statement. The disclosure of projected financial information is material because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses performed by the company's financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff is an owner of Wright Medical common stock. Wright Medical is a global medical device company focused on extremities and biologics products. The Individual Defendants are directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gina M. Serra, Esq. Brian D. Long, 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 Email: 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 ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Mararac Alleges Illegal Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN MARARAC, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZIONS BANCORPORATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00005904-CU-OE-CTL (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., January 31, 2020) is a class and representative action brought against Defendants for their alleged systemic illegal employment practices, policies and customs. Plaintiff has been a non-exempt, hourly employee of Defendant since on or about February 5, 2015. Zions Bancorporation, National Association is a business that operated in California, including in San Diego County, California and allegedly created and maintained employment policies, practices and customs that deliberately disregard the rights of their employees such as failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements to their employees; thereby Defendants willfully violated the California Labor Code. Aiming to seek appropriate penalties, Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of all Aggrieved Employees from January 22, 2019 through the present. [BN] The Plaintiff and the Class is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Tel: (831) 531-4214 Fax: (831) 634-0333 ********* 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 ***