/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200211.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 11, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 30 Headlines 407 WEST: Tobias Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data 441 MOTORS LLC: Barbieri Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts AEG PRESENTS SE: Hill Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts AIRCASTLE LIMITED: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action ALAMO ENVIRONMENTAL: Fielder Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages ALBERTSONS LLC: Escapes Class Action Over Pharmacy Robocalls ALLERGAN PLC: Inks $300MM Deal to End Pay-For-Delay Class Action ALLY FINANCIAL: Cottrell Files FCRA Suit in Arizona AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Breached Ring Cameras AMERICAN HEALTH: Johnson Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA AQUAVENTURE HOLDINGS: Post Balks at Culligan Merger Deal AVON CANADA: Goldblatt Partners Files Class Action BERGAILA & ASSOCIATES: Crain Seeks Overtime Wages for Inspectors BLUEGRASS CONTRACTORS: Painters Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages BURFORD CAPITAL: Investors Drop Class Action BYTEDANCE: Class Action Lawsuit Filed in California vs. TikTok CAPIO PARTNERS: Murray Files Suit for Breach of FDCPA CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Wegner Claims CAS CONSULTING: Munoz Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages CHICK-FIL-A INC: DeSalvo Says Website not Blind Friendly CIAMPA MANAGEMENT: Avelar Seeks OT Pay; Hits Missing Pay Stubs CITY BEVERAGE: McGraw Hits Biometrics Data Collection CITY OF LAVAL: Residents Affected By Flooding File Class Action CLEARVIEW AI: Hall Sues over BIPA Violations COMERICA BANK: El-Hage Files Suit in Michigan COMMUNITY HEALTH: Has $53MM Deal in Securities Fraud Class Action CONENTRIX SERVICES: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Jones Alleges CONXALL CORP: Sirko Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Data CRACK SHACK: DeSalvo Says Website not Blind Friendly CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES: Rosenzweig Files FDCPA Suit in New York CREDIT CORP: Meisels Alleges Violation under FDCPA CURIOUSER PRODUCTS: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA DALTON WADE: Faces Caringello Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing DCH HEALTHCARE: Rhodes Files Suit in Alabama DELTA AIR: Fails to Offer COBRA-Compliant Notice, Eierstock Says DELUCA-MAISTO PROPERTIES: Laser Assert Breach of ADA DESERT LAKE GROUP: Coyle Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts DICK'S SPORTING: Jones Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act DIVERSIFIED FINANCING: CAG Files Interpleader Suit to Pay Funds DSV AIR & SEA: Kelly Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA EDS SERVICE SOLUTIONS: Price Files FCRA Suit in California ELK ENERGY: Lupardus Moves for Certification of Inspectors Class ENERGY TRANSFER: Allegheny County Employee's Fund Hits Share Drop EXELON CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Feb. 14 Plaintiff Bid Deadline EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Rabinovitz Files Consumer Credit Suit in NY F.A. BARTLETT TREE: Stanfield Files Suit in California FARMERS GROUP: Grigson's Class Cert. Bid Tossed Due to Settlement FIRSTECH INC: Fane Sues over Unpaid Overtime Compensation FLAGSHIP SECURITY: Yates Sues over FLSA Violations FORMULA FUNDING: Abante Rooter Sues over Auto Dialed Calls GATEWAY PLAZA: Reaches Class Settlement with LeFrak Organization GEORGE TYNDALL: Court to Approve $215M Class Action Settlement GEORGE TYNDALL: Judge to OK Sexual Abuse Class Action Settlement GILBERT ROZON: Appellate Court Tosses Sexual Assault Class Action GLOBAL BROKERAGE: Mega Lawsuit to Proceed as Class Action GLOBAL CONTACT: Underpays Call Center Staff, Thompson Says GOOGLE LLC: Reaches $7.5M Settlement in Google+ Class Action Suit GREEN ROADS: Court Stays CBD Class Action GRIEG SEAFOOD: Faces $500MM Class Action Over Price-Fixing GUIDANT GLOBAL: Ward Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages HYATT CORPORATION: Crump Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ICON TIME SYSTEMS: Bedolla Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ICON TIME: Faces Bedolla Suit over BIPA Violations INA DESIGNS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Dominguez Alleges J DAVID TAX LAW: Meyer Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls JAI MATA INC: Perez Files FLSA Suit in Tennessee KEN RUBMAN: Faces Dressel Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls LCS WYNDEMERE: Kachiroubas Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometrics LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Customers List Production in Schleifer Denied LISA VANDERPUMP: Faces Class Action Over Wages at Restaurants MANHATTAN PARKING: De La Cruz Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages MARIO'S ITALIAN BAKERY: Laser Alleges Violation under ADA MEDICREDIT INC: 5th Cir. Reverses Certification of Threats Suit MESA PACKING: Miguel-Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages and Reimbursement MICHAEL SCHNELL: Gonzales and Towne Sue over Unpaid Overtime MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Reminds of March 3 Deadline MONARCH RECOVERY: Mathis Asserts Breach of FDCPA MONARCH RECOVERY: Reus Sues over Unfair Debt Collection NARY'S GRILL & PIZZA: Arista Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Mullen Files Suit in Arizona NAVISTAR: Settlement in MaxxForce Engine Action Gets Final Approval NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Calif. Court Junks Retirees ERISA Lawsuit NSC TECH: Thompson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks NUSIL TECHNOLOGY: Bell Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. NVENT THERMAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hardimon Claims OAHU INTERSCHOLASTIC: Title IX Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action ORANGE TWIST: Gavin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Missed Breaks Pay PARAGON INDUSTRIES: Has to File Documentation on Settlement Bid PERIWINKLES CATERING CORP: Laser Alleges Violation under ADA PNC BANK: E. Thomas Proposes Class Action for TCPA Breach POROS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA/IMWL, Cruz Says POTOMAC FAMILY DINING: Colburn Alleges Violation under ADA PUBLIC REPUTATION: Austin Wants Consumer Privacy Under TCPA RALEIGH RADIOLOGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Mammograms RES-CARE INC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Black Claims RHT INC: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy RING: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Hacked Camera SEATTLE'S CHILDREN'S: Aspergillus Victims File Class Action Suit SECOND ROUND: Keener Files FDCPA Suit in West Virgina SRS DISTRIBUTION: Counce Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work TALLGRASS ENERGY: Lowinger Balks at Sale to Blackstone Unit TECH USA: Lillard Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Mendoza Sues Over Defective Valve Springs TOYOTA MOTOR: Cheng Sues Over Defective Low-Pressure Fuel Pumps TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Barbero Files FDCPA Suit in New York TRAVEL TRANSPARENCY: Hanks Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls TRIBUNE MEDIA: Arbitrage Appeals Dismissal of Suit to 7th Circuit TRUEACCORD CORP: Deiker Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Illinois TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Howard Smith Law Reminds of Feb. 28 Deadline US POSTAL SERVICE: Stole Wages from Mailmen, Tran et al. Allege VIKING GROUP: Class Action Settlement Over Fire Sprinklers Reached WELLS FARGO BANK: Lizana Files Civil Rights Suit in California [*] Florida Court Seeks FCC/11th Cir. Guidance on ATDS Matter [*] Ontario's Proposed Class Action Changes Harder for Plaintiff ********* 407 WEST: Tobias Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kristin Tobias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 407 WEST 63RD, LLC d/b/a ASPIRED LIVING OF WESTMONT, Case No. 2020L000150 (Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks damages and remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in collecting, storing and using the Plaintiff's and others' biometric identifiers and biometric information without obtaining informed written consent or providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies, as required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, the Defendant collected, stored and used--without first providing notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data retention policies--the fingerprints and associated personally identifying information of hundreds of its employees, who are being required to "clock in" with their fingerprints, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff argues that if the Defendant's database of digitized fingerprints were to fall into the wrong hands, by data breach or otherwise, the employees to whom these sensitive and immutable biometric identifiers belong could have their identities stolen, among other serious issues. The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent the Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents and to recover statutory damages for the Defendant's unauthorized collection, storage and use of these individuals' biometrics in violation of BIPA. The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Illinois. 407 West 63rd, LLC d/b/a Aspired Living of Westmont is an Illinois limited liability company doing business in DuPage County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.283.3814 Fax: 773.496.8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com - and - Peter S. Lubin, Esq. Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq. LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C. 360 West Butterfield Road, Suite 325 Elmhurst, IL 60126 Phone: (630) 333-0333 Email: peter@l-a.la w patrick@l-a.law 441 MOTORS LLC: Barbieri Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts -------------------------------------------------------- Adriana Barbieri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 441 MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-60060 (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. 411 Motors is a car dealership in Miami Florida. It attempted to contact Barbieri via SMS on her cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit their cars using an automatic telephone dialing system. Barbieri did not give her express consent to be contacted in this manner, says the complaint. [BN] American Directions is represented by: Thomas J. Patti, Esq Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com AEG PRESENTS SE: Hill Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts ----------------------------------------------------- Adriana Barbieri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AEG Presents SE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-60061 (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. AEG Presents SE is a live-entertainment company headquartered in Los Angeles, California. It attempted to contact Barbieri via SMS on her cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit their products and/or services using an automatic telephone dialing system. Barbieri did not give her express consent to be contact in this manner, says the complaint. [BN] Barbieri is represented by: Thomas J. Patti, Esq Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com AIRCASTLE LIMITED: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of holders of Aircastle Limited ("Aircastle") (NYSE: AYR) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of Aircastle by newly-formed entities controlled by affiliates of Marubeni Corporation and Mizuho Leasing Company, Limited (collectively, the "Buyers") announced on November 6, 2019 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Aircastle and its Board of Directors (the "Board"), is captioned Rosenblatt v. Aircastle Limited, Case No. 1:19-cv-02295 (D. Del.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. On November 5, 2019, Aircastle entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with the Buyers. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Aircastle will receive $32.00 per share in cash (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to, among other things, the analyses performed by Aircastle's financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Aircastle common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 9, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. Contact: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Timothy J. Macfall, Esq. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Phone: (888) 969-4242 (302) 295-5310 Fax: (302) 654-7530 Website: www.rigrodskylong.com Email: info@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com sdr@rl-legal.com tjm@rl-legal.com [GN] ALAMO ENVIRONMENTAL: Fielder Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ ELIZABETH FIELDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALAMO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. d/b/a ALAMO 1, AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., AECOM C&E, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00042 (E.D. Tex., February 5, 2020) is a collective action brought against Defendants for failure to properly pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated the FLSA by employing Plaintiff Fielder and other similarly situated nonexempt employees for a workweek longer than 40 hours but refused to compensate them in excess of 40 hours. Also, Defendants failed to maintain accurate time and pay records. Fielder resides in Houston, Texas, and was employed by Alamo as an Inspector from approximately January 27, 2018 to August 24, 2019. As an inspector, she was primarily responsible for visiting properties damaged by Hurricane Harvey, documenting the damage to FEMA units, and reporting any damage to Defendants. During her employment with Defendants, she regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week but was not paid overtime. AECOM is an infrastructure firm. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 ALBERTSONS LLC: Escapes Class Action Over Pharmacy Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a lawsuit claiming that grocery chain Albertsons LLC's robocalls for prescription fill-ups violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 can't proceed as a class action, a federal court in Idaho said. Robert Dorfman claims that he received 21 prerecorded artificial voice telephone messages from Albertsons, soliciting him to pick up a pharmacy order that he'd never placed in the company's in-store "Sav-On" pharmacies. Because these were wrong number calls, he never gave the company consent to contact him, yet the calls continued even after he asked them to stop, Dorfman said. [GN] ALLERGAN PLC: Inks $300MM Deal to End Pay-For-Delay Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Grzincic, writing for Reuters, reports that with a jury already chosen and a $63 billion merger in the works, Allergan PLC has opted for the certainty of a $300 million settlement of an antitrust class action alleging that two of its subsidiaries engaged in pay-for-delay tactics to keep generic versions of its Loestrin 24 FE contraceptive off the market. The Dublin, Ireland-based pharmaceutical firm on Jan. 6 revealed the amount of the settlement that was first reported in a December court filing by plaintiffs' attorneys, and confirmed that it will resolve all claims by direct purchasers, third-party payors and opt-out plaintiffs in the class action that has been pending in federal court in Providence, Rhode Island since 2013. [GN] ALLY FINANCIAL: Cottrell Files FCRA Suit in Arizona --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ally Financial Incorporated. The case is styled as Linda Cottrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ally Financial Incorporated doing business as: Ally Financial, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00251-DWL (D., Ariz., Feb. 4, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Ally Financial is a bank holding company organized in Delaware and headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David James McGlothlin Kazerouni Law Group APC 2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (602) 230-4482 Email: david@kazlg.com AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Breached Ring Cameras ------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Nickelsburg, writing for King5 News, reports that an 8-year-old in Mississippi, a Georgia woman lying in bed, a Michigan family watching TV, and dozens of other Ring users were harassed by hackers via their home security cameras, according to a new lawsuit. Two families whose Ring cameras were allegedly hacked brought the lawsuit against Amazon, which owns the home security company. They are seeking class-action status, claiming families across the country who have suffered similar violations should be included in the lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, was brought by two couples: Ashley LeMay and Dylan Blakeley; and Todd Craig and Tania Amador. LeMay and Blakeley claim a hacker accessed the Ring camera they had set up in their daughters' room. They mounted the camera there so LeMay could keep an eye on her daughters - particularly one prone to seizures - while she worked overnight shifts at a nearby hospital, according to the complaint. [GN] AMERICAN HEALTH: Johnson Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joyce Johnson, Individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees v. AMERICAN HEALTH COMPANIES, INC., a Tennessee Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-02084-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn., Feb. 4, 2020), is brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to the Plaintiff. The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods at one and one-half their regular hourly rate of pay, as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Johnson was employed by and worked for the Defendant as a Certified Nursing Assistant. The Defendant oversees all aspects of operations for 29 skilled nursing and rehabilitation centers in the Southeast, according to its Web site.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Nathaniel Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com AQUAVENTURE HOLDINGS: Post Balks at Culligan Merger Deal -------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH POST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AQUAVENTURE HOLDIINGS LIMITED, DOUGLAS BROWN, ANTHONY IBARGUEN, DEBRA COY, HUGH EVANS, PAUL HANRAHAN, DAVID LINCOLN, CYRIL MEDUÑA, RICHARD F. REILLY, and TIMOTHY WHALL, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00174-UNA (D. Del., February 4, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, on December 23, 2019, AquaVenture's Board of Directors caused the company to enter into an agreement and plan a merger with Culligan International Company, a Delaware corporation. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, the stockholders of the AquaVenture will receive $27.10 in cash for each share of AquaVenture common stock they own. Additionally, on January 27, 2020, Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. According to the Complaint, Defendants omitted material information regarding the Company's financial projections in the proxy statement in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff owns AquaVenture common stock. Defendant AquaVenture is a British Virgin Islands corporation. Its common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol WAAS. Defendant is a multinational provider of WAAS solutions that provide customers a reliable and cost-effective source of clean drinking and processed water primarily under long-term contracts that minimize capital investment by the customer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. 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 Email: sdr@rl-legal.com Email: 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 Email: rm@maniskas.com AVON CANADA: Goldblatt Partners Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Goldblatt Partners LLP has commenced a class action on behalf of retirees of Avon Canada Inc. for terminating the post-retirement benefits they earned over years of employment. Avon Canada Inc. has announced that effective January 1, 2020, it will cease to provide its retirees with post-retirement benefits. These benefits consist of extended medical coverage and a death benefit. Avon promised employees over several decades that they would receive these post-retirement benefits. The promise was made through written employee booklets, forms and letters. The retirees of Avon were dedicated employees who worked for years to earn their post-retirement benefits and who relied on the promise that the benefits would be available in retirement. The class action seeks reinstatement of the benefits or damages if the benefits are not reinstated. The class consists of approximately 600 retirees of Avon Canada Inc. Jody Brown, a lawyer with Goldblatt Partners, stated: The retirees in this class action gave their best employment years to Avon on the explicit promise that Avon would provide post-retirement benefits. The class members are elderly, on fixed incomes, and particularly vulnerable to Avon's conduct. This class action will ensure that promises made in exchange for class members' years of loyal employment cannot be tossed aside because those employees are now retired. For more information, please contact Jody Brown at 416-979-4251 or jbrown@goldblattpartners.com. [GN] BERGAILA & ASSOCIATES: Crain Seeks Overtime Wages for Inspectors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Crain, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. BERGAILA & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00008 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime pay and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other Day Rate Inspectors regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but the Defendant did not pay them overtime wages. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant paid its Inspectors a flat amount for each day worked without overtime compensation. The Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Inspectors as exempt from the overtime requirements under the FLSA. Plaintiff Kenneth Crain worked for the Defendant as an Inspector. Bergaila bills itself as "a recognized leader in recruiting engineering and technical design talent, ...connecting world-renown oil and gas, engineering and construction, and oil field service companies nationwide with talented professionals."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com litkin@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com BLUEGRASS CONTRACTORS: Painters Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Charles W. Clouse, Larry R. Whitaker, Jr. and Alexis Mercado, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bluegrass Contractors, Inc. of Lexington, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00011 (E.D. Ky., January 10, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay owed to workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and under Kentucky state law. Bluegrass Contractors operate a contracting business where Plaintiffs worked as painters for Defendant from about January 2015 until sometime in or around late 2017. They claim to have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek without overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: J. Chris Sanders, Esq. CHRIS SANDERS LAW PLLC 517 West Ormsby Avenue Louisville, KY 40203 Telephone: (502) 814-0094 Email: csanders@chrissanderslaw.com - and - David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRET, JOHNSTON, MARTIN & GARRISON LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: (615) 244-2202 Fax: (615) 252-3798 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com BURFORD CAPITAL: Investors Drop Class Action -------------------------------------------- John Hyde, writing for Law Gazette, reports that investors have dropped their class action against listed litigation funder Burford Capital, the company confirmed. The financier reported to the London Stock Exchange in January 2020 that the US securities action filed in August last year has been withdrawn by the plaintiffs and dismissed in its entirety. Burford said there is no litigation pending against it at present, other than 'ordinary course skirmishing' within a small number of ongoing funded investment matters. The class action had been filed by New York Rosen Law, a specialist in investor claims, amid a time of turmoil for Burford, one of the world's biggest litigation funders. The company had been subjected to an attack from short-seller Muddy Waters, which made various statements about Burford's financial accounts and management structure. The lawsuit had alleged that Burford made false and/or misleading statements on its returns. Burford denied making any false statements and denied being in financial difficulty. The company on Jan. 7, 2020 announced a number of senior personnel changes, including appointing Aviva Will and David Perla as co-chief operating officers, and said it retained the 'deepest management bench in the industry'. Directors David Lowe and Sir Peter Middleton will leave the board over the next 18 months and replacements are being sought. The company had previously announced plans to either add a US listing on the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ or to migrate to the London Stock Exchange main market. It has now decided to seek a full-fledged US listing of its ordinary shares: once effective, shares will trade on both the US exchange and AIM market of the LSE. In response to shareholder inquiries, Burford also confirmed it will provide in its 2019 annual report information about management compensation (including individual compensation disclosure for chief executive Christopher Bogart and chief investment officer Jonathan Molot) consistent with the disclosure obligations to which it will be subject under its potential US listing, even though those obligations will not yet have taken effect. Full year results for the year ended Dec. 31, 2019 will be released on March 24, 2020. A spokesperson for Muddy Waters said: 'We would also caution anyone against interpreting the litigation dismissal as affirmation that there is no misleading conduct or wrong-doing at the company. It is nothing more than the reality of the US being overly litigious. Lawsuits get filed and dismissed all the time, which in this case is ironic, given Burford's own contribution to the clogged toilet that is the US court system.' [GN] BYTEDANCE: Class Action Lawsuit Filed in California vs. TikTok -------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Mears, writing for California Globe, reports that the Pentagon has reversed its policy on TikTok. The popular Chinese owned social media app is now considered a security threat. The Army was using the app as an effective tool to reach young Americans as a recruiting tool. Lt. Col. Robin Ochoa, a spokesman for the Army reported the app will no longer be allowed on government-issued phones. The Beijing based company that owns the music video app is ByteDance. Army recruiters were using the app, but in October, Sen. Tom Cotton R-Arkansas and Sen. Chuck Schumer D-New York requested an investigation by intelligence officials to determine if the app was a security threat to the United States. Although a security probe was started the Army continued to use the app until December. The U.S. Navy also issued a warning and banned the app from being used on their government-issued phones. Gizmodo reported the the policy reversal came after the release of a Defense Department Cyber Awareness Message stating, "TikTok has potential security risks with its use. The Department of Defense directed all employees to, "To be wary of applications you download, monitor your phones for unusual and unsolicited texts etc., and delete them immediately and uninstall TikTok to circumvent any exposure of personal information." The service members can use the Chinese owned app on their personal phones but military leaders are asking service members to be cautious when using any social media platform, especially if they receive random or unfamiliar text messages, according to Ochoa. The Navy Marine Corps Intranet stated Wednesday, January 8, in a user bulletin, that anyone with the TikTok app on their mobile devices wouldn't be allowed to use the intranet. "This decision was made based on cybersecurity threat assessments, and is consistent with 10th Fleet efforts to proactively address existing and emerging threats in defense of our networks," Cmdr. Dave Benham, 10th Fleet and U.S. Fleet Cyber Command spokesman, said in a statement. ByteDance acquired Musical.ly in November 2017 for $800 million to $1 billion. Musical.ly, was an app popular with teenagers who made homemade karaoke videos. It had about 60-million users in the United States and Europe. The FBI, in 2015 blamed Chinese hackers on the breach of more than 21-million records from the Office of Personnel Management. According to a lawsuit filed in California against ByteDance and TikTok, "Beijing ByteDance had $7.2 billion in annual revenue for the year 2018. It has far surpassed this number in 2019, booking $7 billion to $8.4 billion in revenue in a better-than-expected result for the first half of 2019." Beijing ByteDance is currently worth between $75 billion and $78 billion. Investors include Sequoia Capital China, Russian billionaire Yuri Milner, Japanese technology giant SoftBank, and big private-equity firms such as KKR, General Atlantic, and Hillhouse Capital Group President Trump has already placed Huawei and other Chinese tech firms on a blacklist. This blacklist prevents the companies from purchasing American products due to national security and human rights issues. Trump also placed tariffs on more than $360 billion of Chinese products. The CEO of Huawei was arrested in Canada in December 2018 and extradited to the United States. Meng Wanzhou was facing charges in Eastern District of New York. The Wall Street Journal reported last April the U.S. Justice Department was looking into Huawei violating US sanctions on Iran. Wanzhou is on bail, living in one of her multimillion-dollar homes in Vancouver. Wanzhou's hearing is set to begin Jan. 20, in Canada and has not yet been extradited to the United States. TikTok has been accused of being a threat to the nation's youth. The company was forced to pay $5.7 million in fines by the Federal Trade Commission to settle the "the largest civil penalty ever obtained by the Commission in a children's privacy case." TikTok now must also comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and take down any videos uploaded by users under 13. The class-action lawsuit was filed in December by student, Misty Hong, who initiated the lawsuit states she downloaded the app but she never created an account. Despite not creating an account TikTok took it upon themselves to create one using the Hong's personal data sending it to Chinese servers. The company ByteDance is a Delaware Corporation and TikTok is a California Corporation and has offices in Palo Alto, Culver City and Mountain View. The lawsuit is claiming TikTock did the following: 1. Violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030 2. Violated the California Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Pen. C. § 502 3. Violated the Right to Privacy – California Constitution 4. Intrusion upon Seclusion 6. Violated the California Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. C. Sec. 17200 et seq. 7. Violated the California False Advertising Law, Bus. & Prof. C. Sec. 17500 et seq. 8. Negligence 9. Restitution / Unjust Enrichment TikTok wrote in a statement in October in response to the accusations from the United States Government saying, "We take these issues incredibly seriously. We are committed to transparency and accountability in how we support our TikTok users in the US and around the world." TikTok further stated, "We store all TikTok US user data in the United States, with backup redundancy in Singapore. Our data centers are located entirely outside of China, and none of our data is subject to Chinese law." The class action lawsuit accuses ByteDance of secretly collecting data on users and transferring private data to China. Schumer tweeted, "It's (TikTok) owned by a Beijing-based tech company. It's required to adhere to Chinese law. That means it can be compelled to cooperate with intelligence work controlled by China's Communist Party." [GN] CAPIO PARTNERS: Murray Files Suit for Breach of FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capio Partners LLC. The case is styled as Karmiec Murray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capio Partners LLC, CF Medical LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00218-CEH-CPT (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. Capio Partners, LLC is a third-party debt collector.[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 CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Wegner Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHERLENE WEGNER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-00305-PJM (D. Md., Greenbelt Div., February 4, 2020) is a collective class action brought against Defendant for failure to pay proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Defendant Carahsoft Technologies Corp. is a Maryland corporation engaged in interstate commerce by selling and marketing computer software and hardware to end consumers throughout the United States on behalf of software and hardware developers. Plaintiff Sherlene Wegner currently resides in Carrollton, Dallas County, Texas and was employed by Carahsoft to sell/renew/market Defendant's products over the phone to customers from its office in Reston, Virginia, and hundreds of home offices throughout the United States. According to the complaint, Plaintiff was not paid by Defendant any commissions on goods/services sold (or, if paid a commission, it comprises 50% or less of the entire compensation) and not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Cater mofett, Esq. CATER MOFFETT LAW FIRM 1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW, Suite 715 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202)251-6438 E-mail: Natalie@catermoffettlaw.com - and - Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 4600 Madison, Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816) 221-7100 Fax: (816) 709-1044 E-mail: Brendan@donelonpc.com - and - Daniel W. Craig, Esq. DONELON, PC 6642 Clayton Rd., #320 St. Louis, MO 63117 Tel: (314) 297-8385 Fax: (816) 709-1044 E-mail: dan@donelonpc.com CAS CONSULTING: Munoz Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY MUNOZ, individually and for other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAS CONSULTING & SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00124 (W.D. Tex., Austin Div., February 4, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its illegal straight time for overtime policy which violated the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, Defendant CAS Consulting did not properly pay their workers, including Munoz, for overtime worked as required by the FLSA. Instead, they were paid at the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. Munoz is an hourly CAS employee in Austin, Travis County, Texas. CAS provides civil engineering services throughout Texas, specializing in providing consulting services in waste and wastewater engineering, water resources engineering, transportation engineering, and program and construction management. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated workers of CAS and demands a trial by jury in an aim to recover unpaid overtime wages as liquidated damages and all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH LLP 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CHICK-FIL-A INC: DeSalvo Says Website not Blind Friendly -------------------------------------------------------- Brett DeSalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc. and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00329 (C.D. Cal., January 13, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Defendant operates a restaurant with an online presence through https://www.chick-fil-a.com/, offering chicken sandwiches. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that said site cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Bobby Saadian, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com CIAMPA MANAGEMENT: Avelar Seeks OT Pay; Hits Missing Pay Stubs -------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Avelar, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Ciampa Management Corp., Douglas A. Ciampa and Victor Hidalgo, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00210 (E.D. N.Y., January 10, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and the New York Minimum Wage Act. Ciampa Manamgent Company owns, operates, manages and/or controls a multi-unit residential building located at 1910 Parsons Blvd., Flushing, New York where Avelar worked as a superintendent. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime pay including those hours he worked through his break times. He also claims not to receive any wage statement.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nolan Keith Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Tel: (954) 745-0588 Email: klein@nklegal.com ramirez@nklegal.com amy@nklegal.com CITY BEVERAGE: McGraw Hits Biometrics Data Collection ----------------------------------------------------- Charles McGraw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City Beverage-Illinois, LLC, CITY Beverage - Markham, LLC and City Beverage, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2020CH00343 (Ill. Cir., January 10, 2020), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. City Beverage is a Chicago beverage distributor that owns and operates multiple Lakeshore Beverage warehouses throughout the state of Illinois where McGraw worked at their facility located at 4300 S. Halsted St., Chicago. Employees were required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a biometric data reader that scanned fingerprints. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com CITY OF LAVAL: Residents Affected By Flooding File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Stephane Giroux, writing for CTV News, reports that some infrastructure in Laval was inadequate to cope with rising floodwaters in 2019, and the city is to blame, some Laval residents argue. One thousand homeowners affected by the flooding have hired a lawyer who recently filed a request for a class-action lawsuit against the city of Laval. The lawyer, Jean Denis, said flooding in 2017 damaged two bridges. They were under construction when floodwaters rose over them once more in 2019. Property values have dropped in the area, even as citizens worry waters could soon rise. Part of the reason, Denis argued, is that the city didn't build the right kind of bridges. They're too low, he said. Other infrastructure was also inadequate, including a culvert on Comptois St. that made the flooding worse, he said. Poor planning and design have exposed residents to the effects of other floods, he said. His claims have yet to be proven in court, and the class-action lawsuit he filed has yet to be approved. If it goes ahead, affected homeowners will seek $350,000 each in damages. [GN] CLEARVIEW AI: Hall Sues over BIPA Violations -------------------------------------------- The case, ANTHONY HALL, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC. and CDW GOVERNMENT LLC, Case No. 20-cv-00846 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' rights to biometric privacy by illegally acquiring, controlling, and selling of their biometric identifiers and information without their consent. Moreover, the Defendants failed to inform them in writing the specific purpose and length of term for which their biometric information or identifier is being collected, stored, or used. As a direct result of these violations, Plaintiff and the Class suffered and continue to suffer injury and actual, economic, and emotional damages. Clearview AI, Inc. is a surveillance database operator that markets its products to Illinois-based companies and agencies. It is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in New York, New York. CDW Government, LLC is an Illinois company headquartered in Vernon Hills, Illinois. The company provides equipment and services to local government agencies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Drew, Esq. NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL LLC 20 N. Clark Street #3300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 967-7220 E-mail: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com - and - Michael Wood, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS LLC 20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com COMERICA BANK: El-Hage Files Suit in Michigan --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comerica Bank. The case is styled as Abass El-Hage, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Comerica Bank and Elan Financial Services, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-10294-LJM-DRG (E.D., Mich., Feb. 5, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed over Diversity-Other Contract. Comerica Incorporated is a financial services company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. It has retail banking operations in Texas, Michigan, Arizona, California and Florida, with select business operations in several other U.S. states, as well as in Canada and Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ali H. Koussan, Esq. Koussan Hamood PLC 821 W. Milwaukee Detroit, MI 48202 Tel: (313) 444-8348 Fax: (313) 444-7814 Email: ali@kh-plc.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Has $53MM Deal in Securities Fraud Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kara Hartnett, writing for Nashville Post, reports that Community Health Systems executives have settled a securities fraud class action lawsuit for $53 million, according to a brief filed on Jan. 7 in federal court. The lawsuit was filed in 2011 by various shareholders after Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare leaders - who at the time were looking to thwart a potential buyout by CHS - accused the company of multiple counts of fraud by failing to disclose improper admissions practices. Investors claimed those alleged practices artificially inflated CHS' stock price. The class action alleged that CHS misused an in-house admissions guide that incentivized physicians to admit Medicare patients to the hospital instead of lower-acuity outpatient facilities and, as a result, allegedly misled investors on the hospital operator's success. Plaintiffs initially sued for $891 million. The lawsuit was dropped in 2016 but resurfaced later that year after an appeals panel found that CHS executives admitted the program skewed admissions data in an earnings call in October 2011 - keeping the shareholders' case alive. The class action was certified in August to cover all people and entities who bought CHS common stock from July 27, 2006 through April 8, 2011. A group of New York City pension funds serves as class representative. [GN] CONENTRIX SERVICES: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Jones Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Sirena Jones and Jou Moua, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONENTRIX SERVICES US, INC.; CONCENTRIX CORPORATION; and CONCENTRIX INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Case No. 6:20-cv-00586-BHH (D.S.C., Feb. 4, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act arising from the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs proper overtime compensation for all hours worked and all wages due within the appropriate time period after terminating employment. The Plaintiffs regularly worked more than forty hours in a week but the Defendants failed to pay them and similarly situated employees for up to 15 hours of overtime per week, according to the complaint. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have deprived the Plaintiffs of regular wages and overtime compensation for all of the hours worked over 40 per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants at their office located in the Greenville Division of the District of South Carolina. The Defendants provide business services, such as direct sales, technical support, customer care, lead management, renewals management, and back-office processing.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David E. Rothstein, Esq. ROTHSTEIN LAW FIRM, PA 1312 Augusta Street Greenville, SC 29605 Phone: (864) 232-5870 (Office) Facsimile: (864) 241-1386 Email: drothstein@rothsteinlawfirm.com - and - Sean Short, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com CONXALL CORP: Sirko Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Data ----------------------------------------------------------- David Sirko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONXALL, CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 2020L000148 (Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., Feb. 4, 2020), arises from the Defendant's illegal actions in collecting, storing and using the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information without obtaining informed written consent or providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies, as required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, the Defendant collected, stored and used--without first providing notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data retention policies-the fingerprints and associated personally identifying information of hundreds of its employees, who are being required to "clock in" with their fingerprints, the Plaintiff contends. He argues that if the Defendant's database of digitized fingerprints were to fall into the wrong hands, by data breach or otherwise, the employees to whom these sensitive and immutable biometric identifiers belong could have their identities stolen, among other serious issues. The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent the Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents and to recover statutory damages for the Defendant's unauthorized collection, storage and use of these individuals' biometrics in violation of BIPA. The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Illinois. Conxall, Corporation, is an Illinois corporation doing business in DuPage County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.283.3814 Fax: 773.496.8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com - and - Peter S. Lubin, Esq. Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq. LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C. 360 West Butterfield Road, Suite 325 Elmhurst, IL 60126 Phone: (630) 333-0333 Email: peter@l-a.law patrick@l-a.law CRACK SHACK: DeSalvo Says Website not Blind Friendly ---------------------------------------------------- Brett DeSalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Crack Shack Enterprises, LLC and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00290 (C.D. Cal., January 10, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Defendant operates a restaurant with an online presence through https://www.crackshack.com/, offering classic comfort food menu items including sandwiches, fried chicken, salads, bowls, sides and milkshakes. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that said site cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Bobby Saadian, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES: Rosenzweig Files FDCPA Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control Services, Inc. The case is styled as Joel Rosenzweig and Feige Rosenzweig, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiffs v. Credit Control Services, Inc. doing business as: Credit Collection Services, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00484 (E.D., N.Y., 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. Credit Collection Services is a debt collection agency based in Norwood, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. Adam J. Fishbein, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Tel: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com CREDIT CORP: Meisels Alleges Violation under FDCPA -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Corp Solutions Inc. The case is styled as Raizel Meisels, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Corp Solutions Inc. dba Tasman Credit and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00507 (E.D., N.Y., Jan. 29, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Corp Solutions Inc is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. Stein Saks PLLC 285 Passaic st Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com CURIOUSER PRODUCTS: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA ----------------------------------------------------- Curiouser Products Inc. 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. Curiouser Products Inc., doing business as: Mirror, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00649 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 5, 2020). Curiouser Products Inc., doing business as Mirror, provides fitness equipment.[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 DALTON WADE: Faces Caringello Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Caringello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DALTON WADE, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00266-TPB-AEP (M.D. Fla., Feb. 4, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in connection with its marketing activities. To solicit new agents, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of those messages, according to the complaint. The Defendant makes a profit by attracting new agents and charging them a monthly fee and a transaction fee on transactions that each agent completes. The Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, the Plaintiff avers. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a citizen of Sarasota, Florida. The Defendant is a real estate brokerage based in St. Petersburg, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 786.496.4469 Email: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com - and – Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.533.4092 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and – Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com DCH HEALTHCARE: Rhodes Files Suit in Alabama -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DCH Healthcare Authority. The case is styled as Nancy Rhodes, Lisa Clary and Billy Clary, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DCH Healthcare Authority doing business as: DCH Health System, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00136-LSC (N.D., Ala., Jan. 29, 2020). The case type of the lawsuit is stated as contract: other. DCH Health System provides healthcare to the residents of West Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Taylor C Bartlett, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS 2224 1st Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205) 326-3336 Fax: (205) 380-8085 Email: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com DELTA AIR: Fails to Offer COBRA-Compliant Notice, Eierstock Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anita Eierstock, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00269 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, by failing to provide the Plaintiff and the putative class members with a COBRA-compliant notice. Despite having access to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA form, the Defendant chose not to use the model form--presumably to save the Defendant money--by pushing terminated employees away from electing COBRA, the Plaintiff alleges. Instead of utilizing the DOL Model Notice and sending a single COBRA notice "written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant" containing all information required by law, to save money the Defendant instead opted to break the information into multiple documents, mailed separately under different cover, containing bits and pieces of information on COBRA, which neither individually nor cumulatively contain all of the missing information, the Plaintiff asserts. In fact, the Plaintiff notes, the DOL Model Notice was designed to avoid precisely the issues caused by the Defendant confusing and piecemeal COBRA rights notification process. The deficient COBRA notices at issue in this lawsuit both confused and misled her, the Plaintiff contends. She adds that it also caused her economic injuries in the form of lost health insurance and unpaid medical bills, as well as informational injuries. The Defendant, the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the US Foods Health & Welfare Plan, has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute, the Plaintiff further alleges. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant, and participant in the Delta Health Plan. The Defendant is the Plan sponsor and the administrator of the Plan. The Plan provides medical benefits to employees and their beneficiaries, and is an employee welfare benefit plan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813-223-5505 Fax: 813-257-0572 Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com DELUCA-MAISTO PROPERTIES: Laser Assert Breach of ADA ---------------------------------------------------- Deluca-Maisto Properties, LTD d/b/a Steve Maisto Insurance is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Linda Laser and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Deluca-Maisto Properties, LTD d/b/a Steve Maisto Insurance, Deluca-Maisto Properties, LTD d/b/a Senior Healthcare Solutions and 57 West Main Street LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00489 (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 28, 2020). Deluca-Maisto Properties, LTD d/b/a Steve Maisto Insurance offers auto insurance, life and business insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G. Solotoff 25 Melville Park Road, Ste 108 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (516) 695-0052 Email: ds@lawsolo.net DESERT LAKE GROUP: Coyle Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts -------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Coyle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Desert Lake Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00076 (S.D. Cal., January 10, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Desert Lake Group operate under different brands as First Class Herb Tincture, First Class Herbalist CBD, First Class Herbalist Oils and USA Herbalist Oils. It attempted to contact Coyle via SMS on his cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit their product using an automatic telephone dialing system. Coyle did not give his express consent to be contact in this manner, says the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: nicholas@kazlg.com - and - Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 Email: yana@kazlg.com DICK'S SPORTING: Jones Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. 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. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00650 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 5, 2020). Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is an American sporting goods retail company, based in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.[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 DIVERSIFIED FINANCING: CAG Files Interpleader Suit to Pay Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- COLLINS ASSET GROUP, LLC v. DIVERSIFIED FINANCING, LLC; SONOQUI, LLC; IRA SERVICES TRUST COMPANY; FERRUM II, LLC; PROVIDENT TRUST GROUP; VANTAGE RETIREMENT PLANS, LLC; JEFFREY ARNOLD; KATHERINE ARNOLD; RANDALL BAHJAT; JEFF BROWNE; TOM CHRISMAN; NEAL COLLINS; ERNESTO DIGIORDANO; DAVID ERNEST; DEBBIE EVANS; EVANS FAMILY TRUST; WILLIAM FRASER; SHERRIE GEORGE; FEI HAVENOR; GERALD HOLMES; MARIE JOHNSON; CATHY KAISER; JAMES KARG; JEANINE GORCHEN-KRASLEY; JAMES LAPPAS; VENETIA LAPPAS; KAREN LAWRENCE; TRISH LAVECK; RICHARD LESTER; ANG LI; HAROLD LIKEY; ARTHUR MARKS; PEGGY McCAULEY; JOHN McCORMICK; MITCH McDONALD; TERRY McKNIGHT; JEFF MULLIS; HANH NGUYEN; DONNA PETERS; PIRRO PETI; SUSAN POLLINGER; MARK POULSEN; WENDY PYNE; OLIVIA SAN MIGUEL; LUIS SAN MIGUEL; TERRI SALTZMAN; FRANK SCHENCK; JACKLINE SLEZAK; CARLISE STARGILL; JUDITH TALLETT; GREGORY TINDALL; BRAD VAN; DAWN VAUGHN; KAREN WARREN; BRIAN WILSON; LORY WILLIAMS; YU ZHANG; BILL ZOELLIN; JOHN DOE(S) EACH INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Case No. 7:20-cv-00942 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2020), is brought as an interpleader action against the Defendants, including the Individual Defendants, individually and as proposed representatives of two proposed Defendant classes--a Diversified Class and a Sonoqui class. IRA Services Trust Company is sued as the custodian and for the assignment and benefit of account numbers IRA550310, IRA550322; IRA551296, IRA549897, IRA549903, IRA503150, IRA540675 ("IRA TRUST"). Plaintiff CAG has in its custody more than four million dollars (the "Current Funds"), and will be receiving additional funds, potentially in excess of twenty million dollars (the "Future Funds"). The Current Funds and Future Funds are monies that CAG now owes, or may become due and owing in the future, to Diversified and Sonoqui pursuant to the terms of various written loan agreements. CAG says it cannot pay those funds to the payees because Diversified and Sonoqui are no longer in good standing, their principals have been accused of financial crimes, their office locations have been abandoned, and CAG has not been able to identify an appropriate agent to properly accept money on behalf of Diversified or Sonoqui. Numerous claimants alleging an entitlement to a portion of the Current Funds or Future Funds have contacted CAG, including people, who allegedly loaned money to Diversified and/or Sonoqui that they claim was subsequently loaned by Diversified and/or Sonoqui to CAG. According to the complaint, CAG does not take a position on whether the claims asserted with respect to the Current Funds or Future Funds are valid, because it does not know the source of the funds that Diversified and Sonoqui loaned to it, does not know whether Diversified or Sonoqui diverted funds they received from these potential claimants, ostensibly for the purpose of loaning to CAG, does not know how many additional claimants exist, does not have contact information for all potential claimants, and cannot independently adjudicate the claims being asserted. There are multiple, conflicting claims and potential claims, and CAG does not know to whom it should pay the Current Funds and Future Funds. Potential claimants in this interpleader are all those who have asserted, or are likely to assert, the multiple, conflicting claims seeking to recover the Current Funds and Future Funds, as well as Diversified and Sonoqui. CAG contends it was not responsible for creating the conflicting claims. CAG seeks to protect itself from the vexation of multiple lawsuits and from possibly inconsistent or multiple determinations of liability, by: (1) depositing the Current Funds into the Court's registry; (2) obtaining an order permitting it to deposit the Future Funds, as they become due and payable, to the Court's registry; (3) obtaining an injunction against all pending and future proceedings in any other court against CAG by the defendants and those similarly situated related to the Current Funds or Future Funds; (4) obtaining declaratory relief that CAG has satisfied its contractual obligations with respect to the Current Funds and Future Funds; (5) obtaining discharge from liability and dismissal from this action; and (6) recovering its attorneys' fees and costs from the amounts deposited in the Court's registry. Plaintiff CAG is in the delinquent debt buying business and related receivable management business. Defendant Diversified is a Florida limited liability company that has been administratively dissolved.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Robbin, Esq. J. ROBBIN LAW, PLLC 200 Business Park Drive, Suite 103 Armonk, NY 10504 Phone: 914-685-5016 Email: jonathan.robbin@jrobbinlaw.com - and – Andrew T. Hambelton, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 885-5345 Email: Ahambelton@blankrome.com DSV AIR & SEA: Kelly Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Kelly and Toni Boardman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DSV AIR & SEA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01204 (D.N.J., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks to recover overtime pay from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but were not paid an overtime premium for their overtime hours, says the complaint. The Defendant suffered and permitted the Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated individuals to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Ocean Import Agents. The Defendant is a logistics and transportation service company, providing supply chain solutions for thousands of companies in more than 90 countries throughout the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia A. Barasch, Esq. SCHALL & BARASCH, LLC Moorestown Office Center 110 Marter Avenue, Suite 105 Moorestown, NJ 08057 Phone: ((856) 914-9200 Facsimile: (856) 914-9420 Email: pbarasch@schallandbarasch.com - and - Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. Reena I. Desai, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-256-3200 Facsimile: 612-338-4878 Email: srey@nka.com rdesai@nka.com - and - Benjamin L. Davis, Esq. Michael Brown, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (443) 320-7417 Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com mbrown@nicholllaw.com EDS SERVICE SOLUTIONS: Price Files FCRA Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EDS Service Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Erica Price, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDS Service Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01186 (C.D., Cal., Feb. 5, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. EDS service solutions is a leading global business optimizer – from consultancy through to complete turnkey outsource solutions for business process management, workforce resourcing, and facilities services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Alexander De Sario, Esq. Nourmand Law Firm APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel: (310) 553-3600 Fax: (310) 553-3603 Email: jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com ELK ENERGY: Lupardus Moves for Certification of Inspectors Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Richard Lupardus, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Elk Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00529 (S.D.W. Va), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order granting conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to a class of employees defined as: All inspectors employed by Defendant Elk Energy Services, LLC in the last three years. Mr. Lupardus asks the Court to grant his Motion because he has satisfied his lenient burden to show that a class of similarly situated inspectors exists that were subjected to the same FLSA violating practices. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, he has provided evidence that the Defendant pays its entire inspector workforce under a pay system that fails to compensate its inspectors for the amount of overtime that the FLSA requires. He insists that these employees should be informed of this lawsuit and provided an opportunity to protect their rights under the FLSA by participating in this action.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8630 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: jneuman@smnlawfirm.com - and - Mark A. Toor, Esq. MARK A. TOOR, ATTORNEY AT LAW 10 Hale Street, 2nd Floor Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 380-2111 E-mail: mark@marktoor.com ENERGY TRANSFER: Allegheny County Employee's Fund Hits Share Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Energy Transfer LP, Kelcy L. Warren, John W. McReynolds and Thomas E. Long, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00200, (E.D. Pa., January 10, 2020), seeks redress for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Energy Transfer is as a Dallas, Texas-based natural gas and energy transportation and storage company and operates some of the largest oil and gas pipelines in the United States with approximately 12,200 miles of interstate natural gas pipelines and multiple natural gas storage facilities. Energy Transfer's projects include the Mariner East pipeline, a multibillion-dollar, 350-mile pipeline that carries highly volatile natural gas liquids across 17 Pennsylvania counties, including Allegheny County. Energy Transfer's Mariner East pipeline project was under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation involving alleged bribery with the Pennsylvania Governor's Office forcing environmental protection staff to approve construction permits. On this news, Energy Transfer's unit price fell $0.81 per share, or 6.77%, over the following two trading sessions, closing at $11.16 per share on November 13, 2019. Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System acquired and held shares of Energy Transfer at artificially inflated prices and lost upon this revelation. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Weiser, Esq. James M. Ficaro, Esq. THE WEISER LAW FIRM, PC 22 Cassatt Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 225 -2677 Facsimile: (610) 408-8062 Email: rw@weiserlawfirm.com jmf@weiserlawfirm.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 Tel: (212) 554-1493 Fax: (212) 554-1444 Email: avi@blbglaw.com mikeb@blbglaw.com hannah@blbglaw.com EXELON CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Feb. 14 Plaintiff Bid Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm reminds purchasers of the securities of Exelon Corporation between February 9, 2019 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important February 14, 2020 deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Exelon investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Exelon class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1743.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Exelon and/or its employees were engaged in unlawful lobbying activities; (2) the foregoing increased the risk of a criminal investigation into Exelon; (3) Exelon's subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, had revenues that were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (4) as a result, Exelon's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 14, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1743.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. [GN] EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Rabinovitz Files Consumer Credit Suit in NY ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Bella Rabinovitz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00633 (E.D., N.Y., Feb. 4, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed over Fraud-Motor Vehicle (Odometer). Experian Information Solutions, Inc. operates as an information services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. Adam J. Fishbein, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Tel: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com F.A. BARTLETT TREE: Stanfield Files Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company. The case is styled as Arron Stanfield, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company, Defendant, Case No. SCV-265929 (Cal., Super., Jan. 28, 2020). The case type of the lawsuit is stated as Unlimited Other Employment. F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company is a residential and commercial tree and shrub care company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Lucas Marder, Esq. Polaris Law Group LLP 501 San Benito St # 200 Hollister, CA Tel: (831) 531-4214 Fax: (831) 634-0333 Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com - and - Kristen Michelle Agnew, Esq. Diversity Law Group, P.C. 515 S Figueroa St, Ste 1250 Los Angeles, CA Tel: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 Email: kagnew@diversitylaw.com FARMERS GROUP: Grigson's Class Cert. Bid Tossed Due to Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CHARLES GRIGSON AND ROBERT VALE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00088-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Lee Yeakel issued an order dismissing without prejudice: * Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed on March 12, 2019; * Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and Strike the Affidavit of Michael Averill, filed on May 20, 2019; and * Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and Strike the Declaration and Report of Dr. James A. Roberts, filed on July 18, 2019. On December 16, 2019, the Court rendered an Order Granting Preliminarily Approval of Class Action Settlement and Direction of Notice Under Rule 23(e). In light of the preliminary approval of the class-action settlement in the case, the Motions are dismissed.[CC] FIRSTECH INC: Fane Sues over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------- TENEISHA FANE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRSTECH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-162-PP (E.D. Wis., February 3, 2020) is a collective and class action brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards (FLSA) and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws (WWPCL). According to the complaint, the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff, of their wages earned for all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant is a staffing company operating in the State of Wisconsin with a principal mailing address of 353 Forest Grove Drive, Suite 200, Pewaukee, Wisconsin 53072. For purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by Defendant, within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, who have not been compensated for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at the proper, correct, and lawful overtime rate of pay. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemond Road, Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Tel: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com FLAGSHIP SECURITY: Yates Sues over FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------- DEWANDA YATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated hourly-paid, non-exempt security guards, Plaintiff v. Flagship Security Company, LLC and Joseph E. Gurley, Sr., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02090 (W.D. Tenn., February 5, 2020) is a class action on behalf of all others similarly situated who were employed by Defendants during the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. The case alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and those similarly situated for one and one-half their regular hourly rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 within weekly pay periods. Flagship Security Company, LLC is a Tennessee Corporation that provides protection of assets, security, and safety services for its customers in both Tennessee and Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Nathan 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 FORMULA FUNDING: Abante Rooter Sues over Auto Dialed Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- ABANTE ROOTERS AND PLUMBING, Terry Fabricant, Keith Hobbs, and Sid Naiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORMULA FUNDING, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01075 (C.D. Cal., February 3, 2020) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Formula Funding. Defendant Formula Funding is a business lending company. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant placed illegal multiple calls on cellular phones of Plaintiffs by using automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice in an attempt to promote their services even without prior express consent from Plaintiffs to receive calls; thereby violating the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act negligently, knowingly and willfully.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 Tel: 323-306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com GATEWAY PLAZA: Reaches Class Settlement with LeFrak Organization ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Fenton, writing for The Broadsheet, reports that attorneys representing Gateway Plaza residents in a class-action suit that began in 2014 have reached a tentative settlement with the LeFrak Organization, the landlords at Battery Park City's largest residential complex, which they value at $42 million. The suit claimed that conditions such as poorly insulated windows, along with improperly functioning heating and air-conditioning units, made apartments within the six-building property effectively uninhabitable for multiple years. A related complaint alleged that residents were forced to endure financial hardship by running the defective heaters in winter and air conditioners in summer, in some cases 24 hours per day at full power, to compensate for the structural deficiencies of the buildings, thus incurring massive electric charges. (The suit further charged that LeFrak, "improperly profits from the allegedly excessive charges for electricity paid by tenants at Gateway Plaza through an electrical submetering system at Gateway Plaza," which is a reference to an unusual provision of Gateway leases that forces residents to buy their electric service from the landlord.) While some of these conditions have since been partially remediated with the installation of new windows and climate-control units (although some residents claim that habitability issues persist, and the electrical metering scheme remains unchanged), the suit and settlement attempt to offer monetary compensation to current and former residents for the harm they suffered. A Notice of Settlement recently distributed to Gateway tenants asserts that the LeFrak Organization, "denies all allegations of wrongdoing," and "denies that it has breached the implied warranty of habitability . . . in any of the respects alleged by the Complaint," and "denies that it is otherwise liable to members of the Class in any respect." But the same document goes on to explain that LeFrak, "is entering this Settlement Agreement solely to eliminate the uncertainties, burden, and expense of further litigation." In the Notice of Settlement, attorneys for the class of residents who currently live at Gateway (or rented there anytime after April, 2008) outline three primary pools of value that the proposed agreement will recover. The first is a $10 million cash payment by the LeFrak Organization, which will cover attorneys' fees and expenses, as well as defraying claims by current and former residents. This "settlement amount" will cover any cash disbursements to current and former residents, which will have the effect of retroactively and incrementally lowering the rent they paid during the period covered by the suit. According the documents filed with the court, the attorneys who worked on the case will receive fees not to exceed $3.5 million, along with reimbursement for various expenses, which are expected to cost several hundred thousand dollars. This will compensate the legal team (comprised of lawyers from three different firms) for five years of work. From the same fund, current and former tenants will receive an amount up to fixed percentages of the overall rent they paid to LeFrak between 2008 and the present. For current tenants, this percentage is 1.66 percent. The percentage that former residents will be paid is 2.39 percent of their overall outlay. According to settlement documents filed with the court, this means that a current resident who paid $30,000 in rent during the period would receive a benefit of $498. A former resident who paid the same amount in rent during the same period would receive $717. While these amounts are hypothetical examples, the percentages represent fixed ceilings, because the $10 million fund (after attorneys' fees and expenses are deducted) will be distributed on a pro rata basis, depending on the number of current and former residents who sign up to receive payments. The method of distributing these payments will vary, depending on whether a recipient currently lives at Gateway or is a former tenant. Residents who have moved away will be issued a check. Current tenants will see the amount they are to receive appear as a credit on their rent bills later this year. In some cases, this credit may take more than one rent cycle to deplete, meaning that such a tenant would owe no rent until the credit had been fully absorbed by successive monthly bills. The second pool of value negotiated by attorneys representing Gateway tenants is a cap on rent increases for the next two years. This benefit, which will accrue only to current residents who sign up as part of the class that will participate in the settlement, is scheduled to begin in July, immediately after the current program of rent stabilization at Gateway is slated to expire (unless it is renewed). The cap outlined in the settlement agreement stipulates a limit on rent hikes of five percent, compared with estimates of typical rent increases of six percent. For a hypothetical tenant currently paying $2,833 per month (or $34,000 per year), this one percent saving would result in a benefit of $340 per year, according to documents on file with the court. For tenants in rent-regulated Gateway Plaza apartments, the outlook is more complicated. Under the current regime of rent stabilization, LeFrak cannot increase rents for Gateway residents in regulated apartments by more than the threshold set each year by the City's Rent Guidelines Board, which in recent years has hovered between 1.25 percent and 2.5 percent. If the Battery Park City Authority (BPCA) succeeds in negotiating an extension of this program (which will otherwise lapse in June), the five-percent cap would not confer any benefit on Gateway tenants already protected by rent stabilization, because they are currently covered by tighter restrictions on increases. But if the Authority fails to renew the agreement that provides rent stabilization for some Gateway apartments, those residents could face sudden, massive increases, jumping substantially from their current, below-market rents. In this scenario, the subset of Gateway residents who live in rent-regulated apartments would gain a two-year reprieve, which might amount to many thousands of dollars per year. In total, the lawyers representing Gateway residents estimate that that value of the two-year, five-percent cap on rent increase is $13 million. The third pool of value that the legal team representing Gateway has incorporated into the settlement agreement is capital repairs and upgrades, which the Settlement Notice prices at $18 to $20 million. This part of the agreement does not envision or require any new improvements to the physical plant at the Gateway complex. Rather, it retroactively incorporates into the settlement improvements made several years ago, between 2014 and 2017. The Notice of Settlement makes the argument that the LeFrak Organization, "acknowledges that this [lawsuit] was a contributing factor as to both the timing and scope of the capital improvements undertaken." Jeffrey M. Norton, a partner at the law firm of Newman Ferrara, which led the class-action suit against LeFrak, said, "we're really happy with this settlement. We think it speaks for itself, and we look forward to presenting it to the court for final approval." There will be a Fairness Hearing on Monday, March 2, during which Melissa A. Crane, the judge presiding over the case, will consider comments on this proposed settlement, either in support or denunciation of its terms. This session will be held in Courtroom 303 of the New York Supreme Court Civil Branch, at 71 Thomas Street. The purpose of the hearing will be for the judge to approve or reject the terms outlined in the Settlement Notice, based on whether they are, "fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests," of Gateway residents, according to a court document. Apart from the immediate issues outlined above, this proposed settlement raises a range of questions. Multiple sources directly familiar with the ongoing negotiations between the BPCA and the LeFrak Organization over extension of affordability protections at Gateway Plaza allege that for several years, the landlord has used the uncertainty arising from the lawsuit as an excuse for delaying meaningful discussion. Assuming the settlement is approved by the court, this could remove a roadblock to the preservation of rent stabilization at Gateway. Conversely, however, a settlement valued at tens of millions of dollars could arguably erect a new obstacle to negotiations between the BPCA and LeFrak, with the developer demanding to be compensated for any loss arising from the class-action suit, in addition to whatever other financial incentives were demanded in exchange for extending rent stabilization. In another scenario, if the LeFrak Organization remains intransigent, and refuses to negotiate an extension of affordability protections, it could argue that the two-year caps on rent increases are a reasonable substitute, in spite of the fact that previous affordability agreements have had terms of a decade or more, and offered more rigorous limits on rent hikes. This could also provide a fig leaf for public officials, who would otherwise face political humiliation at having failed to achieve a goal to which multiple community leaders and elected officials have committed in recent years. For more information about the class-action lawsuit against the LeFrak Organization, and the terms of the proposed settlement (as well as details about how to sign up to be eligible for benefits, and deadlines for doing so), please browse: www.GatewayPlazaSettlement.com. [GN] GEORGE TYNDALL: Court to Approve $215M Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Yaacoub, writing for Daily Trojan, reports that a federal judge announced he intends to give final approval for the $215 million class action settlement for former patients of former campus gynecologist George Tyndall. The settlement includes payouts ranging from $2,500 to $250,000. "In this case, the women brought the suit as a class action, fought for themselves, but also for everybody else who wasn't in a place where they felt like they could bring a lawsuit," said Annika Martin, Esq., one of the lead attorneys representing the women who have come forward against Tyndall through the class action. "I think that's a really key piece of this — it really was women standing up for other women." Final approval, if not delayed by appeals, will allow the University to begin distributing money to the estimated 18,000 patients Tyndall saw over his nearly 30 years of employment at USC, regardless of whether they filed claims against him. The settlement was first proposed in October 2018 but was delayed in April after a federal judge ruled it needed to be amended to include more information about the distribution of payouts. The final version of the settlement increased the size of the panel deciding payout amounts from one person to three. The panel will comprise a retired federal judge, a gynecologist and a forensic psychologist, all of whom will be selected jointly by USC and class counsel for the survivors. USC said it was pleased with the tentative approval of the class action settlement. "This settlement provides respectful and confidential relief to Tyndall patients at the student health center and formalizes a broad array of campus reforms," the University wrote in a statement. The class action is the first sexual assault claims settlement to effect institutional reform as part of the agreement, Martin said. As a result of the settlement, two independent monitors have been appointed to work with the University to ensure that changes to the University's gender-based violence policies are properly implemented. Nancy Cantalupo, an external consultant with experience in sexual violence prevention and response, will serve as one of the monitors. Cantalupo, who has been at the University since the fall, helped coordinate the American Association of Universities Campus Climate Survey at USC in Fall 2019 and is on the task force assembling a report on the survey results. She has met with students and faculty and will make recommendations for University protocol changes regarding gender-based harm. The other monitor, who will arrive at USC this spring but has not yet been announced, will act as an independent women's health advocate and will work closely with USC Student Health, receiving and confirming investigation into complaints of sexual and racial misconduct at the student health center. "One of the really primary goals of the settlement is to make sure that can never happen again and that whatever policies and procedures allowed that to happen, that those are changed," Martin said. "Hopefully we can have some accountability for what's happened in the past and also make some changes in the future." More than 700 current and former USC students have accused Tyndall of sexual assault in what the Los Angeles Police Department has called the largest single-suspect sex crimes investigation in the department's history. However, some attorneys disapproved of the settlement. John Manly, who represents 234 women in lawsuits against USC alleging abuse by Tyndall, said he believes the settlement is unfair to the former patients, citing the removal of a clause that would allow survivors to appeal payout decisions. He said he considered the University's crisis response strategy too focused on maintaining the University's image. "USC has adopted the Catholic bishops' model, and basically, that's the model where we spend a lot of money on public relations and very little time and attention to reform," Manly said. "I can tell you, until that culture changes there, this will happen again — it will. And they'll continue to damage the University's reputation." The panel of experts will determine the size of each payout using a tiered system, awarding higher compensation to those who submit written records and interviews about the abuse. Under the terms of the settlement, Tyndall will not be responsible for paying any portion of the settlement nor will he be required to admit wrongdoing. The University will pay the $215 million in addition to up to $25 million in legal fees for the former patients. Tyndall's attorneys did not respond to request for comment in time for publication. Tyndall was arrested in June 2019 and charged with 18 felony counts of sexual assault and 11 of sexual battery taking place between 2009 and 2016, following a Los Angeles Times investigation in May 2018 that uncovered his decades of sexual misconduct and quiet termination. Tyndall has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and the L.A. District Attorney's Office is conducting the criminal proceedings separately. More than 660 women have filed separate lawsuits against USC, citing the University's failure to protect them from sexual abuse and its negligence in not immediately reporting Tyndall's actions to the medical board. The class action settlement is the first in a wave of expected settlements in connection with the Tyndall case. [GN] GEORGE TYNDALL: Judge to OK Sexual Abuse Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Rappleye, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that a federal judge in Los Angeles indicated he will approve a $215 million class-action settlement between the University of Southern California and more than 18,000 former patients of gynecologist George Tyndall, MD, who faces criminal charges for sexual penetration and sexual battery by fraud, The New York Times reports. The case is the largest class-action sexual harassment lawsuit in history by both class size and settlement amount, USC lawyer Shon Morgan told The New York Times. The former patients may receive between $2,500 and $250,000. Once the approval is officially filed, the university will begin the compensation process, according to the report. Dr. Tyndall, who denies wrongdoing, served as a student health gynecologist at USC from 1989 to 2016. After years of complaints against him, Dr. Tyndall resigned in 2017. He medical license was suspended in August 2018, and it will expire at the end of January 2020, The New York Times reports. Nearly 800 patients opted out of the settlement, many planning to file their own lawsuits. [GN] GILBERT ROZON: Appellate Court Tosses Sexual Assault Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that in a split decision, Quebec's Court of Appeal has thrown out a lower court ruling authorizing a $10 million class-action lawsuit brought against entertainment impresario Gilbert Rozon. The founder of Just for Laughs had argued for the province's highest court to overturn the decision allowing the action, by a group of female accusers who dubbed themselves "Les Courageuses," to proceed. Rozon denies the women's allegations of harassment and sexual misconduct, which date between 1982 and 2016. The accusations have not been tested by the courts. The decision was split - two judges allowed Rozon's appeal, but Justice Dominique Belanger said she would've rejected it and let the class action move forward. The ruling doesn't look at the allegations, but rather the class-action procedure used by the women instead of proceeding individually against Rozon. Rozon's lawyer had argued the 2018 Quebec Superior Court decision allowing the class action to continue was an error because the action failed to meet the criteria. His lawyers argued there was no common link between the allegations or the women bringing them, and the fact it's a "collective movement" doesn't justify a "collective action." Separately, Rozon is also facing criminal charges - one count of rape and one of indecent assault - for acts allegedly committed in 1980. That trial will be held in June. [GN] GLOBAL BROKERAGE: Mega Lawsuit to Proceed as Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Celeste Skinner, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that there's been another development in the large lawsuit targeting Global Brokerage, Inc. formerly known as FXCM Inc., Dror Niv, and William Ahdout. Namely, the plaintiff's motion for class certification has been granted. According to court documents seen by Finance Magnates, the Honourable Ronnie Abrams, a United States District Judge, after considering the motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel, granted the class action on Jan. 6, 2020. The motion, which was also filed Jan. 6, was filed with the New York Southern District Court by the lead plaintiffs in the so-called "mega lawsuit" - 683 Capital Partners, LP, and Shipco Transport Inc., and an additional named plaintiff Sergey Regukh. According to the document, those who can be included in the class are: "All persons and/or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Global Brokerage, Inc., f/k/a FXCM Inc. ("FXCM") securities, including FXCM 2.25% Convertible Senior Notes due 2018 and Class A common stock, during the period March 15, 2012 through February 6, 2017, both dates inclusive." Those excluded from the class are: "(i) Defendants; (ii) current and former officers, employees, consultants and directors of FXCM and FXCM Holdings, LLC; (iii) siblings, parents, children, spouses, and household members of any person excluded under (i) and (ii); (iv) any entities affiliated with, controlled by, or more than 5% owned by, any person excluded under (i) through (iii); and (v) the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any person excluded under (i) through (iv)." The Judge has also approved the request to appoint a Class Counsel, with the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. appointed to the role. The plaintiffs are pursuing claims on behalf of a class of FXCM investors against FXCM; Dror Niv, FXCM's co-founder, CEO, and Chairman of the Board; and William Ahdout, FXCM's co-founder, Chief Dealer, Managing Director, and director. It is important to point out that Global Brokerage is no longer associated with FXCM. Therefore, when Finance Magnates reached out, the broker denied to comment as it is no longer associated. [GN] GLOBAL CONTACT: Underpays Call Center Staff, Thompson Says ---------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL CONTACT SERVICES, LLC; EUGENE OHEMENG; FRANK CAMP; ANTOINETTE CURRIE; and JAMIE HOFFMAN, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00651 (E.D.N.Y, February 5, 2020) is a class action on behalf of all employees who worked at the company as call center representatives, seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and others similarly situated call center representatives were not compensated for the excess hours that they rendered daily as required by the FLSA and NYLL. Additionally, the Defendants created and fostered a hostile work environment through persistent sexual harassment against Plaintiff, and pursued retaliatory termination in response to her complaints about the harassment. The case seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the FLSA and NYLL. Global Contact Services, LLC is a Delaware limited-liability corporation which owns and operates a call center at 3300 Northern Boulevard, Long Island City, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 GOOGLE LLC: Reaches $7.5M Settlement in Google+ Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that Google LLC has agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle putative class action litigation filed in connection with its discontinued Google+ media platform, although class members may receive only $5 each and no more than $12. In October and December 2018, Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., acknowledged that software bugs in its Google+ social media platform potentially exposed users profile information to unauthorized third parties, including users' names, genders and email addresses, as well as additional information including users' occupations and places lived, according to the plaintiffs' motion in support of the settlement, which was filed Jan. 6 in U.S. District Court in San Jose in In Re Google Plus Profile Litigation. There is no evidence the data was accessed, according to the motion. The litigation was filed in October 2018. Google took the platform offline in April 2019. Under terms of the settlement agreement, claimants will receive an initial cash payment of $5 each, which will increase up to $12 per claimant if sufficient funds remain, or decrease on a pro rata basis if there are insufficient funds. Attorneys will receive up to $1,875,000 plus $200,000 for additional costs. [GN] A hearing on preliminary agreement of the settlement agreement is set for Feb. 20 in the San Jose court. An estimated 10 million users in the United States had account settings that could have been exposed by the second bug, while the number impacted by the first bug "cannot be conclusively determined," according to the plaintiffs' brief. The plaintiffs' brief states the settlement, which follows mediation, "provides quick relief for Settlement Class members, including payments for potentially disseminating their non-public information to unauthorized third-party application developers. "Importantly, the Personal Information of all Class members was never disseminated or accessed by hackers or other malicious third parties, but instead was potentially exposed to third-party software developers known to google." Google did not respond to a request for comment. In August, a federal appeals court struck down Google's class action settlement meant to resolve claims it invaded the privacy of millions of computer users by installing "cookies" in their browsers, but paying those users nothing for their troubles. [GN] GREEN ROADS: Court Stays CBD Class Action ----------------------------------------- Kevin McCoy and Benjamin Stearns of Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a class action lawsuit alleging that Green Roads of Florida LLC misrepresented the amount of CBD contained in various products has been stayed pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine because the plaintiffs' claims implicate the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's expertise with regard to a regulated product. The named plaintiffs allege that the CBD products they purchased through Green Roads' website did not contain the amount of CBD stated on the products' labels. As a result, the plaintiffs allege they were overcharged for the products. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims to the extent that they related to products that neither of the named plaintiffs actually purchased. The judge also found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of future injury and therefore lacked standing to assert a claim for injunctive relief. However, these rulings did not prevent the case from moving forward with regard to the plaintiffs' claims related to products they actually purchased or the damages flowing from those past purchases. The court stayed these claims pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine. The primary jurisdiction doctrine applies "whenever enforcement of a claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body." The plaintiffs opposed the stay, arguing that the court could apply existing regulations to their claims and because it is unclear when and whether the relevant federal agencies will issue regulations with respect to CBD product-content labeling. The judge noted that "[r]egulatory oversight of CBD ingestible products, including labelling, is currently the subject of rulemaking at the FDA. The FDA recently has conducted a public hearing and instituted an agency task force on CBD regulation." The FDA "made clear" that it was "concerned" with the labeling of products containing cannabis and hemp-derived compounds, which include CBD. The judge further noted that the FDA is under "considerable pressure" from both Congress and the CBD industry to issue regulations regarding CBD products. After applying a five-factor test to determine whether the primary jurisdiction doctrine applied, the court stayed the class action. First, the court found that there is a need for consistent guidance with regard to regulation of CBD labeling. Second, regulation of CBD by the FDA is appropriate, regardless of whether CBD is determined to be a food additive, supplement, or nutrient, as regulation of all these categories is within the FDA's purview. Third, the 2018 Farm Bill explicitly recognized the FDA's authority to regulate cannabis and hemp-derived products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Fourth, regulation of CBD product labeling "requires both expertise and uniformity in administration," as illustrated by the FDA's concern regarding "whether CBD products pose safety risks, how the mode of delivery affects safety, whether there are dosage considerations related to safety, whether there is a need for manufacturing standards, and whether there are standardized definitions for the ingredients in, for example, hemp oil." Lastly, the FDA "obviously has expressed an active interest in regulating the manufacture and marketing of CBD products." As a result, the court held that the primary jurisdiction doctrine applied and that it was proper to stay the proceedings. Finally, the court "vehemently disagree[d]" with the plaintiffs' argument that the current regulatory framework was adequate to resolve the case, finding that the regulations currently in place provide little guidance with respect to CBD ingestibles and labeling requirements. The judge concluded by stating that it would "benefit greatly from the FDA's regulatory framework." A sentiment with which many in the industry can probably relate. [GN] GRIEG SEAFOOD: Faces $500MM Class Action Over Price-Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------- Rob Antle, writing for CBC News, reports that Norwegian salmon producers with business interests in North America are facing a potential class-action lawsuit seeking up to $500 million over allegations they colluded to fix the prices of product that ended up on the plates of consumers across Canada. The Canadian lawsuit, filed Jan. 3 at Federal Court in Toronto, comes in the wake of other civil actions south of the border, and regulatory inquiries on both sides of the Atlantic. The companies deny wrongdoing. Anti-poverty activist Irene Breckon of Elliot Lake, Ont., who played a similar role in a past, now inactive class-action effort against grocery giant Loblaws, is the lead plaintiff in the just-filed Federal Court proceeding. It would include anyone in Canada who bought farmed salmon and related products after July 1, 2015. "I really believe that we need to fight against these big businesses that are taking advantage of people," Breckon said in an interview with CBC News. The defendants include Norwegian companies Grieg Seafood, Leroy Seafood Group, Mowi, and a number of their U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries. (The Newfoundland operation carrying the Grieg name has a local ownership component, and is not on the list.) Also named as defendants are SalMar of Norway, and Scottish Sea Farms Ltd., which is described in court documents as the U.K.'s second-largest producer of salmon and a joint venture of SalMar and Leroy. "The defendants and their unnamed co-conspirators control the Canadian salmon market through their market share," says the statement of claim filed by Toronto-based Sotos LLP. It alleges they were part of a conspiracy "to fix the global and North American prices of salmon." The allegations have not been tested in court, and no statements of defence have been filed at this point. The lawsuit needs judicial approval to proceed as a class action. In an emailed statement to CBC News, Grieg Seafood said it has been made aware of the lawsuit in Canada. "It is related to the separate investigations by the EU Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, where they look into possible anti-competitive behaviour in the salmon farming industry," Kristina Furnes, Grieg Seafood's global communications manager, wrote. "We are not aware of any anti-competitive behaviour, not in Norway, the EU, the U.S.A. or Canada. We are fully collaborating with European and American authorities in this matter. We will follow up the lawsuit accordingly." Mowi, meanwhile, noted that several companies have filed lawsuits against multiple Norwegian and Scottish salmon farming companies. "The filings are all based on the inspections made by the EU Commission last year, alleging anti-competitive conduct," Mowi group communications director Ola Helge Hjetland wrote in an emailed statement. "Mowi has not been involved in price-fixing or other anti-competitive conduct, and believe that the allegations are unfounded." The other companies named as defendants did not immediately return messages from CBC News. Collusion probes by EU, U.S. authorities Nearly a year ago, the European Commission did "unannounced inspections" of several salmon companies related to possible collusion. Civil suits related to alleged price-fixing were also filed in the U.S. in 2019. Then in November, Mowi, Grieg Seafood, and SalMar all publicly disclosed that they were being subpoenaed by the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice, in relation to a criminal investigation involving similar allegations. At the time, Grieg Seafood said it was "not aware of any kind of practices that support the allegations," and SalMar and Mowi said they "lack merit and are entirely unsubstantiated." [GN] GUIDANT GLOBAL: Ward Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GUIDANT CLOBAL INC. D/B/A BARTECH GROUP INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-10283-DML-MJH (E.D. Mich., Southern Div., February 4, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages of their employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA). Plaintiff claimed that Defendant Bartech did not pay their workers for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead, Bartech applied straight time for overtime scheme to their workers paying them the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. Bartech, a staffing agency headquartered in Southfield, Michigan, provides staffing solutions to projects ranging from renewable energy, engineering, information technology, and manufacturing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANU, PC 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910 Telephone: 248-542-6300 E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com HYATT CORPORATION: Crump Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Christine Crump, individually and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hyatt Corporation and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG19046036, (Cal. Super., December 6, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 13, 2020, under Case No. 20-cv-00295. Crump seeks redress for failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due terminated employees, reimbursement of business-related expenses, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.[BN] Crump is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Ave., Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021 Hyatt is represented by: Brian Long, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: bplong@seyfarth.com - and - Michael Afar, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: mafar@seyfarth.com ICON TIME SYSTEMS: Bedolla Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARTURO BEDOLLA, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ICON TIME SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2020CH01535 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty. Chancery Div., February 5, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). BIPA defines a biometric identifier as any personal feature that is unique to an individual, including fingerprints and palm scans. Also, BIPA provides that private entities may not collect, capture, or otherwise obtain an individual's biometric identifiers or any biometric information, unless they first inform that person or with the consent of the person; and private entities are prohibited from disseminating or re-disclosing biometric information without informed consent. Defendant is an Oregon corporation which transacts business throughout Illinois and in Cook County. It is a provider of employee timekeeping solutions, including timekeeping equipment that relies on biometric information to track workers' time. According to the complaint, through the biometric devices it provides to various businesses and employers, Defendant captured, stored and disseminated the biometrics of Plaintiff and other Class members without their informed written consent, thereby violated BIPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jad Sheikali, Esq. Andrew T. Heldut, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: jsheikali@mcgpc.com aheldut@mcgpc.com ICON TIME: Faces Bedolla Suit over BIPA Violations -------------------------------------------------- ARTURO BEDOLLA, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Defendant ICON TIME SYSTEMS INC., Case No. 2020CH01535 (Ill. Cir., February 5, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals whose biometrics were captured, collected, stored, used, transmitted, disseminated, or otherwise obtained by or on behalf of Defendant or its technology or equipment which violated their substantive state rights for biometric privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to inform the Plaintiff and other similarly situated in writing the specific purpose and length of term their biometrics were being captured, collected, stored, and used, which are violations of BIPA requirements. Icon Time Systems, Inc. is a provider of employee timekeeping solutions, including timekeeping equipment that relies on biometric information to track employees' time. The Company is an Oregon corporation that transacts business throughout Illinois and in Cook County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jad Sheikali, Esq. Andrew T. Heldut, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, PC 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: jsheikali@mcgpc.com aheldut@mcgpc.com INA DESIGNS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Dominguez Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- YOVANNY DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INA DESIGNS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00140-PGG (S.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 -- http://inanyc.com-- 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. Ina Designs, Inc. a company registered in the State of New York, operating a clothing store. The Company advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Gurrieri, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com J DAVID TAX LAW: Meyer Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------- MELISSA MEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J DAVID TAX LAW LLC; Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01073 (C.D. Cal., February 3, 2020) is a class action for negligent violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Plaintiff Meyer claimed that Defendant has invaded her telephone privacy by negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting her on her cellular telephone through an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt to sell or solicit its business services. Moreover, Defendant continued to harass and annoy Plaintiff with calls despite Plaintiff's repeated efforts to cease its automated barrage of solicitations. J David Tax Law LLC is a tax law firm. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com JAI MATA INC: Perez Files FLSA Suit in Tennessee ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jai Mata, Inc. The case is styled as Gaspar Perez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. Jai Mata, Inc. doing business as: Sitar Indian Restaurant, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00101 (M.D., Tenn., Feb. 4, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair Standards over Denial of Overtime Compensation. Sitar Indian Restaurant is an Authentic Indian restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Jackson, Shields, Yeiser & Holt (Memphis) 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: rbryant@jsyc.com - and - Nina H. Parsley, Esq. Michael D. Ponce & Associates 400 Professional Park Drive Goodlettsville, TN 37072 Tel: (615) 851-1776 Fax: (615) 859-7033 Email: nina@poncelaw.com KEN RUBMAN: Faces Dressel Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Darrel Dressel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEN RUBMAN, MIAMI BEACH REALTY, LLC, d/b/a KELLER WILLIAMS MIAMI BEACH REALTY, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-01143 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks damages and remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's home and 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 Defendants' calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Plaintiff did not have an established business relationship with the Defendants during the time of the solicitation calls from them. The Plaintiff expressly asked the Defendants multiple times to be removed from their call list beginning in May 2017 and continuing through April 2018. The Plaintiff did not give the Defendants prior express written consent for the Defendants to call the Plaintiff's home or cellular telephone for marketing or solicitation purposes. The Plaintiff requested for the Defendants to stop calling the Plaintiff during one of the initial calls, thus, revoking any prior express consent that had existed and terminating any established business relationship that had existed, the Plaintiff asserts. Despite this, the Defendants 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, thus, repeatedly violating the Plaintiff's privacy, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Agoura Hills, California. RUBMAN is a Real Estate Sales Associate licensed in the State of Florida. MIAMI BEACH REALTY is a nationwide real estate agent franchise company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 LCS WYNDEMERE: Kachiroubas Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometrics -------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Kachiroubas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LCS WYNDEMERE, LLC, Case No. 2020L000151 (Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks damages and remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in collecting, storing and using the Plaintiff's and others' biometric identifiers and biometric information without obtaining informed written consent or providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies, as required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, the Defendant collected, stored and used--without first providing notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data retention policies--the fingerprints and associated personally identifying information of hundreds of its employees, who are being required to "clock in" with their fingerprints, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff argues that if the Defendant's database of digitized fingerprints were to fall into the wrong hands, by data breach or otherwise, the employees to whom these sensitive and immutable biometric identifiers belong could have their identities stolen, among other serious issues. The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent the Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents and to recover statutory damages for the Defendant's unauthorized collection, storage and use of these individuals' biometrics in violation of BIPA. The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Illinois. LCS Wyndemere, LLC is an Iowa limited liability company doing business in DuPage County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.283.3814 Fax: 773.496.8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com - and - Peter S. Lubin, Esq. Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq. LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C. 360 West Butterfield Road, Suite 325 Elmhurst, IL 60126 Phone: (630) 333-0333 Email: peter@l-a.la w patrick@l-a.law LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Customers List Production in Schleifer Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Order denying Plaintiff's request concerning Defendant's production of the list of customers receiving the texts at issue in the case captioned JOSHUA SCHLEIFER, Plaintiff, v. LEXUS OF MANHATTAN et al., Defendants. No. 17-CV-08789 (AJN) (RWL). (S.D.N.Y.) The putative class action stems from texts sent to a previous Honda of Manhattan customer. The texts sought to introduce previous Honda of Manhattan customers to Lexus of Manhattan service. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that the unsolicited text initiating the exchange read as follows: "Good morning, this is Jen, the service concierge from Lexus of Manhattan. Can I text you regarding a special maintenance offer for your Honda Vehicle." The Court opines that notwithstanding Plaintiff's expansive proposed class definition ("All persons within the United States, who received any unsolicited text message from Defendants . . ."), the discovery sought by Plaintiff is neither relevant nor proportionate to what actually is at issue in this litigation, and it comes far too late in the litigation (as Defendant Lexus of Manhattan produced the customer list in June 2018). Accordingly, the Court ruled that the request for a conference is denied, and the request to compel production of a class list beyond customers of Honda or Manhattan that received the solicitation is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/sd4fszc from Leagle.com Joshua Schleifer, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Easley Apostola - ea@zemellawllc.com - Zemel Law LLC & Daniel Zemel , Zemel Law, 1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013 Lexus of Manhattan, Defendant, represented by Thomas Arthur Leghorn - tleghorn@londonfischer.com - London Fischer LLP, Jason Marc Myers - jmyers@londonfischer.com - London Fischer LLP & Salvatore A. Giampiccolo - SGIAMPICCOLO@MDMC-LAW.COM - McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP. Zipwhip, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bezalel Adin Stern – bstern@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, Paul Andrew Rosenthal – prosenthal@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye & Warren LLP & Steven Anthony Augustino – saugustino@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. Bay Ridge Automotive Management Corporation, doing business as Bram Auto Group, Defendant, represented by Jason Marc Myers , London Fischer LLP. LISA VANDERPUMP: Faces Class Action Over Wages at Restaurants ------------------------------------------------------------- Chelsea Hirsch, writing for Page Six, reports that life isn't all rose and diamonds for Lisa Vanderpump and Ken Todd. The restaurateurs are being sued for failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide meal breaks - or compensation in lieu of breaks - and for violating California's unfair competition law at their various restaurants including Tom Tom, SUR, Pump and Villa Blanca, according to Los Angeles Superior Court documents obtained by Page Six on January 7. A former employee, Adam Pierce Antoine, filed the class-action lawsuit on Dec. 16, 2019, claiming that the behavior has gone on for "at least four years prior to the filing," and he hopes to include employees who worked at the restaurants during that timeframe in the suit. Antoine also claims in his complaint that time records were manipulated after the fact to be in accordance with California state law, although employees commonly exceeded 40-hour work weeks and 12-hour days. Antoine worked for Vanderpump and Todd from September to Dec. 24, 2018. "These are disgruntled ex-employees that had been written up with many warnings by management and subsequently let go," a source close to the case said. An initial court date has been set for March 13. Meanwhile, the former "RHOBH" couple is still fixing up Pump after a Ferrari crashed into the glass wall between the patio and the sidewalk Sunday. One woman was taken to the hospital for cuts. [GN] MANHATTAN PARKING: De La Cruz Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS MARTIN DE LA CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANHATTAN PARKING GROUP LLC d/b/a MANHATTAN PARKING GROUP, METRPOLITAN PARKING GROUP LLC, UPTOWN PARKING CORP., RELIABLE PARKING, CORP., PROVO PARKING LLC, POO PARKING CORP., MP GARDEN OPERATING LLC, MP WEST 30 LLC, 1020 PARKING LLC, LAWRENCE LIPMAN, GREG GONZALES, RAFAEL MALDONADO and JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-977 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendants to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). Defendants own and operate more than 100 parking facilities throughout the New York City area and their employees move interchangeably from location to location as needed, and use stationery and equipment bearing the Group's name and logo. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a parking attendant from February 2013 until his termination on or around August 15, 2019. Despite regularly working over 10 hours per day, Plaintiff and others similarly situated never received spread-of-hours compensation as required under the NYLL. Additionally, Defendants' timekeeping and payroll policies functioned to reduce the paid hours of Plaintiff and other similarly situated; and Defendants also failed to make and keep accurate payroll records and provided Plaintiff and other similarly situated with fraudulent wage statements which are in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Tel: (212) 465-1188 MARIO'S ITALIAN BAKERY: Laser Alleges Violation under ADA --------------------------------------------------------- Mario's Italian Bakery Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Linda Laser and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Mario's Italian Bakery Corp. d/b/a Mario's Pasticceria, Eugene Berruti and Jacqueline Berruti, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00486 (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 28, 2020). Mario's Pasticceria offers bakery products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G. Solotoff 25 Melville Park Road, Ste 108 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (516) 695-0052 Email: ds@lawsolo.net MEDICREDIT INC: 5th Cir. Reverses Certification of Threats Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that debt collection agency Medicredit Inc. doesn't have to face a certified class action alleging the company falsely threatened legal action for unpaid medical bills after the Fifth Circuit Jan. 8 cited a lack of evidence regarding the medical center's intent to sue. The lack of evidence regarding the class-wide intent of Seton Medical Center means the plaintiffs can't satisfy the requirements of commonality, typicality or predominance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said. It reversed a trial court's class certification order. [GN] MESA PACKING: Miguel-Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages and Reimbursement ----------------------------------------------------------------- William Miguel-Sanchez, Luis Antonio Meza-Estrada, Luis Antonio Meza Estrada, and others similarly situated v. MESA PACKING, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00823 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2020), is brought to assert the Plaintiffs' right to pay for all hours of work, compliance with the terms of their working arrangement, overtime under California law, reimbursement of necessary expenses, meal and rest break wage premiums, and lawful, accurate and complete paystubs. The Plaintiffs allege they were compensated on a piece rate and hourly basis but the Defendant typically only recorded hours worked for those tasks, which the Defendant chose to compensate on an hourly basis. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's practice underreported the number of hours that they worked resulting in unpaid minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiffs were all employed as field workers in the harvest, planting and maintenance of agricultural fields and were seasonal agricultural workers. Mesa Packing, LLC is a farm labor contractor licensed by the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dawson Morton, Esq. Santos Gomez, Esq. Maria Esmeralda Vizzusi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ 1003 Freedom Boulevard Watsonville, CA 95076 Phone: 831-228-1560 Fax: 831-228-1542 Email: dawson@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com esmeralda@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com MICHAEL SCHNELL: Gonzales and Towne Sue over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ RAUL GONZALES and AARON TOWNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL SCHNELL, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00303 (D. Colo., February 5, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for failure to pay federal minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Schnell is a resident of Canada who conducted business within the State of Colorado managing, running, owning and controlling Legion Rig Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 3929 County Road 39, Lucerne, Colorado 80646. Plaintiff Raul Gonzales was employed by Legion Rig as a shop foreman, while Plaintiff Aaron Towne was employed as a truck driver. Both Plaintiffs assert that Schnell failed to compensate them for work they performed, 130 hours for Gonzales and 182.5 hours for Towne, in September and October 2019. Moreover, there are at least 25-30 other individuals who were employed by Schnell and were not paid any wages or overtime compensation for hours they worked in September and October 2019. These similarly situated workers were all terminated by Schnell in October 2019.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Miller, Esq. Adam M. Harrison, Esq. THE SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: 303-839-1650 E-mail: DMiller@sawayalaw.com AHarrison@sawayalaw.com MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Reminds of March 3 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm announced on Jan. 8 the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Mohawk Industries, Inc. between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Mohawk investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Mohawk class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1752.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Mohawk was engaging in fraudulent channel stuffing; (2) Mohawk's statements regarding sales growth and the demand for its conventional flooring products were false and misleading; (3) the Company falsely assured stockholders about its increasing accounts receivable and inventory levels during the Class Period by falsely attributing those increases to external factors like rising raw material costs and inflation; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business and operations were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 3, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1752.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. [GN] MONARCH RECOVERY: Mathis Asserts Breach of FDCPA ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery Management Inc. The case is styled as Aryan Mathis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monarch Recovery Management Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00222 (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. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. is an accounts receivable management company.[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 MONARCH RECOVERY: Reus Sues over Unfair Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA REUS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC. and COLLINS ASSET GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00236-SMB (D. Ariz., January 31, 2020) is a class action brought against Defendants for alleged abusive debt collection practices which violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The FDCPA is a strict liability statute that was enacted by Congress to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors and to protect consumers. Monarch and Collins are both debt collectors who at all relevant times was engaged in the business of attempting to collect debts from debtors by using mails and telephone. Plaintiff alleges that Monarch acted on behalf of Collins at all relevant times to collect or attempt to collect the debt from Plaintiff. On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff received an initial written communication which is based on a template that falsely represents that a debtor must dispute the alleged obligation in writing in order to prevent Monarch from assuming the validity of the alleged obligation. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that Monarch violated a key provision of the FDCPA which requires a debt collector to send, within five days of its initial communication with a consumer, a written notice which provides information regarding the debt and informs the consumer of his or her right to dispute the validity of the debt, and/or request the name and address of the original creditor, within 30 days of receipt of the notice. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell S. Thompson IV, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 388-8898 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com NARY'S GRILL & PIZZA: Arista Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Gregorio Arista, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Nary's Grill & Pizza, Inc., Leonel Rodriguez, Sr., Leonel Rodriguez, Jr. and Barbara Rodriguez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00219 (N.D. Ill., January 12, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. Nary's Grill & Pizza is a family enterprise owned by the Rodriguez family engaged in the restaurant business. Arista worked an average of 78 hours per week, 6 days per week without overtime premiums for the hours he worked in excess of 40 each week, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Luka MENDOZA LAW, P.C. 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 508-6010 Email: paul@mendozalaw.net service@mendozalaw.net NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Mullen Files Suit in Arizona ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationstar Mortgage LLC. The case is styled as James Mullen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC doing business as: MR. COOPER, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:20-cv-80165-RLR (D., Ariz., Feb. 4, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Real Property: Other filed for Diversity-Breach of Contract. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, offers mortgage services. The Company provides mortgages loan, re-financing, and home equity loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Cabrera Lewis, Esq. The Moskowitz Law Firm 2 Alhambra Plaza #601 Miami, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 740-1423 Fax: (786) 298-5737 Email: blewis@cspalaw.com - and - Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Miami, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 740-1423 Email: joseph@moskowitz-law.com NAVISTAR: Settlement in MaxxForce Engine Action Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Cole, writing for CCJ, reports that a federal judge has approved Navistar's proposed $135 million settlement that will be paid out to owners of certain International trucks equipped with defective model year 2011-2014 MaxxForce 11- or 13-liter engines. Judge Joan Gottschall of a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the final approval on Jan. 3. The judge concluded that the class action settlement is a "fair, reasonable and adequate resolution" of the truck owners' claims. The approval follows an objection filed in October by four large fleets. As part of the settlement, those who purchased or leased International trucks with the defective engines can choose from three forms of relief for each affected truck they owned or leased. They can choose to receive up to $2,500 in cash, up to a $10,000 rebate on a new Navistar truck with proof of ownership/lease, or up to $15,000 in repayment for repair costs. The order states that Navistar will contribute $85 million to fund claims for the cash payout and repair repayment options. The remaining $50 million will be used for rebates. Owners and lessees of affected trucks have until May 11 to file their claims for any of the three options, according to the law firm Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, which represented the class in the settlement. [GN] NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Calif. Court Junks Retirees ERISA Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Northrop Grumman Corp. and its benefits administrator, Alight Solutions LLC, convinced a federal judge in Los Angeles to dismiss a proposed class action by retirees who say they were misled about their pension benefits. Northrop retiree Stephen Bafford failed to show that the defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by overstating workers' pension benefits and later recalculating those benefits at a significant reduction, Judge Otis D. Wright II of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held. [GN] NSC TECH: Thompson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks ----------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Thompson on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NSC Technologies, LLC, BAE Systems, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 37-2020-00001726, Cal. Super., January 10, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders. NSC Technologies offers workforce management solution.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Scott A. Brooks, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com sbrooks@maternlawgroup.com NUSIL TECHNOLOGY: Bell Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Nathan Bell, individually and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NuSil Technology, LLC, Avantor Performance Materials, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-102982, (Cal. Super., October 19, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 13, 2020, under Case No. 20-cv-00061. Bell seeks redress for Defendants' failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Ave., Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021 NuSil Technology is represented by: Melissa J. Fassett, Esq. Timothy E. Metzinger, SBN 145266 PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP 200 East Carrillo Street, Fourth Floor Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 962-0011 Facsimile: (805) 965-3978 Email: mjf@ppplaw.com tem@ppplaw.com NVENT THERMAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hardimon Claims --------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA HARDIMON, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Defendants NVENT THERMAL, LLC and ERICO INTERNATIONAL CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-00246 (N.D. Ohio, February 5, 2020) alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate her and similarly-situated employees overtime wages as mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act; and O.R.C. Sec. 4113.15 (Ohio's "Prompt Pay Act.") According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully removed time from the timecards of Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated employees. As a result, they were not paid overtime wages earned by them and owed to them under the FLSA and OMFWSA. nVent Thermal, LLC is a manufacturer of electric enclosures, electric heat-tracing solutions, and heat-management systems. It is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its international headquarters and principal place of business located in Solon, Ohio. ERICO International Corporation is a domestic corporation with its principal place of business in Solon, Ohio. The company manufactures electrical and fastening solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq. THE FUCHS FIRM LLC 3961 Silsby Road University Heights, OH 44118 Telephone: (216) 505-7500 Facsimile: (216) 505-7500 E-mail: josh@fuchsfirm.com OAHU INTERSCHOLASTIC: Title IX Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Suevon Lee, writing for Honolulu Civil Beat, reports that a lawsuit seeking to represent all current and potential future female athletes at Hawaii's largest high school in sex discrimination claims against the state Department of Education cannot move forward as a class action case, a federal judge recently ruled. The Dec. 31 ruling from U.S. District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi is the first significant development to come out of the Title IX suit since it was filed a little over a year ago. It marks a setback for the ACLU of Hawaii, which filed the case on behalf of the students. The civil rights organization on Jan. 14 petitioned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal. "The decision is a setback in the sense we cannot currently proceed as a class action, but our current plaintiffs can continue with their individual claims," said ACLU of Hawaii legal director Mateo Caballero. "We have every expectation that the court erred in its ruling, and that will be addressed on appeal." The plaintiffs are four female students at Campbell High School who participate in varsity water polo, swimming and soccer. Their December 2018 Title IX lawsuit against the DOE and Oahu Interscholastic Association alleged discrimination on the basis of sex over lack of equal access as student male athletes to locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities, equipment and supplies, coaching resources, travel opportunities and publicity and promotion, among other things. The suit also alleged retaliation by Campbell school administrators after they allegedly threatened to cancel the girls' water polo program after players complained about the school's failure to secure a practice pool. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of all current and future female students at Campbell — a grade 9-12 school whose total female student count in 2017-18 was 1,506 among a total 3,123 — who were or might be deterred from participating in school athletics due to these barriers. In the 2018-19 school year, there were 366 female student athletes at the Ewa school, according to the ACLU. The suit seeks an injunction against the DOE and OIA for a halt to the discriminatory actions and a court order to remedy the Title IX violations. Having this case proceed as a class action would permit a wider review of girls and boys athletic programs to see how they're experiencing access, said Kim Turner, senior staff attorney at Legal Aid At Work, which is co-representing the plaintiffs with the ACLU. "Title IX really requires a program-wide analysis of girls and boys athletics because you can't see inequity unless you're comparing one to the other," she said. "You can't look at one single girls sport in a vacuum." In her 26-page ruling, Kobayashi said the plaintiffs failed to satisfy one of four criteria needed to establish class certification — that a class size is so numerous, joining individual members to the suit would be impractical. "The proposed class members are limited to the female student population from a single high school," Kobayashi wrote. "The proposed class members are geographically tied to one area of Hawaii, and identifiable through school and athletic records." The judge also disagreed that the plaintiffs' claim of retaliation was typical of claims of the proposed class, reasoning it was only unique to the girls' water polo players' allegation. A hearing on the motion was held in September. At the end of that hearing, Kobayashi requested the ACLU provide additional information on how it calculated the number of female athletes at Campbell who would fall within the class definition. In its petition to appeal, the ACLU argues the district judge applied "a more onerous burden than required by controlling precedent" in her class certification finding and also didn't consider other important related or unique factors to the case. The brief also argued the judge relied on "dated and out-of-circuit district court cases in inapposite contexts" in reaching her decision. It also notes that courts generally find that proposed class sizes of 40 or more individuals make joining more parties to a lawsuit impractical and that courts routinely certify similarly-sized Title IX high school athletics cases. "A class action would save significant judicial resources by ensuring all Title IX claims from the same school are adjudicated in an efficient and consistent manner," the petition states. Nanea Kalani, a DOE spokeswoman, said since the case was still in litigation, the DOE could not comment on the ruling. The ACLU's suit was filed months after the organization sent a demand letter to the DOE after publication of a Civil Beat article in February 2018 exposing the lack of girls' athletic locker rooms at Campbell High that caused softball players and track and fielders to change into uniform by the school bleachers or run to a Burger King off school grounds to use the restrooms, while male athletes didn't face the same barriers. The developments triggered a broader Title IX compliance effort within the state DOE, including training for athletic directors and coaches, and a proposed slate of school construction projects calling for girls' athletic locker rooms, field improvements and renovations at schools across the state. The DOE, which is represented by the state Attorney General's Office, has two weeks to file a response to the ACLU's bid to appeal to the 9th Circuit. A decision by that court on whether to grant the petition to appeal could take several months. A ruling on the appeal could take up to a year.[GN] ORANGE TWIST: Gavin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Missed Breaks Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Deidre Gavin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ORANGE TWIST, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; BODY CONCEPTS BY ORANGE TWIST 1 CORP., a California corporation; ORANGE TWIST, a business organization, form unknown; ORANGETWIST BRANDS, INC., a business organization, form unknown; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV04602 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 4, 2020), is brought for representative claims based on the Private Attorneys General Act on behalf of current and former aggrieved employees of the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The complaint challenges alleged systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code against individuals, who worked for the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to properly provide off-duty meal and rest periods, to pay additional compensation for missed meal and rest periods, to pay overtime wages based on the correct regular rate of pay that factored in any non-discretionary incentives, and to provide accurate itemized wage statements to its employees. The Plaintiff was employed in the position of Licensed Esthetician, from July 31, 2018, until her wrongful termination on May 31, 2019. The Defendants operate, maintain and manage various locations of medical spas in the State of California, including in Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com PARAGON INDUSTRIES: Has to File Documentation on Settlement Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order directing the Filing of Supplemental Briefing and Documentation in the case captioned ELIZABETH CASTRO, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated members of the general public and other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff, v. PARAGON INDUSTRIES, et al., Defendants. No. 1:19-cv-00755-DAD-SKO. (E.D. Cal.) The Court's directive is in connection with the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class Action and Collective Action Settlement. The Court's directive has been issued to address these issues, among other things: -- The fairness and reasonableness of including the employer's share of payroll taxes and other mandatory contributions as part of the Settlement Fund, and the estimated value of the payroll taxes and other mandatory contributions, in both absolute and percentage terms. -- With respect to the FLSA collective action, additional information and detail regarding the existence of a bona fide dispute (i.e. whether there are legitimate questions about the existence and extent of defendant's FLSA liability), including the basis on which defendant denies any liability of any kind associated with the claims and allegations and maintains that it has complied with the applicable laws in all respects. The parties shall file a brief responsive to these issues without delay, the Court further rules. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wwhwtw8 from Leagle.com Elizabeth Castro, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behlaf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin Aiwazian - edwin@lfjpc.com - Lawyers for Justice, PC, Arby Aiwazian - arby@lfjpc.com - The Aiwazian Law Firm & Joanna Ghosh - joanna@lfjpc.com - Lawyers For Justice, PC. Paragon Industries, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark D. Kruthers -mkruthers@dowlingaaron.com - Dowling Aaron Incorporated, Gerald Andrew Slater - aslater@dowlingaaron.com - Dowling Aaron Incorporated & William H. Littlewood - wlittlewood@dowlingaaron.com - Dowling Aaron Inc.. PERIWINKLES CATERING CORP: Laser Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------------------ Periwinkles Catering Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Linda Laser and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Periwinkles Catering Corp. d/b/a Periwinkles Catering & Cafe and Audrey South LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00487 (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 28, 2020). Periwinkles Catering & Cafe offers a sit-down coffee bar with snacks and full lunch menu; Gourmet To Go, meals prepared to be taken home; and full service event planning and catering.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G. Solotoff 25 Melville Park Road, Ste 108 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (516) 695-0052 Email: ds@lawsolo.net PNC BANK: E. Thomas Proposes Class Action for TCPA Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Caroline Spiezio, writing for Reuters, reports that a California resident has brought a proposed class action against PNC Bank, N.A., alleging the bank violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by repeatedly calling her without her consent. Plaintiff Eve Thomas said in the complaint, filed on Jan. 7 in Riverside, California federal court, that she and potentially thousands of other class members nationwide suffered increased cellphone charges and a loss of privacy due to PNC Bank's calls. [GN] POROS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA/IMWL, Cruz Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juventino Cruz, Miguel Rodriguez and Jennifer Baltic, on behalf of and all other plaintiffs similarly situated v. POROS, INC. d/b/a BENTLEY'S PANCAKE HOUSE And PETE GIAFIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00830 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 4, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid wages and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants did not pay them proper wages, including overtime wages of one and one-half time their regular rate of pay for all hours worked above forty hours in a work week. Additionally, the Defendants utilized a tip credit for tipped employees, however, Plaintiff Baltic did not receive the required minimum wages for tipped employees for all hours worked. Instead, Plaintiff Baltic was paid $4.95 per hour for 25 hours per week and did not receive any hourly wages for hours worked past 25 hours and, instead, only received tips. The Defendants also deduct wages from the Plaintiffs' pay without consent, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs argue that they and similarly situated employees were not exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. Plaintiffs Cruz and Rodriguez worked as kitchen staff and Plaintiff Baltic worked as a server for the Defendants. Poros, Inc. is an Illinois corporation doing business as Bentley's Pancake House located in Bloomingdale, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Phone: 630.355.7590 Fax: 630.778.0400 POTOMAC FAMILY DINING: Colburn Alleges Violation under ADA ---------------------------------------------------------- Potomac Family Dining Group Operating Company, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Gaynell Colburn, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Potomac Family Dining Group Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and Bar, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00253-ADC (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 29, 2020). Potomac Family Dining Group is a Franchisee of Applebee's and operates 69 restaurants in the east coast states of VA, MD, WVA PA and NC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E David Hoskins, Esq. The Law Offices of E David Hoskins LLC 16 E. Lombard Street, Suite 400 Baltimore, MD 21202 Tel: (410) 662-6500 Fax: (410) 662-7800 Email: davidhoskins@hoskinslaw.com - and - R Bruce Carlson , Jr, Esq. Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com PUBLIC REPUTATION: Austin Wants Consumer Privacy Under TCPA ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Austin and Jesaniel Marrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PUBLIC REPUTATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC D/B/A PR.BUSINESS, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 9:20-cv-80161-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 4, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The TCPA is a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of automated and prerecorded telephone calls, which were rightly regarded as in invasion of privacy. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant made pre-recorded telemarketing calls to Plaintiffs and other putative class members without their consent. Plaintiff Marrero alleges that the Defendant made multiple calls to his number despite his phone number's presence on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Plaintiffs and putative class members never consented to receive these calls. Because prerecorded voice marketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons, who received illegal robocalls from or on behalf of the Defendant. The Plaintiffs seek to obtain redress for the Defendant's wide-scale illegal telemarketing and is consistent both with the private right of action afforded by the TCPA. Plaintiff Robert Austin resides in Arkansas. Plaintiff Jesaniel Marrero resides in Pennsylvania. Pr.Business offers marketing services, with a focus on internet based presence.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com RALEIGH RADIOLOGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Mammograms ------------------------------------------------------------- Gloria Rodriguez, writing for ABC11, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed in Wake County, North Carolina, against Raleigh Radiology Blue Ridge concerning its mammography services. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Wake County resident and other patients who got mammograms at the Raleigh Radiology location on Blue Ridge Road between Nov. 7, 2017 and Nov. 6, 2019. The practice lost its accreditation due to the technical quality of mammography images. This comes after reviews by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and American College of Radiology (ACR). The Paynter Law Firm, which is representing the clients, said patients were sent a letter telling them to contact their health care providers and informing them they may need to have mammograms reviewed or repeated. The lawsuit said patients should get their money back for screenings and costs associated with re-reviews or repeats of mammograms. "They have not offered to compensate patients for the breast cancer detection services that they paid for that were obviously deficient," said Stuart Paynter, Esq. -- stuart@paynterlaw.com -- who owns the law firm. ABC11 reached out to Raleigh Radiology about the lawsuit January 6 and January 7 and hasn't heard back. But the practice did previously post a video on their website explaining their suspension. "The majority of the cases reviewed were acceptable to the ACR," said Dr. Laura Thomas, of Raleigh Radiology. "And neither the ACR nor the FDA has indicated that any visible cancer or disease on any image was overlooked." Raleigh Radiology has not told ABC11 how many patients got mammograms during the time in question. Paynter said he also hasn't been given the number but that there could be hundreds, if not thousands of women. "This is class action litigation so if the court certifies the class, the lawsuit would cover everyone who had a mammogram during that period of time," Paynter said. The mammogram suspension only impacts the Raleigh Radiology office on Blue Ridge Road. [GN] RES-CARE INC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Black Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Black, individually, And on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RES-CARE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00384-JRS-MPB (S.D. Ind., Feb. 4, 2020), is brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from its failure to properly pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages. The Plaintiff contends that she would routinely work over 40 hours in a workweek, and the Defendant would pay her a weekly salary instead of her overtime rate for the hours worked over 40 hours. On July 17, 2019, the Defendant changed the Plaintiff's classification to non-exempt. She asserts that the failure to pay her one-and-one half times her regular rate for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek is a plain and simple violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff worked as a Community Specialist for the Defendant. She seeks unpaid paid wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and all other relief permitted. The Defendant is a Kentucky for-profit corporation, authorized to conduct business in the State of Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Robert Panico, Esq. PANICO LAW LLC 9465 Counselors Row, Ste. 200 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Phone: (317) 759-7464 Email: panico.avoue@gmail.com RHT INC: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy --------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RHT INC. d/b/a BATHWRAPS, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-01116 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks damages and remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants 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 Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant 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. Based on the Plaintiff's experiences of being called by the Defendant after requesting it stop calling, the Defendant 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. RHT INC. d/b/a BATHWRAPS is a home furnishing 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 RING: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Hacked Camera --------------------------------------------------- WMC Action News 5 reports that a Desoto County woman has filed a class action lawsuit against Ring after she says hackers gained access to a camera in her daughter's bedroom. Ashley LeMay first spoke with WMC Action News 5 in early December. She says the camera was only up for a few days before someone hacked the device. "I did a lot of research on these before I got them. You know, I really felt like it was safe," said LeMay. The camera was supposed to bring a level of comfort for LeMay and her husband, a way to keep a watchful eye on three of daughters and alert them to a medical emergency since one of their daughters has a history of seizures. Instead, LeMay says a hacker spoke to her daughter through the camera, played music and even shouted slurs. "They could have watched them sleeping, changing. I mean they could have seen all kinds of things," said LeMay. "Honestly, my gut it makes me feel like it's either somebody who knows us or somebody who is very close by." In mid-December, Ring responded to reports of recent hacks, including LeMay's story, which garnered national attention. The company notified its users that some account credentials, like usernames and passwords, may have been swiped from an external, non-Ring service. Now LeMay has filed a class action lawsuit against Ring. The filing reads, ". . . instead of helping families protect their homes, Ring security devices have had the opposite effect by permitting hackers to exploit security vulnerabilities in the Ring system to spy on and harass Ring customers inside their own homes." Cyber security experts say with the right tools hackers can break into your home using these cameras without ever stepping foot inside. That's why installing two-factor authentication is crucial to protecting your accounts from cyber criminals. In a statement from LeMay's attorney, Hassan Zavareei, said, "Ever since this crisis broke out, Ring has been trying to blame consumers instead of taking responsibility for its own sloppy security practices. Ring says its customers should have used better security measures, like dual-factor authentication. The truth is that Ring never asked its customers to use dual-factor authentication. Ring also allows hackers (and hacker software) to try as many passwords as they want without ever locking them out, meaning that Ring's system can be hacked by a basic computer program that enters as many codes as possible until one works. And these are only two examples of Ring's apathetic approach to protecting its customers' privacy. These breaches were Ring's fault, not our clients'." [GN] SEATTLE'S CHILDREN'S: Aspergillus Victims File Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deedee Sun, writing for KIRO 7, reports that people who contracted Aspergillus while at Seattle's Children's Hospital have filed another lawsuit, and this time, it's a class-action lawsuit. The suit alleges that Children's Hospital "kept a deadly secret" and that the hospital "engaged in a cover-up designed to reassure its patients, doctors, nurses, and the public that its premises were safe, when in fact they were not." Parents Katha and Micah Hutt from Lacey say their baby girl, Elizabeth Hutt, contracted Aspergillus during either or both of her surgeries at Children's Hospital in August or November of 2019. The baby's girl's surgeries took place during a period when Children's reopened its operating rooms, in between two outbreaks. The lawsuit says Children's Hospital "represented that its operating rooms were safe" and opened them on July 4 after a shutdown. Then closed them again on Nov. 10. "This is when the Defendant admitted that the Aspergillus contamination outbreak had never been resolved in the first place," the lawsuit says. Elizabeth is now 5 months old and continues to fight for her life. The Washington State Department of Health released a statement on Jan. 8 in regards to their on-site investigation of Seattle Children's Hospital: "The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) has completed an on-site investigation of Seattle Children's Hospital. This investigation was initiated in November 2019 after the hospital self-reported a case of Aspergillus to us. We looked at governance, physical environment, infection control, and quality assurance. Based on our extensive interviews and reviews of the environment, we found that they were following the rules. DOH found no evidence of deficient practices, but during the course of the investigation, inspectors verified the presence of mold on the premises. Serious mitigation efforts are currently underway to address the mold, including major HVAC renovation to address the airflow system in several operating rooms. This action is being undertaken by the hospital. Members of the DOH Construction Review Services team will coordinate with Seattle Children's until the HVAC renovation project is complete. "The Department of Health's role as a regulator is to ensure all facilities in the state of Washington comply with licensing standards. Those standards require hospitals to maintain a safe physical environment, and when problems occur, determine root causes, and put steps in place to prevent future occurrences." [GN] SECOND ROUND: Keener Files FDCPA Suit in West Virgina ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Second Round Sub, LLC. The case is styled as Randall Keener, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Second Round Sub, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00106 (S.D., W.V., Feb. 5, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Second Round Sub, LLC is a receivables management firm that serves businesses of all types nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq. HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD P. O. Box 959 Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959 Tel: (304) 574-2727 Fax: (304) 574-3709 Email: sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com SRS DISTRIBUTION: Counce Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work ------------------------------------------------------------------ Carly Counce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SRS Distribution, Inc. and Advanced Building Products, INc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00030 (E.D. Tex., January 13, 2020), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own and operate a warehouse that sells roof shingles where Counce was employed as an inside sales representative. He claims to routinely work in excess of 40 hours per workweek but was denied overtime pay. Counce also claims that she responded to work-related calls and texts from her supervisors even after office hours. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM Post Office Box 39 Russellville, AR 72811 Tel: (479) 880-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com TALLGRASS ENERGY: Lowinger Balks at Sale to Blackstone Unit ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT LOWINGER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00985 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2020) is a class action lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against Defendants for allegedly submitting false and misleading information to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the proposed sale of Tallgrass Energy, in violation of Securities Exchange act of 1934. On December 16, 2019, the members of the board of directors of TGE caused the Partnership to enter into an agreement and plan merger with Prairie Private Acquiror LP and Prairie Merger Sub LLC and under the terms of the Merger Agreement, TGE stockholders will receive $22.45 in cash, without interest, for each share of TGE Stock they hold. Moreover, on January 21, 2020, the Board authorized the filing of a preliminary proxy statement with the SEC to convince stockholders of TGE to vote in favor of the merger. The complaint says the proxy statement is materially incomplete and misleading because Defendants failed to disclose material information necessary for stockholders of TGE to properly assess the fairness of the plan merger, in violation of Exchange Act Sections 14(a) and 20(a). According to a Moody's Investors Service report, Prairie ECI Acquiror was established by affiliates of Blackstone Infrastructure Partners together with affiliates of Enagas S.A., GIC Private Limited, South Korea's National Pension Service and Universities Superannuation Scheme. Blackstone et al. as sponsors will acquire all of the publicly held outstanding Class A Shares of Tallgrass for approximately $3.5 billion. The sponsors will contribute up to approximately $2.92 billion of equity and borrow up to $575 million to fund the acquisition. The transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2020. Defendant Tallgrass Energy, LP is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal executive offices located at 4200 W. 115th Street, Suite 350, Leawood, Kansas 66211. TGE is a publicly traded, growth-oriented limited partnership that owns, operates, acquires and develops midstream energy assets in North America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Klein, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 Facsimile: (212) 279-3655 Email: mklein@aflaw.com TECH USA: Lillard Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------- TECH USA: Lillard Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages MATTIE LILLARD, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TECH USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00308-ADC (D. Md., February 4, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Tech USA provides consulting, workforce, and recruitment solutions to clients across the nation. Plaintiff Lillard worked for Tech USA as an Account Executive and Recruiter from January 2019 through April 2019. Plaintiff claimed that she was not guaranteed a salary, though she worked more than 8-hour daily shifts and over 50 hours per week; and was only paid at the hourly same for all hours worked including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor A. Jones, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: tjones@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCHNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@bruchnerburch.com TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Mendoza Sues Over Defective Valve Springs ------------------------------------------------------------- Angel Mendoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00076 (C.D. Cal. January 13, 2020), seeks compensatory, exemplary and punitive remedies and damages and statutory penalties, including interest, injunctive and equitable relief in the form of a recall and program to repair, modify, and/or buy back all defective vehicles and to fully reimburse all costs and economic losses, disgorgement of all or part of the ill-gotten profits they received from their sale or lease of the concerned vehicles, all applicable statutory and civil penalties, award of costs and attorneys' fees and such other or further relief for breach of warranty and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. In 2014, Mendoza purchased a used Scion FR-S from a Toyota dealership in Northridge, CA. It exhibited a manufacturing defect causing the engine valve springs to fracture. Toyota Motor Sales, USA distributes Toyota vehicles in the United States.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Mobasseri, Esq. David Alan Cooper, Esq. Barbara A. Rohr, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT B. MOBASSERI, PC 1055 W. 7th Street, Suite 2140 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 282-2000 Fax: (213) 282-3000 Email: robertm@mobasserilaw.com dcooper@mobasserilaw.com brohr@mobasserilaw.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Cheng Sues Over Defective Low-Pressure Fuel Pumps --------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Cheng, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00629 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating of New York's consumer protection statute and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty; negligent recall/undertaking; and unjust enrichment. On January 13, 2020, Toyota submitted a safety recall report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration voluntarily recalling nearly 700,000 Toyota and Lexus vehicles manufactured between August 1, 2018, and January 31, 2019, with defective low-pressure Denso fuel pumps. In the Recall Report, Toyota identified a dangerous defect in the low-pressure fuel pump, which can fail and cause the Recalled Vehicles to unexpectedly stall and cause engine shut down. According to the complaint, 695,541 Recalled Vehicles are covered by the Recall, but the same dangerous condition is present in all 2018-2019 Toyota manufactured vehicles equipped with low-pressure fuel pumps with part number prefix 23220- or 23221- ("Class Vehicles") that gave rise to the Recall. Toyota concluded that the Fuel Pump Defect in Class Vehicles presents an immediate risk of physical injury when used in their intended manner and for their ordinary purpose. The Plaintiff contends that Toyota has long known of the Fuel Pump Defect in the Class Vehicles, despite marketing Class Vehicles as safe and dependable. Toyota admitted in the Defect Information Report accompanying the Recall Report that it received thousands of warranty requests related to the Fuel Pump Defect in Class Vehicles. The Fuel Pump Defect in the Class Vehicles exposes occupants and others to extreme danger, or even death, the Plaintiff avers. A vehicle that stalls or suffers engine shutdown is at heightened risk for collision. Fuel pump failure can prevent the driver from accelerating at the necessary and anticipated pace. Diminished acceleration ability creates unexpected hazards, startling drivers of the Class Vehicles and other drivers in their proximity. Finally, once a Class Vehicle fuel pump fails, the vehicle becomes totally inoperable and will not start. While Toyota knew about the Fuel Pump Defect and the associated dangers, Toyota manufactured, marketed, sold, leased, and warranted Class Vehicles, and, in its quest for corporate profits, did not disclose to the unsuspecting public that Class Vehicles were inherently defective, dangerous and create a grave risk for bodily harm or death, the Plaintiff contends. Compounding its wrongdoing, the Plaintiff notes, despite admitting in the Recall Report that the Fuel Pump Defect increases the likelihood of accidents, egregiously, Toyota has not recommended or advised that consumers stop driving the Class Vehicles until the Fuel Pump Defect can be repaired or replaced. Given the inherent dangers of driving Class Vehicles, Toyota at a minimum should have contacted purchasers and lessees and offered them free loaner vehicles of the type of Class Vehicle they drive until it could devise and implement a fix or take other action to protect consumers' safety, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff also asserts that with or without a viable remedy for the Fuel Pump Defect, the Recall has decreased the intrinsic and resale value of the Class Vehicles. The Plaintiff and other Class members have been damaged as a result. Toyota's marketing of the Class Vehicles was and is replete with assurances about their safety and dependability. A vehicle that can suddenly stall and lose power during normal operating conditions is inherently unsafe and renders Toyota's marketing of the Class Vehicles untrue and materially misleading, the Plaintiff contends. Plaintiff Cheng leased a new 2019 Lexus RX 350 from Smithtown Lexus in St. James, New York, in January of 2019. Toyota is the world's second largest manufacturer of automotive vehicles and sells its vehicles across the United States through a network of over 1,200 dealers, including those in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Demet Basar, Esq. Malcolm T. Brown, Esq. Kate McGuire, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-4600 Email: basar@whafh.com brown@whafh.com mcguire@whafh.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 Email: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com Mitch.williams@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Elbert F. Nasis, Esq. FORCHELLI DEEGAN TERRANA LLP 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 1010 Uniondale, NY 11553 Phone: (516) 248-1700 Email: enasis@forchellilaw.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Barbero Files FDCPA Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems Inc. The case is styled as Tracey Barbero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld Systems Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00506 (E.D., N.Y., Jan. 29, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Transworld Systems Inc. provides receivables collection and management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com TRAVEL TRANSPARENCY: Hanks Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls --------------------------------------------------------- KIM HANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRAVEL TRANSPARENCY OF ARIZONA, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00244-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal., February 3, 2020) is a class action complaint for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). According to the complaint, Defendant has negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone by using an automatic telephone dialing system, even without prior express consent, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services; thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy which is a violation of the TCPA and the National Do-Not-Call provisions. Travel Transparency of Arizona, LLC is a travel marketing 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 Tel: 323-306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com TRIBUNE MEDIA: Arbitrage Appeals Dismissal of Suit to 7th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund, The Arbitrage Fund and the Water Island Merger Arbitrage Institutional Commingled Master Fund, L.P. and additional named plaintiffs the FNY Partners Fund LP and FNY Managed Accounts, LLC on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Lead Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled THE ARBITRAGE EVENT-DRIVEN FUND, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY, PETER M. KERN, CHANDLER BIGELOW, CRAIG A. JACOBSON, ROSS LEVINSOHN, PETER E. MURPHY, LAURA R. WALKER, OAKTREE TRIBUNE, L.P., OAKTREE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-06175 (CPK) (N.D. Ill.), appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from each and every aspect of: (1) the Memorandum Opinion dismissing Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice; and the (2) final Judgment by the District Court, both entered on January 6, 2020. The appellate case is captioned as THE ARBITRAGE EVENT-DRIVEN FUND, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY, PETER M. KERN, CHANDLER BIGELOW, CRAIG A. JACOBSON, ROSS LEVINSOHN, PETER E. MURPHY, LAURA R. WALKER, OAKTREE TRIBUNE, L.P., OAKTREE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, Case No. 20-1177, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Sept. 10, 2018, The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund filed a putative securities class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint") against the company and members of its senior management in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Securities Complaint alleges that Tribune Media Company and its senior management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by misrepresenting and omitting material facts concerning Sinclair's conduct during the Sinclair Merger approval process. On December 18, 2018, the Court appointed The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund and related entities as Lead Plaintiffs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1900-16 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 710-5960 Email: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com - and - Joshua K. Porter, Esq. Brendan J. Brodeur, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10171 Phone: (212) 894-7200 Email: jporter@entwistle-law.com bbrodeur@entwistle-law.com - and - Michael H. Moirano, Esq. MOIRANO GORMAN KENNY, LLC 135 S. LaSalle St., Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 614-1260 TRUEACCORD CORP: Deiker Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trueaccord Corp. The case is styled as William Deiker, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trueaccord Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00669 (N.D., Ill., Jan. 29, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. TrueAccord is a digital debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: (630) 575-8181 x116 Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com - and - Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: (630) 575-8181 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Howard Smith Law Reminds of Feb. 28 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming February 28, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Trulieve Cannabis Corp. ("Trulieve" or the "Company") (OTC: TCNNF) securities between September 25, 2018 and December 17, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their Trulieve investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On December 17, 2019, Grizzly Research published a report alleging that most of the Company's cultivation space comes from "hoop houses that produce low quality output," that there were extensive ties between Trulieve and ongoing FBI investigations into corruption, that the Company's initial license approval "stinks of corruption," and that the Company engaged in undisclosed related party transactions. On this news, Trulieve's share price fell $1.51, or more than 12%, to close at $10.40 per share on December 17, 2019, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Trulieve overstated its mark-up on its biological assets; (2) that Trulieve's reported gross profit was inflated; (3) that Trulieve engaged in an undisclosed related party real estate sale with Defendant Rivers' husband; and (4) that as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased Trulieve securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 28, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN] US POSTAL SERVICE: Stole Wages from Mailmen, Tran et al. Allege --------------------------------------------------------------- MAVERICK TRAN, RAFAEL ZAMBRANO-LAY, and VICTOR BARRIENTOS, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00807 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div., February 3, 2020) is a collective action complaint against the Defendant for alleged willful and systematic stealing wages earned by city letter carriers employed at USPS's facilities in San Jose, California. According to the complaint, Defendant has required the Carriers to continue to work off the clock after their shifts have ended; has instructed them to submit false time records indicating that their shift ended before it actually had; and has had management officials falsify the Carriers' time records without the Carriers' knowledge or permission, thereby depriving the Carriers' of massive amounts of hard-earned overtime wages. However, while finding USPS culpable of willful misconduct, the Carriers' union known as the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, limited the possible recovery to less than the Carriers are entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs bring this action to recover the full amount owed under federal law to them and to other similarly situated Carriers who join the action, including damages for the full period allowed under the applicable three-year statute of limitations, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees. Defendant USPS is an independent establishment of the executive branch of the United States Government which operates postal facilities throughout the United States, including 12 in San Jose, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce A. Harland, Esq. WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD A Professional Corporation 1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501 Tel: (510) 337-1001 Fax: (501) 337-1023 Email: bharland@unioncounsel.net - and - Joshua J. Ellison, Esq. COHEN, WEISS AND SIMON LLP 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022-4869 Tel: (212) 563-4100 E-Mail: jellison@cwsny.com VIKING GROUP: Class Action Settlement Over Fire Sprinklers Reached ------------------------------------------------------------------ Viking VK457 Settlement Administrator on behalf of Viking Group, Inc., The Viking Corporation, and Supply Network, Inc., d/b/a Viking Supplynet (collectively, "Viking") and Plaintiffs' law firms, Sauder Schelkopf LLC and Kramon & Graham PA, announced a proposed class action settlement in the lawsuit captioned Jackson, et al. v. Viking Group, Inc., et al., No. 8:18-cv-02356-PJM (D. Md.). The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted preliminary approval to the proposed class action settlement on December 30, 2019. The proposed settlement resolves claims regarding those Viking VK457 fire sprinklers sold between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2015 (referred to as "Subject Sprinklers"). Plaintiffs allege that these products, which mainly were used in residential buildings, are defective and can activate in the absence of a fire. Viking rejects the allegation that these sprinklers are defective and notes that the products were certified by all appropriate industry standards organizations. The settlement agreement is not, and does not include, an admission of a defect. "At Viking, we are committed to taking care of our customers," said James Golinveaux, President and CEO of Viking. "While we continue to stand by our products and processes, we believe this agreement is in the best interests of all involved parties. This settlement agreement will ensure our focus remains where it belongs – providing outstanding customer service and manufacturing best-in-class fire protection products." "This settlement is an outstanding result for class members. Significantly, it offers a nationwide replacement program at no cost to property owners," said Joe Sauder of Sauder Schelkopf LLC, counsel for the plaintiffs. "We are pleased that Viking is taking the appropriate action through this significant settlement and we look forward to having the program implemented." The class action settlement will be presented for final approval in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on June 18, 2020. If finally approved, the settlement will provide for (1) a Replacement Remedy where Settlement Class Members may choose to have Subject Sprinklers replaced with a Viking VK494 fire sprinkler or a reasonably equivalent Viking fire sprinkler of equal or greater quality, and (2) an Activation Remedy for non-fire sprinkler activations occurring within a defined time period that will pay 70% of reasonably proven and unreimbursed reasonable costs incurred to (a) remediate water damage and/or repair or replace damaged property, (b) cover reasonable material and labor costs, and (c) cover alternative lodging and meals for those displaced by a non-fire activation. Replacement Claims must be submitted within eighteen (18) months after the Effective Date. Activation Claims must be submitted within 180 days after the non-fire activation. The Settlement Class is defined as "All Persons that currently or at any time previously have owned a residential or commercial structure in the United States while it contains or contained Subject Sprinklers or while the structure sustained water damage from a non-fire activation of a Subject Sprinkler, including their spouses, joint owners, heirs, executors, administrators, mortgagees, residents, tenants, creditors, lenders, predecessors, successors, trusts and trustees, and assigns ("Occupant Persons"); as well as all Persons who have standing and are entitled to assert a claim on behalf of any such Occupant Persons, such as, but not limited to, a builder, contractor, installer, distributor, seller, subrogated insurance carrier, or other Person who has claims for contribution, indemnity or otherwise against Viking based on claims for a non-fire activation of a Subject Sprinkler with respect to such residential or commercial structures. The Settlement Class includes all Persons who subsequently purchase or otherwise obtain an interest in a property covered by this Settlement without the need of a formal assignment by contract or court order." There are certain exclusions to the Settlement Class that are detailed on the settlement website at www.vk457sprinklersettlement.com. For more information or to obtain a Claim Form, visit www.vk457sprinklersettlement.com or contact info@vk457sprinklersettlement.com. The settlement website contains all relevant dates regarding the settlement, relevant court documents, and answers to frequently asked questions concerning the settlement. Claims can also be submitted through the settlement website. [GN] WELLS FARGO BANK: Lizana Files Civil Rights Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The case is styled as Ann Lizana and Gladys Copeland, and people similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mike Potier, Julio Barragan, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee on behalf of the Registered Holders of Morgan Stanley abs Capital Inc. Trust 2005, John Doe, Jane Doe and Does 1-10, inclusively, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01128-AB-PLA (C.D., Cal., Feb. 4, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights: Other. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association operates as a bank.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. [*] Florida Court Seeks FCC/11th Cir. Guidance on ATDS Matter ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael P. Daly -- Michael.Daly@dbr.com -- and Matthew J. Adler -- matthew.adler@dbr.com -- of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that it can fairly be said that the statutory definition of "automatic telephone dialing system" ("ATDS") has generated far more questions than answers - for courts and litigants alike. This is especially true in the wake of ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018), where the D.C. Circuit set aside the FCC's sweeping interpretation of the ATDS definition, and thus handed the baton back to the Commission to provide guidance on what is (and is not) an ATDS. But almost two years later, the FCC has yet to issue its ruling. In the many TCPA cases that turn on the definition of ATDS, defendants may wish to file a motion to stay the action so that the court can await guidance from the FCC's anticipated ruling on this issue. Indeed, over the course of the last year, multiple federal judges, at least in Florida, have been willing to grant such motions, particularly because the ATDS definition is also center stage in an appeal pending before the Eleventh Circuit. See Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., LLC, No. 18-14499 (11th Cir. filed Oct. 24, 2018). Most recently, on January 2, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a motion to stay in a putative class action where plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were vicariously liable for telemarketing calls made without prior express written consent. See Barnes, et al. v. CS Marketing LLC, et al., No. 19-24218, 2020 WL 30373 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2020). Relying on its inherent power to control its docket, the court stayed the action pending the forthcoming FCC ruling and also the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Glasser. The court noted that Plaintiffs could only succeed if Defendants placed the calls using an ATDS. Thus, the court reasoned, it would be prudent to defer resolution of this threshold issue. As to the FCC's ruling, the court noted that the public comment period had closed, and the ruling is "expected to be forthcoming." Regarding Glasser, the court observed that oral argument occurred in December 2019, and the Eleventh Circuit's decision could have an impact given that it will review a summary judgment order finding that the defendant's dialing system was not an ATDS. The Barnes court further reasoned: [I]f the FCC adopts a definition that provides . . . that to be an ATDS, equipment must (a) use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce numbers and dial those numbers without human intervention, or (b) that predictive dialers do not meet the statutory ATDS definition, that decision will bind the Court and may require dismissal or summary judgment in Defendants' favor. . . . The calls . . . were all made to telephone numbers provided by the Plaintiffs on [the alleged caller's] website rather than from any random or sequential lists generated by [the caller's] dialer; if such calls are not deemed a violation of the TCPA, the case will be over. . . . The parties and the Court would certainly benefit from a clarification of the definition of an ATDS. Id. at *3. The Barnes court also based its decision, in part, on the fact that it was not writing on a blank slate. Three other judges in the same District had recently stayed similar TCPA suits while awaiting the FCC's ruling. See Reyes v. BCA Financial Services, Inc., No. 16-24077 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. No. 200; Secure v. Ultimate Fitness Group, LLC, No. 18-20483 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. No. 64; Buhr v. ADT, Inc., No. 18-80605 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. No. 40. Indeed, the same judge in Barnes had also issued a similar order last year in Wijesinha v. Bluegreen Vacations Limited, Inc., No. 19-20073 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. No. 81, where it issued a stay also to await both the FCC ruling and the outcome in Glasser. These cases provide useful illustrations of how a temporary stay can conserve party and judicial resources and avoid resolution of a threshold issue before having the benefit of anticipated regulatory and/or appellate guidance. Because the ATDS issue is central to so many TCPA cases, we expect to see other stay orders follow suit in the wake of Barnes, certainly within the Eleventh Circuit - and perhaps elsewhere too. [GN] [*] Ontario's Proposed Class Action Changes Harder for Plaintiff ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anita Balakrishnan, writing for Law Times, reports that a proposal to adopt U.S.-style class action certification tests in Ontario may make it harder for plaintiffs to move forward with class actions, says Sotos LLP lawyer Mohsen Seddigh. "People who will be most impacted by this are consumers, employees and anyone who is in a normally vulnerable position that needs access to justice through class actions," says Seddigh, an associate in the litigation group. The proposed changes come from bill 161, a wide-ranging justice system overhaul architected by Ontario Attorney General Doug Downey. The bill states that a class proceeding is the "preferable procedure" only if "it is superior to all reasonably available means of determining the entitlement of the class members to relief or addressing the impugned conduct of the defendant." In addition to being "superior" to quasi-judicial proceedings, administrative proceedings, or case management of individual civil claims, the class action claim must also be predominated by "questions of fact or law common to the class members." Although the class action certification changes are a small part of the bill, they could have a "massive impact," says Seddigh. This framework would be similar to that used in the U.S., Seddigh says. "I think the most important point in this statute and in these amendments is going to be the certification test, which has unfortunately gone way backwards, and contrary to the to the rest of the country. It's even more cumbersome, to some extent, than the United States, because they don't have a cost regime United States," says Seddigh. Jasminka Kalajdzic, director of the Class Action Clinic at Windsor Law and co-principal researcher and co-author of the LCO Class Action Report, said the superiority and predominance tests are "radical" changes which "would take class actions backward." She estimated that famous cases, such as the Indian Residential Schools cases, would not have moved forward under the proposed system. "Because so much of [b]ill 161 is about modernizing the justice system, it is especially troubling," she wrote in a blog post. "The new superiority and predominance tests are conservative American principles that make many types of mass wrong impossible to litigate as class actions." Several law firms have released their analyses of the large justice bill, with mention of the certification tests. Fasken's Tony Di Domenico -- adidomenico@fasken.com -- likens the proposal to U.S. Federal Rule 23(b)(3), a paradigm which could create a challenge for certain practice areas, such as competition class actions or those focused on liability. The so-called preferability test could cause future class actions to fail the test "because individual issues focused on harm and damages outweigh the commonality," wrote Di Domenico. "Historically, the lack of a predominance requirement is likely what has made Ontario (consistent with other provinces) a friendly jurisdiction for class actions that typically involve many individual issues, such as product liability and personal injury cases," concurred Bennett Jones LLP lawyers Cheryl Woodin, Charlotte Harman and Katrina Crocker. "In the United States, such cases rarely achieve certification." While most of the changes in bill 161 provide "much-needed" modernization to the class action system in Ontario, Lenczner Slaght Partner Paul-Erik Veel commented that "there will undoubtedly be a difference in opinion on this." "Undoubtedly this new requirement will have some effect in raising the bar for certification," wrote Veel. "If any certified common issues really do pale in comparison to any individual issues, then it is important to ask what the point of obtaining certification even is." But Kalajdzic said in her blog that "[a]lmost none of the stakeholders who contributed to the LCO Class Action Project advocated for the predominance test. The only exception: a joint submission by the Canadian Bankers Association and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association." Unlike many of the positive changes in bill 161, using the superiority and predominance test "disrupts 30 years of Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, and positions Ontario as the outlier," Kalajdzic added. "It is a big move, in the wrong direction." [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***