/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200212.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 12, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 31 Headlines 00WELLS FARGO: Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Advisement 11044 HARRYHINES: Underpays Dancers, Herrera Suit Alleges 113-117 REALTY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Perdomo FLSA Suit Denied 500.COM LIMITED: Kahn Swick Notes of March 16 Plaintiff Deadline ADEBCO INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Smith Claims ALL REVERSE: Whittaker Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls & Texts ALL WEB LEADS: Bacon Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ALLERGAN PLC: Subsidiaries Settle Antitrust Class Action Litigation AURORA CANNABIS: Faces Warren Suit Over Decline in Share Price AUSTIN STATE: Sexual Assault Case Can't Proceed as Class Action AWP INC: Fails to Pay Drivers' Wages Under OMFWSA, Green Says AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Calif. Securities Class Suit Ongoing AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Mandalevy Class Suit Underway BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Mineral-Based Sunscreen Label BIOTRADE CANADA: Faces Class Action Over "U-Dream Life" Sleep-Aid BITFINEX: Two Law Firms Seek Interim Co-Lead Counsel Role BOTANX LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Almazan Alleges BRENNTAG NA: Buescher Alleges Mismanagement of Retirement Plan BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Court's Order on Bid for Protection BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: May 31 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set BURFORD CAPITAL: Securities Class Action Withdrawn by Plaintiffs BURKE WILLIAMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Minniear Alleges CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE: Reynolds Seeks to Certify Class of Servers CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 'Racist Layoffs' Class Action Dismissed CITY OF INDUSTRY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Moreira Suit Says COLONIAL FIRST: Faces Class Suit Over Excessive Insurance Premiums CORREVIO PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York COSTCO: Judge Skeptical of Arguments in Seating Class Action CULTURAL CARE: Misrepresents Costs of Hosting Au Pair, Ohen Says CURO GROUP: Shareholder Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid D&A SERVICES LLC: Bagby Disputes Collection Letter Validity DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL: Feb. 27 Settlement Approval Hearing Set DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Scarantino Balks at UnitedHealth Merger Deal EDDIE BAUER: Workplace Class Action Decertified EXELON CORP: Pomerantz Reminds of Feb. 14 Lead Plaintiff Deadline FACEBOOK INC: Justices Won't Halt $35-Bil. Privacy Class Action FACEBOOK INC: Removes Doshier Suit to E.D. Arkansas FARMERS GROUP: Bid for Class Certification Dismissed FIRST SAVINGS BANK: Becker Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fees FIRST SOLAR: Settles Arizona Class Action for US$350 Million FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: March 2 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Reminds of March 2 Deadline FRANKLIN LOAN: Berengut Seeks Fines Under PAGA Over Unpaid Wages HARROW HEALTH: Gaukel Class Action Dismissed HSBC BANK: Settles Class Action Over Spam Calls for $2.4MM JAKARTA: Lawyers, Flood Survivors Mull Class Action JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Scavone Sues Over Debt Collection Practices JEROME H MEYER: Faces McNeil Suit Over Violation of Chicago RLTO JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Grants FLSA Conditional Certification Bid KRAFT FOOD: Must Face Commodities Traders' Class Action LEADDOG MARKETING: Davies Seeks Overtime Pay, Missing Pay Stubs LENNAR INC: Treasure Island Residents File $2 Billion Class Action LEXISNEXIS RISK: Court Compels Discovery Responses in Gaston Suit LIBERTY INSURANCE: Dismissal of Roof Coverage Class Action Upheld LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit in Conn. LONGFIN CORP: Investors Seek Class Certification LUSAMERICA FOODS: Brooke Seeks Unpaid OT and Final Pay MANFREDINI LANDSCAPING: Gatica Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Over 40 MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN: $25K Attorneys' Fees in Pentel Suit Awarded MICROSOFT CORP: Denial of Class Cert. in Moussouris Affirmed MINDGEEK HOLDING: Web Sites Not Accessible to Deaf, Suris Alleges MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement MYLAN NV: Bernstein Informs Investors of Feb. 14 Deadline NATIONAL PLAN: Schick Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS: Faces Smith Insurance Suit in N.D. Ohio NEXUS HOLIDAYS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA/NYLL, Zhang Says NOVARTIS AG: Consolidated Exforge-Related Class Suit Ongoing NOVARTIS AG: Enoxaparin-Related Class Suits Resolved NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz and Fougera Continue to Defend Class Suits NOVARTIS AG: Valsartan and Valsartan/HCT-Related Suits Ongoing OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: Judge Rejects Second Amended Class Action OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Court Grants Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. PATTERN ENERGY: Krieger Files Suit Over Canada Pension Merger Deal PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Mar. 16 Deadline QUALITY CARRIERS: Salter Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California RAPID LOGISTICS: Faces Gonzales Employment Suit in California RBC BANK: April 22 Settlement Hearing Set in Overdraft Fee Suit RESCARE INC: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Periods, Diaz Claims RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Sabatini Suit Over ECI Acquisition RING: Faces Class Action Over Home Security Camera Hacking RUNWAY TOWING: Faces Class Action in NY Over Massive Overcharges SETERUS INC: Savage FDCPA Suit Transferred From S.D. to M.D. Fla. SITE WORKS: Underpays Laborers, Cerda Suit Alleges SM LAW PC: Debesay Hits Collection Letter Validity STADION MONEY: Davis ERISA Suit Venue Moved to Nebraska District STAR SNACKS: Class Action Says Cashew Nut Mix is Mostly Peanuts STATE FARM: Settles Homeowners' Insurance Class Action for $8.5MM STRANGE HONEY: Consumers File Fraud Class Action TIME WARNER CABLE: Wage & Hour Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action TJX COMPANIES: Faces Migyanko ADA Suit Over Access Barriers TRUMP ORGANIZATION: Settles Caterers' Class Action Over Tips UKRAINIAN INTERNATIONAL: Canadian Firm File Suit Over Iran Crash [*] Court Stays Class Action Against CBD Company Pending FDA Rules ********* 00WELLS FARGO: Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Advisement ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Sat Narayan, et al., the Plaintiff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-11223 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an order taking Plaintiffs' motion to certify class under advisement, according to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Feb. 5, 2020. Ruling on Defendants' motions for judgment on pleadings is set for March 19, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Status hearing set for Feb. 19, 2020 is stricken. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with central offices throughout the United States.[CC] 11044 HARRYHINES: Underpays Dancers, Herrera Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA HERRERA aka VERONICA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 11044 HARRYHINES PC DE CHICAS BONITAS; CHICAS BONITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; and DALLAS HALE, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00042-K (N.D. Tex., Jan. 8, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Herrera was employed by the Defendants as dancer. 11044 Harryhines Pc De Chicas Bonitas operates a dance club. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 - and - John P. Kristensen, Esq KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: (310) 507-7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com 113-117 REALTY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Perdomo FLSA Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JULIAN PERDOMO, on behalf of himself, FLSA collective plaintiffs, and the class, Plaintiff, v. 113-117 REALTY, LLC, DIRECT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, and LAWRENCE MAROLDA, Defendants, Case No. 18 CV 9860 (VB) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Perdomo brings the putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and putative class action under New York labor laws, New York Labor Law and the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules & Regulations of the State of New York, title 12 ("NYLL"), against Defendants 113-117 Realty, Direct Property Management, LLC, and Lawrence Marolda for unpaid compensation and for violations of the wage and hour notice and wage statement requirements. The Plaintiff also brings retaliation claims under the FLSA and the NYLL. The Defendants own and operate building management companies that service their clients' properties. The Plaintiff was employed by defendants as a maintenance and repair worker from July 2013 until February 2018. From July 2013 to December 2014, he was paid a fixed salary of $425 per week. From January 2015 to February 2018, he was paid a fixed salary of $576 per week. According to the Plaintiff, he was scheduled to work, and did work, 56 hours per week, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., from Mondays through Fridays, from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., on Saturdays, and from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays. The Plaintiff alleges he also worked at least an additional six hours per week, on top of his scheduled 56 hours of work per week as a result of being on call" at least three times per week until 7:00 p.m. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges he worked a total of 62 hours per week. The Plaintiff also claims he was required to work without a lunch break daily and worked ten or more hours the three weekdays he was on call, without receiving spread of hours compensation. Further, he alleges that throughout his employment, the Defendants failed to provide proper wage and hour notices, and wage statements. He insists the Defendants "did not maintain a system for tracking" employees' "actual hours worked." The Defendants terminated the Plaintiff's employment on Feb. 21, 2018. On Oct. 25, 2018, the Plaintiff commenced the lawsuit, alleging violations of the FLSA and the NYLL. Then on Jan. 15, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint bringing additional claims for retaliation. In response, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Feb. 26, 2019. The Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on March 21, 2019. Thereafter, the Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss. The Defendants argue the Court should disregard the second amended complaint and instead refer to the Plaintiff's first amended complaint because the second amended complaint is inconsistent with teh Plaintiff's prior pleadings. Judge Briccetti declines to do so. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff (i) has adequately alleged a retaliation claim under the FLSA; (ii) has adequately stated a claim for unpaid overtime under the FLSA; (iii) has adequately alleged an FLSA claim for failure to provide notice of employee rights; (iv) has adequately alleged he is owed an additional hour of compensation for each day he worked in excess of 10 hours; (v) has stated a claim under the NYLL's wage and hour notice posting requirement.; (vi) has adequately stated a claim under the NYLL's wage statements requirement; and (vii) has plausibly alleged an NYLL violation. The Defendants argue that because the Plaintiff cannot maintain any federal claims, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law claims. The Judge holds that the Plaintiff has alleged plausible FLSA claims for retaliation, and for failure to pay overtime and post notices. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's FLSA and NYLL claims arise from a common nucleus of operative fact, as required for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a), the Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear teh Plaintiff's state law claims for unpaid compensation and other NYLL violations. Based on the foregoing, Judge Briccetti denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/v3WK4f from Leagle.com. Julian Perdomo, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC. 113-117 Realty, LLC, Direct Property Management LLC & Lawrence Marolda, Defendants, represented by Abraham Hamra -- info@hamralawgroup.com -- Sirotkin Varacalli & Hamra, LLP, Anthony R. Portesy, Varacalli & Hamra, LLP & David Samuel Schwartz -- dsschwartz@wisc.edu -- Varacalli & Hamra LLP. 500.COM LIMITED: Kahn Swick Notes of March 16 Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuit: 500.com Limited (WBAI) Class Period: 4/27/2018 - 12/31/2018 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 16, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-wbai/ If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Tel: 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] ADEBCO INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Smith Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTREESE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. ADEBCO, INC., a Tennessee For-Profit corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00003 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime wages. While employed by ADEBCO, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per work week during certain work weeks, but was not paid overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in some workweeks as required by Section 207 of the FLSA, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for ADEBCO as a driver operating a dump truck in Davidson County, Tennessee. ADEBCO specializes in heavy civil construction projects and related material supply and transportation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall W. Burton, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RANDALL BURTON 1222 16th Avenue, South, Suite 23 Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 620-5838 ALL REVERSE: Whittaker Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls & Texts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Whittaker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. All Reverse Mortgage, Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-08016-DLR (D. Ariz., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls and text message calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is the owner and customary user of the cellular telephone number ending in 9679. In August 2019, the Plaintiff received an unsolicited telephone call from ARM from the telephone number (800) 565-1722. The Plaintiff seeks to: stop the Defendant's practice of placing telephone calls and text message calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent; enjoin ARM from continuing to place unsolicited telemarketing telephone calls and text message calls to consumers, who did not provide prior express written consent to receive them; and obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. All Reverse is a reverse mortgage lender company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Penny L. Koepke, Esq. MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C. 4854 E, Baseline Road, Suite 104 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone (480) 833-1001 E-mail: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz - and - Pattick H, Peluso, Esq. Taylor Yeah, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com ALL WEB LEADS: Bacon Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Bacon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. All Web Leads, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00043, (W.D. Tex., January 14, 2020), seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. All Web Leads delivers consumers or leads to its insurance industry customers. They generate leads by placing telemarketing calls to consumers who might be interested in purchasing insurance, and then transferring those calls to customers of All Web Leads, who are typically insurance agents. Bacon did not give his expressed consent to be contacted using an auto-dialer. He is on the national Do-Not-Call Registry, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett Ellzey, Esq. W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP Galleria Tower I 2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120 Houston, TX 77056 Tel: (713) 554-2377 Fax: (888) 995-3335 Email: craft@hughesellzey.com jarrett@hughesellzey.com leigh@hughesellzey.com ALLERGAN PLC: Subsidiaries Settle Antitrust Class Action Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------- RTTNews reports that Allergan plc (AGN) announced that its Warner Chilcott and Watson subsidiaries have reached resolutions with all plaintiffs, including a class of direct purchasers, individual direct purchasers that previously opted out of the direct purchaser class, and a class of indirect purchasers of Loestrin 24 Fe and Minastrin 24 Fe. This concluded the previously disclosed antitrust litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The settlements make no admission of wrongdoing on the part of the company and resolve the litigation that was scheduled to go to trial on January 6, 2020. Warner Chilcott and Watson will pay approximately $300 million under the settlement agreements. The settlements are subject to court approval of the agreements with the direct and indirect purchaser classes. The company will take a pre-tax GAAP charge of approximately $300 million to its fourth quarter 2019 earnings. [GN] AURORA CANNABIS: Faces Warren Suit Over Decline in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW L. WARREN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AURORA CANNABIS INC., TERRY BOOTH, STEPHEN DOBLER, GLEN IBBOTT, CAMERON BATTLEY, MICHAEL SINGER and JASON DYCK, Case No. 2:20-cv-00555 (D.N.J., Jan. 16, 2020), is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Aurora securities between Oct. 23, 2018, and Jan. 6, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Class Period begins on October 23, 2018, when Aurora shares began trading on the NYSE. In the days leading up to the start of the Class Period, the Defendants artificially inflated the trading price of Aurora securities by issuing false and misleading statements and omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make the Defendants' statements not misleading, the Plaintiff asserts. Leading up to and during the Class Period, the Plaintiff contends, Aurora engaged in an aggressive expansion strategy, building production capacity internally and through acquisitions and investments and launching operations in jurisdictions around the world, including most notably the European market. On January 6, 2020, media reports stated that the Company had listed its nine-hectare greenhouse in Exeter, Ontario, for sale for $17 million. Aurora had obtained the greenhouse as part of its $3.2 billion acquisition of MedReleaf Corp. in 2018. Analysts immediately connected the move as implying that significant write-downs could be on the horizon. Following these revelations, the price of Aurora common stock declined again. On January 6, 2020, Aurora's share price fell $0.19 per share, from an open of $2.02 per share on January 6, 2020, to a close of $1.83 per share on January 7, 2020, or nearly 10%. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, the Plaintiff contends that he and the Class purchased Aurora securities at artificially inflated prices, suffered significant losses and were damaged thereby. Aurora is a manufacturer and distributor of cannabis products based in Canada. Aurora's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "ACB." The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: 973/994-1700 Facsimile: 973/994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Brian E. cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: 631/367-7100 Facsimile: 631/367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com AUSTIN STATE: Sexual Assault Case Can't Proceed as Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a Texas federal judge has recommended not to allow a suit accusing Austin State Hospital of inadequately dealing with sexual assault to move forward as a class action, finding that there wasn't evidence to support certification even though the claims were "especially egregious and horrific." [GN] AWP INC: Fails to Pay Drivers' Wages Under OMFWSA, Green Says ------------------------------------------------------------- TAYNETTA GREEN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. AWP, INC., Case No. CV-20-927947 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., Jan. 16, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and other drivers for time spent driving AWP vehicles and transporting the Defendant's tools, equipment, and partners to and from worksites, in violation to the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff asserts that she was employed by the Defendant and worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks without overtime pay. The Defendant provides temporary work zone operations, including traffic control activities and flagging at worksites throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470 4428 Facsimile: (330) 754 1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Calif. Securities Class Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC. On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al., and brought in United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and also brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC, and the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct that was alleged in a complaint filed in connection with a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit filed on October 13, 2015 and that as a result the Company's statements regarding its internal controls, as well as portions of its financial statements, were false and misleading. On March 21, 2018, the Court entered a final order dismissing the Class Action with prejudice. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and opening brief, the Company has filed its answering brief and argument in the appeal from dismissal was held. Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products in the United States. The company offers deposits products, including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in San Diego, California. AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Mandalevy Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------- Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal from a court decision in the case, Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al., remains pending. On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and brought in United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The Mandalevy Case seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the Court. The complaint in the Mandalevy Case alleges a class period that differs from that alleged in the First Class Action, and that the Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct that was alleged in a March 2017 media article. On December 7, 2018, the Court entered a final order granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the Mandalevy Case with prejudice. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and opening brief and the Company filed its answering brief, on May 8, 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products in the United States. The company offers deposits products, including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in San Diego, California. BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Mineral-Based Sunscreen Label --------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that the companies behind the Coppertone line of sunscreens have been hit with a lawsuit claiming they misled consumers into buying products labeled as mineral-based that actually contained a significant proportion of chemical active ingredients. The lawsuit filed last month in federal court in the Northern District of California claims that consumers were misled to pay more for the "mineral-based" products amid growing concern about the potential adverse health effects of chemical-based sunscreens, whose active ingredients can penetrate the skin and enter the bloodstream. The suit claims that the defendants, including Bayer HealthCare, skincare company Beiersdorf and parent companies and subsidiaries affiliated with the two companies, made "a calculated business decision to put profits over people" in how they marketed Coppertone WaterBabies Mineral-Based Sunscreen Stick; Coppertone WaterBabies Mineral-Based Sunscreen Lotion; Coppertone Kids Mineral-Based Sunscreen Lotion; and Coppertone Sport Face Mineral-Based Sunscreen Lotion. "Defendants have done so at the expense of unwitting consumers -- many of whom seek to protect their babies and children -- and defendants' lawfully acting competitors, over whom defendants have an unfair competitive advantage," wrote the plaintiffs lawyers at Los Angeles' Clarkson Law Firm and Palo Alto's Moon Law. The lawsuit brings claims under the state's unfair competition law, false advertising law, and consumer remedies act on behalf of a proposed class of California consumers who've purchased the products over the past four years. The suit also seeks to certify a nationwide class and California subclass to pursue claims that the companies breached an express warranty to provide a mineral-based product and to pursue claims of unjust enrichment. The suit also seeks an injunction barring further promotion of the Coppertone products as "mineral-based." A representative from Beiersdorf said the company cannot comment on pending litigation. A from Bayer Healthcare didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. Shireen Clarkson of the Clarkson Law Firm wasn't immediately available for comment. In September 2019, Bayer AG sold the Coppertone brand, including the accused products, for $550 million to Beiersdorf AG. [GN] BIOTRADE CANADA: Faces Class Action Over "U-Dream Life" Sleep-Aid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Darryl Greer, writing for BIV, reports that a B.C. truck driver is suing supplement manufacturer Biotrade Canada Ltd., claiming in a class action that the company's now-recalled "U-Dream Life" sleep-aid product gave him a heart attack that put him out of work. James Ruckman filed a notice of civil claim under the Class Proceedings Act in BC Supreme Court on December 23. According to the claim, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sounded the alarm about Biotrade's over-the-counter sleep-aid product when lab tests showed it contained substances "structurally similar" to those found in prescription sedatives, including zopiclone. Days later, Health Canada issued an advisory warning consumers that U-Dream products "may pose serious health risks." Zopiclone, according to the advisory, can cause dependence and abuse with side effects including "hallucinations, and abnormal sleep behaviours while not fully awake including sleep driving." "The Defendant has advised consumers to avoid U-Dream while it conducts its own tests, saying it doesn't know how the compound made its way into samples that were tested," the claim states. Ruckman, 57, claims he bought U-Dream at a Burnaby Whole Foods in September 2019, and took it for 10 nights straight until he suffered a heart attack on September 30, after which he was hopitalized for 12 days. He claims he has since lost his job as a truck driver and lost his licence. "The Defendant caused the drug to be introduced into the stream of commerce in Canada, and it knew that any dangers of adverse effects related to the drug would cause foreseeable injury to the Plaintiff and Class Members," the claim states. Ruckman seeks class certification and damages for negligence, failure to warn, unjust enrichment, battery, and violations of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. The allegations have not been tested or proven in court and Biotrade Canada had not filed a response to the claim by press time. [GN] BITFINEX: Two Law Firms Seek Interim Co-Lead Counsel Role --------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that Roche Freedman LLP and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP told a New York federal court they should be appointed interim co-lead counsel for a blockbuster proposed class action against Bitfinex and Tether seeking more than $1.4 trillion in damages for bitcoin market manipulation claims. [GN] BOTANX LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Almazan Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ ANALI ALMAZAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOTANX, LLC; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2020-01122459-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Jan. 8, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Almazan was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly paid employee. Botanx was founded in 2005. The Company manufactures perfumes, cosmetics, and other toilet preparations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Kelsey L. Kuberka, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com kkuberka@toddflaw.com BRENNTAG NA: Buescher Alleges Mismanagement of Retirement Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- BRYANT BUESCHER; CLARENCE IANNINE; CLARESSA WALLACE; and CRAIG COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC.; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC.; MARKUS KLAHN; BRENNTAG INVESTMENT AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE; DIETER WOEHRLE; DONOVAN MATTOLE; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00147 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 8, 2020) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that on January 8, 2014 to the present, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Brenntag USA Profit Sharing Plan, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories. To make matters worse, Defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the Plan, and failed to consider collective trusts, commingled accounts, or separate accounts (at least for the majority of the Class Period) as alternatives to the mutual funds in the Plan, despite their lower fees. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Brenntag North America, Inc distributes chemicals globally. It serves adhesives, coatings, elastomers, sealants, ceramics, and chemical compounding. The Company has subsidiaries across the US. Brenntag North America, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Brenntag AG. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Court's Order on Bid for Protection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the quarterly period ended December 25, 2019, that the company is awaiting the court's order on its motion for protection filed in the class action suit entitled, In re: Brinker Data Incident Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR On May 12, 2018, the company issued a public statement that malware had been discovered at certain Chili's restaurants that resulted in unauthorized access or acquisition of customer payment card data. The company engaged third-party forensic firms and cooperated with law enforcement to investigate the matter. Based on the investigation of its third-party forensic experts, the company believes most Company-owned Chili's restaurants were impacted by the malware during time frames that vary by restaurant, but the company believes in each case began no earlier than March 21, 2018 and ended no later than April 22, 2018. The company expects to incur legal and professional services expenses associated with the cyber security incident in future periods, which could be material. The company will recognize these expenses as services are received. Related to this incident, payment card companies and associations may request the company to reimburse them for unauthorized card charges and costs to replace cards and may also impose fines or penalties in connection with the cyber security incident, and regulatory authorities may also impose fines or other remedies against the company. While the company do not acknowledge responsibility to pay any such amounts imposed by any third parties, the company may become obligated to pay such amounts or incur significant related settlement costs. The company had settled claims from two payment card companies, and the settlement amounts are included in the costs. The company will record an estimate for any additional losses at the time when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. To limit the company's exposure to cyber security events, the company maintains cyber liability insurance coverage. This coverage and certain other insurance coverage may reduce its exposure for this incident. The company's cyber liability insurance policy contains a $2.0 million retention that was fully accrued during fiscal 2018. Since the incident, through December 25, 2019, the company had incurred total costs of $4.3 million related to the cyber security incident. This includes the $2.0 million retention recorded in fiscal 2018, an additional $0.4 million during fiscal 2019 for expenses not believed to be covered by our insurance coverage recorded to Other (gains) and charges in the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Unaudited), $1.0 million in costs that have been reimbursed by our insurance carriers, and $0.9 million of receivable for costs incurred that we believe are reimbursable and probable of recovery under the company's insurance coverage. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida styled In re: Brinker Data Incident Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR relating to the cyber security incident. In the Litigation, plaintiffs assert various claims stemming from the cyber security incident at the Company's Chili's restaurants involving customer payment card information and seek monetary damages in excess of $5.0 million, injunctive and declaratory relief and attorney's fees and costs. On January 4, 2019, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of plaintiffs' claims asserting that plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the lawsuit and that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Following completion of briefing by the parties, the court conducted a hearing on the company's motion on June 24, 2019. On August 1, 2019, the court granted the company's Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing as to two plaintiffs and denied the motion as to the remaining plaintiffs. The court deferred its ruling on the company's argument that plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted pending further briefing. On August 16, 2019, the parties filed their Joint Notice of Choice of Law Briefing Preference. The Company represented that it is ready to move forward with briefing, but plaintiffs claimed that they require a significant amount of additional discovery before briefing can commence. On November 11, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Protection seeking to limit the scope of some of plaintiffs' discovery requests. On November 12, 2019, the court issued an order indicating that it would move forward with its ruling on the company's Motion to Dismiss without further briefing. It also stayed all pending discovery and depositions. Plaintiffs filed their response to the company's Motion for Protection on December 6, 2019 and the company now awaits the Court's order. Brinker said, "We believe we have defenses and intend to continue defending the Litigation. As such, as of December 25, 2019, we have concluded that a loss from this matter is not determinable, therefore, we have not recorded a liability related to the Litigation. We will continue to evaluate this matter based on new information as it becomes available." Brinker International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns, develops, operates, and franchises casual dining restaurants in the United States and internationally. As of June 27, 2018, it owned, operated, or franchised 1,686 restaurants comprising 997 company-owned restaurants and 689 franchised restaurants under the Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy brand names. The company was founded in 1975 and is based in Dallas, Texas. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: May 31 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Consumer Law Group disclosed that a class action has been authorized on behalf of all Canadians who took ABILIFY(R) before February 23, 2017 and developed one or more of the following alleged Impulse-Control Disorders: PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING, COMPULSIVE EATING/BINGE EATING, COMPULSIVE SHOPPING OR SPENDING and/or HYPERSEXUAL BEHAVIOURS/SEXUAL ADDICTION. The representative plaintiff alleges that ABILIFY(R) causes the above Impulse-Control Disorders and that the defendants, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Co. and Otsuka Canada Pharmaceutical Inc., gave inadequate warnings about this risk. The Court has not yet decided whether the defendants have committed a fault, and the claims have not yet been proven in court. However, if you are included in the class action, your rights may be impacted. If you wish to remain a class member, you have nothing to do. If you wish to opt out, you have until May 31st, 2020 to advise Class Counsel (identified below) and the clerk of the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, at 1 Notre Dame Street East, Montreal, Quebec, H2Y 1B6, by registered mail. Please make sure to include file no. 500-06-000831-160 in your correspondence. You may request a copy of the long version of this notice or simply visit the website below. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Class Counsel Consumer Law Group Inc. 1030 rue Berri, Suite 102 Montreal (Quebec) H2L 4C3 abilify@clg.org (514) 266-7863 1-888-909-7863 www.clg.org Central Registry of Class Actions www.registredesactionscollectives.quebec/en# Scheer v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Co. et al., No. 500-06-000831-160 (District of Montreal) This notice has been authorized by the Superior Court of Quebec. [GN] BURFORD CAPITAL: Securities Class Action Withdrawn by Plaintiffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Huw Jones, writing for Reuters, reports that litigation funder Burford Capital said that a U.S. securities class action lawsuit against the company filed in August last year has been withdrawn by the plaintiffs and dismissed. The lawsuit had been filed by purchasers of securities in the company, seeking to recover damages under U.S. laws. "There is no litigation pending against Burford at present other than ordinary course skirmishing within a small number of ongoing funded investment schemes," Burford said in a statement. The company had been accused of misrepresenting or failing to disclose signs of adverse trading conditions in annual reports dating back to 2014. U.S. short-selling firm Muddy Waters took a short position in Burford Capital in August, its first foray into a London-listed company. News of the trade saw shares in Burford slip by more than 40%. It also announced management changes, saying that Aviva Will and David Perla will become co-chief operating officers, with Craig Arnott as deputy chief investment officer, with Christopher Bogart remaining as CEO. Burford reiterated plans to either add a U.S. listing on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq -- which would not involve issuing new equity -- or move its London listing to the main London Stock Exchange market. [GN] BURKE WILLIAMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Minniear Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY MINNIEAR, an individual, on behalf of herself, all other aggrieved employees, and the general public v. BURKE WILLIAMS, INC., a California corporation; BW SUPPLIES, LLC, a California limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV02154 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16, 2020), challenges the Defendants' employment practices of denying earned wages, including overtime pay, failing to provide legally compliant meal and rest breaks, and failing to provide necessary protective gear to their nonexempt hourly workers employed in the State of California, in violation to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants require their employees to be present and perform work in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per 12 work week, but fail to pay them overtime wages. The Defendants also fail to pay the non-exempt employees for all straight time hours that they worked. The Defendants also require the employees to perform work tasks during unpaid breaks, fail to provide meal and rest breaks, fail to timely compensate employees for all wages earned, and fail to properly and accurately calculate overtime and report wages earned, hours worked, and wage rates, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff adds that the Defendants fail to provide and prohibit the use of gloves by the employees when providing customers with foot massages, leading to an unhealthy and unsafe work environment. Burke Williams is a luxury day spa with 11 locations throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Armand R. Kizirian, Esq. KIZIRIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 221-2800 Facsimile: (818) 221-2900 E-mail: armand@kizirianlaw.com - and - Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 547-5300 Facsimile: (818) 547-5678 E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com - and - Andre E. Jardini, Esq. K.L. Myles, Esq. KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 547-5000 Facsimile: (818) 547-5329 E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com klm@kpclegal.com CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE: Reynolds Seeks to Certify Class of Servers ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTINA MARY REYNOLDS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE BREWING HOLDINGS, LLC; CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE BREWING PENNSYLVANIA HOLDINGS, LLC; IRON HILL BREWERY, LLC; KEVIN FINN, MARK EDELSON, KEVIN DAVIES, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02184-JS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an Order: 1. granting certification of a proposed Class consisting of: "all Servers who work/worked at any one or more of Defendants' Iron Hill Brewery & Restaurant locations in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23"; and 2. granting issuance of Notice to all members of the proposed Class. Chesapeake & Delaware was founded in 2000. The company's line of business includes holding or owning securities of companies other than banks.[CC] Counsel for Plaintiff are: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225 Malvern, PA 19355 Telephone: 610-822-3700 Facsimile: 610-822-3800 E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com rgray@cwglaw.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Matthew D. Brady, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: 412-322-9243 Facsimile: 412-231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com eciolko@carlsonlynch.com mbrady@carlsonlynch.com CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 'Racist Layoffs' Class Action Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Nader Issa, writing for the Chicago Sun Times, reports that a federal judge has dismissed a 2012 class action lawsuit against Chicago Public Schools that alleged discriminatory layoffs, finding the district's procedures to be "reasonable and practical," not racist. The suit was filed more than seven years ago by the Chicago Teachers Union with class action status on behalf of 630 black educators who were among 1,470 CPS employees laid off in the summer of 2011. The union argued the layoffs disproportionately hurt teachers of color at schools on the city's South and West sides -- ones with the steepest declines in enrollment -- since a higher proportion of the district's black teachers were laid off than white ones. CPS said it determined layoffs based on falling school enrollment; if a school lost students, it didn't need as many teachers regardless of the racial makeup of the school, where in the city it was located or who worked there, the district argued. Despite a slight uptick in district-wide enrollment that year, CPS had lost 7.6% of its students since 2001 and 25.2% of its black students. U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso in throwing out the suit earlier this month dismissed the notion that there were alternative, less discriminatory ways to pick the employees who would get pink slips. And if there were, he said the CTU failed to show any. "The layoffs were not the product of intentional discrimination; rather, they were the product of a regular bureaucratic process by which the number of positions and amount of funding allocated to particular schools dropped when the schools' enrollment dropped," Alonso wrote, describing that process as "reasonable and practical." The judge said the layoffs were tied directly to the enrollment-based system and not at all to a $724-million budget deficit facing schools officials. Alonso did, however, acknowledge that the layoffs adversely impacted the group in question. He disagreed with a CPS argument that things turned out fine for the 335 black educators who found full-time jobs at new schools, as well as others who became substitute teachers or retired, writing that "the fact remains that their positions were closed and the onus was on them to secure new ones." He simply decided CPS had no other choice. CTU Vice President Stacy Davis Gates said the fact that the judge realized educators of color were hurt by the layoffs but declining black enrollment gave the district minimal options showed a wider, citywide problem. "The mayor has control of economic development, public schools and public housing," Davis Gates said. "Of course you're going to have as situation where you won't have black and brown students on the South and West sides if you tear down all their housing and don't replace it with something affordable." CTU spokesman Ronnie Reese added that the union will appeal the judge's decision, "and we dare Mayor Lori Lightfoot and CPS CEO Janice Jackson to allow Donald Trump's federal court system to decide if black educators -- who look just like them -- should be able to work in Chicago's public schools." Judge Alonso was appointed by former President Barack Obama. CPS spokeswoman Emily Bolton said in a statement that "the district's strength lies in its diversity, and we will continue to aggressively work to promote teacher and staff diversity in our schools. After an extensive review of records, facts, and the law, the Court agreed that the CTU's case lacked merit." The teaching ranks in CPS are currently 50.4% white, 21.2% Latino and 20.7% black. [GN] CITY OF INDUSTRY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Moreira Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARISA MOREIRA, as an Individual, and On Behalf of Herself and Other Aggrieved Employees, and On Behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys General v. CITY OF INDUSTRY HOSPITALITY VENTURE, LLC, a California business organization; THE SPEARMINT RHINO COMPANIES WORLDWIDE, INC., a California business organization, and DOES 1 through 250, Case No. 20STCV02158 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide meal and rest breaks and to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff alleges that she and similarly aggrieved employees were denied their meal and rest breaks and were not paid for overtime hours worked. She adds that they were also subjected to inaccurate timekeeping, which resulted in inaccurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed jointly by both Defendants as an entertainer and began working July 16, 2018, until April 3, 2019. City of Industry Hospitality Venture operates night clus in California. Spearmint Rhino is a chain of strip clubs that operates venues throughout the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neama Rahmani, Esq. Ronald L. Zambrano, Esq. Melineh Kasbarian WEST COAST EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, APLC 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3325 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 927-3700 Facsimile: (213) 927-3701 E-mail: efilings@westcoasttriallawyers.com ron@westcoasttriallawyers.com melineh@w estcoasttriallawyers.com COLONIAL FIRST: Faces Class Suit Over Excessive Insurance Premiums ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Horswill, writing for Canstar, reports that a class action has been filed against Colonial First State Investments Limited, alleging the Commonwealth Bank subsidiary "tipped" its super members into an allied provider that charged "excessive" insurance premiums, eroding away retirement savings in fees. The case could apply to more than 700,000 customers. Shine Lawyers filed the action in the Federal Court, alleging that Colonial First State Investments Limited "tipped its members into policies with the bank's insurance arm CommInsure", a move they claim was not in their customers' best interests. Colonial First State Investments Limited is the superannuation provider to the country's largest bank, the Commonwealth Bank. "These customers were forced to pay more for life insurance as well as total and permanent disability insurance, and this has eaten into their superannuation," Shine's Class Actions Practice Leader Rebecca Jancauskas said. "Many of these people are approaching retirement and now their nest egg has shrunk as a result of the conduct of Colonial First State Investments Limited." Ms. Jancauskas said applying the insurance policies to the customers' accounts was "not in their best interests as substantially similar or better policies with cheaper premiums were available through other providers". "This appears to have been a mutually beneficial arrangement that had the effect of putting profits ahead of people," she said. A Colonial First State spokesperson said that the company was "reviewing the claim and will provide an update in due course". One of Shine's clients, David Stuart, said he had "spent hundreds of dollars" on the insurance as part of his super. "I haven't seen any money from that insurance when I tried to make a claim," Mr. Stuart told Shine. "It has taken valuable dollars out of my superannuation when I am already doing it tough. In a class action, we all have a chance at having the money we paid, back in our pockets. It doesn't belong with the banks." Woodsford Litigation Funding is funding the action. Charlie Morris, the organisation's Chief Investment Officer, said a class action "was the best way to deliver justice for those overcharged for insurance". "Many customers may have lost a few thousand dollars, which would not ordinarily be enough to warrant launching individual court actions," Mr. Morris said. Shine Lawyers said the class action, filed in the Federal Court in Victoria on January 22, was open to members of the following superannuation funds: 1. FirstChoice Personal Super and Pension 2. FirstChoice Wholesale Personal Super and Pension 3. FirstChoice Employer Super 4. Commonwealth Essential Super Additionally, members of the above funds must have held life insurance and/or total and permanent disability insurance with CommInsure between January 2014 and January 2020. National Australia Bank's super trustees MLC Nominees and NULIS are also facing a class action, after Maurice Blackburn filed a lawsuit today, January 22, alleging they had breached the law by failing to transfer an estimated 330,000 members into lower-cost MySuper products in a timely fashion. [GN] CORREVIO PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Correvio Pharma Corporation ("Correvio" or the "Company") (CORV) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 19-cv-11361, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Correvio securities between October 23, 2018 and December 5, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Correvio securities during the class period, you have until February 10, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Correvio is a specialty pharmaceutical company that engages in developing therapeutics worldwide. The Company's portfolio of marketed brands comprise, among others, vernakalant IV, or Brinavess, for the rapid conversion of recent onset atrial fibrillation ("AF") to sinus rhythm. Earlier during Brinavess's development, safety concerns led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to decline approval for Brinavess after a patient with no apparent heart issues had died after being administered the drug during one of its clinical trials. The FDA then mandated a clinical hold on the Brinavess program, which remains in effect in the U.S. Correvio's SEC filings would later characterize the patient death that precipitated the clinical hold as "a single unexpected serious adverse event of cardiogenic shock experienced by a patient with AF who received vernakalant (IV)." On October 23, 2018, Correvio announced its intention to resubmit a New Drug Application ("NDA") for Brinavess to the FDA for recent onset AF (the "Resubmitted NDA"), which followed additional purported safety data the Company had accumulated, as well as discussions with the FDA regarding the drug's potential regulatory path forward. The Company later announced on July 25, 2019, that the FDA had accepted the Resubmitted NDA. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the data supporting the Resubmitted NDA for Brinavess did not minimize the significant health and safety issues observed in connection with the drug's original NDA; (ii) the foregoing substantially diminished the likelihood that the FDA would approve the Resubmitted NDA; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 6, 2019, FDA staffers reviewing Brinavess announced that they did not believe that the drug's benefits outweighed its risks. Specifically, the FDA noted that Brinavess was associated with "serious liabilities" including low blood pressure, irregular heartbeats in the lower heart chambers, and death. On this news, Correvio's stock price fell $0.86 per share, or 39.81%, to close at $1.30 per share on December 6, 2019. Then, on December 10, 2019, during pre-market hours, the Nasdaq Stock Market ("NASDAQ") suspended trading in Correvio securities in anticipation of the FDA's Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee's ("RDAC") review and discussion of the Resubmitted NDA. Finally, just before market-close that day, the RDAC voted 11-2 against approval of the Resubmitted NDA, noting that Brinavess's benefit-risk profile was not adequate to support approval. Following this news, and after Correvio shares resumed trading on the NASDAQ, Correvio's stock price fell $0.94 per share, or 67%, to close at $0.46 per share on December 11, 2019, damaging investors. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] COSTCO: Judge Skeptical of Arguments in Seating Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reports that a Ninth Circuit judge appeared skeptical on Jan. 6 of Costco's arguments that a worker who dropped class claims over unprovided seating can't proceed with her Private Attorneys General Act claim on behalf of other workers, calling Costco's arguments circular and very bizarre. [GN] CULTURAL CARE: Misrepresents Costs of Hosting Au Pair, Ohen Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHEREE OHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CULTURAL CARE, INC., Case No. 20-163 (Mass. Super., Jan. 16, 2020), seeks damages arising out of Cultural Care's unfair and deceptive representation relating to the actual cost of hosting an au pair. According to the complaint, Cultural Care intentionally mislead its host families about the actual cost of hosting an au pair to continue to reap millions of dollars in fees Cultural Care took from the au pairs and the host families. Despite pleas from the host families and imploring by the Massachusetts Attorney General, Cultural Care has refused to take responsibility for the au pairs' wages and the exorbitant fees it charged host families, says the complaint. Between 2015 and 2019, Cultural Care continued to advertise its au pair program primarily on the selling point that host families could obtain 45 hours per week of in-home childcare by paying a $195.75 "stipend" to the au pairs. The Plaintiff alleges that Cultural Care never advised its host families that they were responsible for additional wages, or that they may be liable for back wages and exposure to liability under the Massachusetts Wage Act. The Plaintiff was contracted with the Defendant to host an international au pair. Cultural Care is one of only fifteen J-1 visa au pair program sponsors designated by the U.S. Department of State to recruit, train, place and supervise au pairs for fees charged to host families in the United States.[BN] CURO GROUP: Shareholder Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP announces that CURO Group Holdings, Corp. (NYSE: CURO) may face damages caused by a pending securities lawsuit. CURO is a diversified consumer finance company that provides consumer finance to a range of underbanked consumers. If you suffered a loss as a result of CURO's misconduct, visit https://www.robbinsllp.com/curo-group-holdings-jan-20/ Shareholder Class Action Alleging CURO Group Holdings, Corp. (CURO) Made Materially False and Misleading Statements Survives Motion to Dismiss Investors filed a class action complaint against CURO for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the class action complaint, between July 31, 2018 and October 24, 2018, CURO consistently touted the ongoing success of transitioning its Canadian inventory products from Single-Pay Loans to Open-End Loans and reaffirmed its 2018 full-year financial guidance. Despite positive assurances regarding the transition, on October 24, 2018, CURO shocked investors with disappointing results for the Company's third quarter, including Canadian revenue that had decreased by $4.4 million, provision for losses that had increased by $8.7 million, and an adjusted EBITDA that decreased by $15.36 million. As a result, CURO revised its 2018 full-year guidance to include adjusted net income in the range of $88-$91 million compared to the previous range of $110-$116 million and an adjusted EBITDA in the range of $215-$218 million compared to its previous range of $245-$255 million. On this news, CURO's stock price plummeted $7.69, or almost 34%, to close at $15.18 per share. On December 3, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge John W. Lungstrum denied CURO's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims, paving the way for litigation to proceed. CURO Group Holdings, Corp. (CURO) Shareholders Have Legal Options Contact the firm to learn more: Leo Kandinov Robbins LLP Tel: (800) 350-6003 E-mail: lkandinov@robbinsllp.com Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. Click Here to receive free alerts from Stock Watch when companies engage in wrongdoing. [GN] D&A SERVICES LLC: Bagby Disputes Collection Letter Validity ----------------------------------------------------------- Shaniece Bagby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. D&A Services, LLC, Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No 15 LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00237 (E.D. Pa., January 14, 2020) seeks actual damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Defendants are debt collectors who attempted to collect an obligation allegedly incurred by Bagby via collection letter. Bagby claims that said letter left out the requirement that a consumer must dispute the debt in writing. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES 1501 Rydal Rd. Rydal, PA 19046 Tel: (215) 326-9179 Email: ag@garibianlaw.com DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL: Feb. 27 Settlement Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ Schedule B PRE-APPROVAL NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES CANADA INC. (ALSO KNOWN AS TD AUTO FINANCE SERVICES) LOST DATA TAPE CLASS ACTION 500-06-000615-126 www.ChryslerFinancialLostDataTape.ca PROCEEDINGS On January 19, 2015, the Honourable Louis Lacoursiere of the Superior Court of Quebec authorized a class action brought by the Plaintiff Belley on behalf of "all persons in Canada whose personal information was stored or saved on a DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Canada Inc. Data Tape which was lost while in transit on or about March 12, 2008". A Settlement Agreement was recently reached between the parties, which is subject to the approval of the Superior Court of Quebec. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The Settlement provides that Daimler Financial Services Canada Inc. now known as TD Auto Finance Services ("TD Auto"), without admission of liability, will pay a maximum capped amount of $175,000.00 CAD which will be used to pay those Class Members who suffered an actual and direct loss caused by the loss of the Data Tape. The Settlement further provides for the payment of an indemnity to Class Members for time spent dealing with any type of Substantiated Loss and who submit a verified and approved Substantiated Claim up to a maximum of two (2) hours of Lost Time, calculated at a rate of $20.00 CAD per hour, for each category of approved Substantiated Claim. In addition, TD Auto will pay: 1) the fees of the Claims Administrator up to a maximum total cap of $75,000.00 CAD; 2) the cost related to the notices sent to Class Members up to a maximum cap of $75,000.00 CAD; 3) Class Counsel's fees, costs and expenses, in the amount of $150,000.00 CAD plus taxes, as well as 4) the Class Plaintiff's claim in the amount of $5,000.00 CAD. None of these amounts will affect or reduce the amount payable to Class Members for Substantiated Claims. A copy of the Settlement Agreement, the Pre-Approval Order, and other related documentation is available online at www.ChryslerFinancialLostDataTape.ca. AM I A CLASS MEMBER? You are a Class Member if you are a resident of Canada whose personal information was stored or saved on the Data Tape that was lost while in transit on or about March 12, 2008. You may have been notified of this incident in writing on or about March 27, 2008, or in February of 2016. WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS? If you are a Class Member, you have the following two (2) options: 1. If you do not wish to contest the approval of the Settlement Agreement you have nothing to do for the time being. If the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court, you will then have to submit a valid Claim Form before the expiry of the Claim Period in order to obtain compensation for your losses which will be verified by the Claims Administrator; or 2. Contest or comment on the approval of the Settlement Agreement. To object to or comment on the Settlement Agreement, you must deliver a written objection explaining the reasons for your objection / your comments by no later than February 12, 2020. Explanations, deadlines and details regarding the process of objecting to the Settlement are set out in the Settlement Agreement and on the Settlement Website at www.ChryslerFinancialLostDataTape.ca. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PRE-APPROVAL HEARING A hearing during which the Court will be called upon to approve the Settlement Agreement, has been set on February 27, 2020 at the Montreal Courthouse, 1 Notre-Dame Street East, Montreal, Quebec, H2Y 1B6, in room 15.07 at 9:30 a.m. EST. At this hearing, the Court will hear any objection(s)/comments raised by Class Members with respect to the proposed Settlement Agreement, in accordance with the deadlines and procedure set forth in the Settlement Agreement. If you are a Class Member and do not object to the Settlement, you do NOT have to do anything and you do NOT have to attend the Settlement Approval Hearing. HOW DO I SUBMIT A CLAIM? If the Settlement is approved, a further Notice will be issued which will identify and explain how Class Members can submit a claim. HOW DO I OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION? For more information, please contact: Court appointed Claims Administrator Epiq Class Action Services Canada Inc. DaimlerChrysler Financial Lost Data Tape Class Action Settlement P.O. Box 507 STN B Ottawa ON K1P 5P6 1-833-414-8040 info@ChryslerFinancialLostDataTape.ca www.ChryslerFinancialLostDataTape.ca Class Counsel Lex Group Inc. 4101 Sherbrooke Street West Westmount QC H3Z 1A7 514-451-5500 info@lexgroup.ca www.lexgroup.ca Please note that in case of any discrepancy between the terms of this Notice and the Settlement Agreement, the terms of the Settlement Agreement shall prevail. Any term not defined in this Pre- Approval Notice shall have the meaning ascribed in the Settlement Agreement. The publication of this Notice has been ordered by the Superior Court of Quebec. [GN] DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Scarantino Balks at UnitedHealth Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC., BRIAN GRIFFIN, PHILIP R. HAGERMAN, BENJAMIN WOLIN, REGINA BENJAMIN, DAVID C. DREYER, KENNETH KLEPPER, SHAWN C. TOMASELLO, UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, and DENALI MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00066-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of OptumRx, Inc. On December 9, 2019, Diplomat's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Denali Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to purchase all of Diplomat's outstanding common stock for $4.00 per share in cash. The Tender Offer was set to expire on February 7, 2020. On January 9, 2020, the Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading; hence, the Defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation Statement. The Plaintiff asserts that the disclosure of projected financial information is material because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses performed by the company's financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion. The Plaintiff is the owner of Diplomat common stock. Diplomat, through its specialty pharmacy and infusion services, helps people with complex and chronic health conditions in all fifty states and Washington, D.C., partnering with payers, providers, hospitals, and manufacturers. The Individual Defendants are directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com EDDIE BAUER: Workplace Class Action Decertified ----------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently decertified a workplace class action, recognizing that "[e]ven after a certification order is entered," a court "remains free to modify it in the light of subsequent developments in the litigation." In Heredia v. Eddie Bauer, the plaintiffs were hourly retail store employees who alleged unpaid wages for time spent in connection with their employer's policy of performing "bag checks" or "security inspections" when employees left the store. The court had previously certified the class under Rule 23, but reversed course after discovery and an expert "time and motion" study revealed that "the class members did not experience a uniform policy of off-the-clock exit inspections." The plaintiff employee testified at her deposition that all employees underwent security inspections after they clocked out. There was no dispute that the employer's written policies were "silent on whether the employees must clock out before or after undergoing the required security inspections," and according to the court, the defendant employer had presented no evidence of security checks being conducted "on-the-clock." Based on the limited record available to the court at the time, the court certified a class of all California hourly retail store employees under Rule 23, identifying two questions common to the class: whether the employer had a policy and practice to mandate that security checks be performed off-the-clock and, if so, whether the time employees spent undergoing security checks is compensable as wages. After the court's certification decision, the parties conducted additional discovery, including expert discovery and representative discovery from a sample of class members. Expert evidence: The employer's expert conducted a "time and motion" study, observing nearly 1,500 hours of video footage of employees. The expert evidence demonstrated that between 60 and 80 percent of the security inspections took place on the clock. Testimonial evidence: The parties also stipulated what they agreed was a representative sample of class members to be deposed. The defendant employer's summary of those depositions demonstrated that more than 50 percent of the security inspections took place on the clock. Based on the "significantly developed" record, the court concluded that the security inspections for the majority of class members took place on the clock. The court found that its prior conclusion regarding the typicality of the named plaintiff's claims was "no longer supported by the record." Without a uniform policy, the court also found that the class was not ascertainable, holding that "it is impossible to know, without individualized inquiries, which employees have undergone exit inspections off the clock and were subjected to uncompensated time." Thus, the "the question of whether all class members were subject to off-the-clock exit inspections resulting in uncompensated time cannot be resolved in one stroke," and decertification was warranted. Given the variability in the testimony of class members, the court found that "numerous mini trials" would be necessary to "decide whether each employee experienced uncompensated exit inspections," making class treatment inappropriate. Ultimately, the court held that "based on the current record, the class as certified does not satisfy the Rule 23 requirements," and decertified the class. The court noted that had it known there was no single uniform policy in place mandating security inspections off the clock, "[i]t is doubtful that the Court would have certified the class" in the first place. The Heredia decision is a useful reminder that while significant, class certification is not necessarily the end of a rigorous class action defense – especially where a plaintiff moves for class certification before the conclusion of discovery. Moreover, the decision reiterates the strategic benefits of expert evidence (including "time and motion" studies) for defeating class certification, especially when coupled with a plan to amass admissions during discovery. [GN] EXELON CORP: Pomerantz Reminds of Feb. 14 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Exelon Corporation ("Exelon" or the "Company") (EXC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and docketed under 19-cv-08209, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Exelon securities between February 9, 2019 and November 1, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Exelon securities during the class period, you have until February 14, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Exelon is a utility services holding company that engages in energy generation and delivery businesses in the U.S. and Canada. Exelon owns various "Utility Registrants" that are regulated by State utility commissions, including, among other entities, Commonwealth Edison ("ComEd"). ComEd's parent company is Exelon Utilities. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Exelon and/or its employees were engaged in unlawful lobbying activities; (ii) the foregoing increased the risk of a criminal investigation into Exelon; (iii) ComEd's revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (iv) that, as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 15, 2019, during pre-market hours, Exelon filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that both Exelon and ComEd had "received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois requiring production of information concerning their lobbying activities in the State of Illinois." Then, on October 9, 2019, during pre-market hours, Exelon filed another Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that, on October 4, 2019, both Exelon and ComEd "received a second grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois that requires production of records of any communications with certain individuals and entities, including Illinois State Senator Martin Sandoval." That Current Report also disclosed that, as far back as "[o]n June 21, 2019, the Exelon Corporation Board formed a Special Oversight Committee, consisting solely of independent directors, to oversee [Exelon and ComEd's] cooperation and compliance with the subpoena, any further action taken by the U.S. Attorney and any resulting actions that may be required or recommended." On October 15, 2019, shortly before the market closed, Exelon issued a press release announcing the abrupt departure of Anne Pramaggiore ("Pramaggiore"), Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of Exelon Utilities, and former President/CEO of ComEd. The Company's statement on Pramaggiore's retirement offered no reason for her departure, but analysts following the Company came to the conclusion that the criminal subpoenas and Pramaggiore's abrupt resignation were related. On this news, Exelon's stock price fell $2.15 per share, or 4.57%, to close at $44.91 per share on October 16, 2019. Then, on October 31, 2019, during intraday trading, Exelon filed a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the SEC, disclosing that "[o]n October 22, 2019, the SEC notified Exelon and ComEd that it has also opened an investigation into their lobbying activities." On this news, Exelon's stock price fell $1.17 per share, or 2.51%, to close at $45.49 per share on October 31, 2019. Finally, on November 1, 2019, after the market opened, the Chicago Tribune reported that "[a] source with knowledge of the case in Chicago" confirmed that "Pramaggiore is one focus of the ongoing federal investigation." According to the same article, "[t]he ComEd lobbying investigation dates to at least mid-May, when the FBI executed search warrants at the homes of former lobbyist Mike McClain of Quincy, a longtime confidant of House Speaker Michael Madigan, and of former 23rd Ward Ald. Michael Zalewski" (emphasis added). Additionally, "[t]he information sought by the FBI included records of communications among Madigan, McClain and Zalewski about attempts to obtain ComEd lobbying work for Zalewski." On this news, Exelon's stock price fell an additional $0.15 per share to close at $45.34 per share on November 1, 2019--a total decline of 2.83% since the initial announcement of the SEC investigation. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Justices Won't Halt $35-Bil. Privacy Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the Supreme Court on Jan. 21, 2020, denied Facebook's last-ditch effort to derail a $35 billion class action claiming the company harvested millions of users' facial data without consent. The Supreme Court's denial means a trial initially scheduled to start in July 2018 will soon be placed back on the calendar. The trial was postponed pending appeal in May 2018. "For many corporate defendants, justice delayed is justice," class attorney Paul Gellar, Esq. --PGeller@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, said in an emailed statement. "We are pleased to have cleared yet another hurdle and intend to proceed with alacrity in this important case at the intersection of technology and privacy." Lead plaintiff Nimesh Patel sued Facebook in 2015 in one of three consolidated class actions, claiming the social network started mapping users' faces for its "Photo Tag Suggest" function in 2011. They say Facebook did so without their permission and failed to inform them how long their data would be stored as required by the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act of 2008. Facebook had argued users lack standing to sue because they suffered no "concrete harm," such as a loss of money, as a result of the alleged violation. In August 2019, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel rejected those arguments, finding the loss of control over one's private information is a real-world injury. Writing for the panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote that "a concrete injury need not be tangible." The San Francisco-based appeals court later rejected Facebook's request for an en banc rehearing. In December, Facebook filed a petition for review with U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the Ninth Circuit's decision created a circuit split on two critical issues, for which guidance from the nation's highest court was needed. Facebook said the Ninth Circuit's opinion differed from rulings issued by the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, which held plaintiffs must not only show a law protects a "concrete interest" but also that violation of the law harmed the plaintiff "in a personal and individual way." Additionally, Facebook argued the Ninth Circuit wrongly held plaintiffs could sue based on the risk of future misuse of their private information. According to Facebook, the First, Third, Fourth and D.C. Circuits have held the possibility that one's personal information may be misused does not create standing unless there is "an imminent risk of injury." Facebook further agued the Ninth Circuit failed to decide a critical issue for class certification – whether the alleged the violation occurred when out-of-state Facebook servers scanned users' faces or when users uploaded their photos in Illinois. The social media giant maintains that because facial data was scanned and stored on servers outside the state, it cannot be sued for violating Illinois law. Facebook's petition for review was one of 68 the Supreme Court denied in an order list filed January 21. The Supreme Court gave no reasons for the denial. The case will now go back to U.S. District Judge James Donato's court in San Francisco. Before the case was stayed pending appeal, the judge had ordered Facebook to alert millions of users about the lawsuit through emails, newsfeed posts, and "jewel" notifications, or Facebook alerts. Facebook could be liable for $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each knowing violation of the Illinois law. With a class of potentially 7 million Facebook users, damages could exceed $35 billion. The Menlo Park-based tech giant had argued that users should not be allowed to bring a class action that could make it liable for an absurd amount of damages. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument last year, finding no indication that the Illinois Legislature "intended to place a cap on statutory damages." A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment. Facebook lawyers Lauren Goldman, Esq. -- lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown and Michael Graham Rhodes of Cooley LLP, did not immediately return emails requesting comment January 21, morning. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Removes Doshier Suit to E.D. Arkansas --------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of WILLIAM F. DOSHIER; and DOTSTRATEGY, CO., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Arkansas, County of Faulkner (Case No. 23CV-18-1018) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on January 18, 2019. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of Arkansas assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00170-JCS. The case is assigned to Judge William Alsup. Facebook, Inc. operates a social networking website. The Company website allows people to communicate with their family, friends, and coworkers. Facebook develops technologies that facilitate the sharing of information, photographs, website links, and videos. Facebook users have the ability to share and restrict information based on their own specific criteria. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Karen L. Dunn, Esq. Martha L. Goodman, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: kdunn@bsfllp.com mgoodman@bsfllp.com - and - Kathleen R. Hartnett, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 435 Tasso Street, Suite 205 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 445-6400 Facsimile: (650) 329-8507 E-mail: khartnett@bsfllp.com - and - Marshall S. Ney, Esq. FRIDAY ELDREDGE & CLARK LLP 3350 S. Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 301 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 695-6049 Facsimile: (501) 244-5389 E-mail: mney@fridayfirm.com FARMERS GROUP: Bid for Class Certification Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CHARLES GRIGSON AND ROBERT VALE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS, the PLAINTIFFS v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No. 1:17-CV-88-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Lee Yeakel entered an order on Jan. 30, 2020 dismissing without prejudice the following motions: -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed on March 12, 2019; and -- Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and Strike the Affidavit of Michael Averill filed on May 20,2019; and On December 16, 2019, the court rendered an order granting preliminarily approval of class action settlement and direction of notice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e). The motions are all dismissed pursuant to the December 16, 2019 order. Farmers Group operates as an insurance management and holding company. The company manages an auto and home insurer, and a property and casualty insurance group.[CC] FIRST SAVINGS BANK: Becker Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Bonnie Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. First Savings Bank, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00043, (D. N.M., January 14, 2020) seeks monetary damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief arising from unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of overdraft fees resulting from breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for violation of the Electronic Fund Transfers Act and the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act. Becker owns "Oma's Slice of Heaven," that has a checking account with FSB. First Savings is a bank with branch locations in South Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, Nebraska, Texas and Arizona. Becker claims that First Savings charged overdraft fees on transactions that did not actually overdraw the account despite their policy that they will only charge overdraft fees on transactions when such transactions cause the account to have a negative balance. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Koluncich, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS KOLUNCICH III, LLC 500 Marquette Ave NW - Suite 1200 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone (505) 881-2228 Fax: (505) 881-4288 - and - Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Tel: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com FIRST SOLAR: Settles Arizona Class Action for US$350 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Bryan Shin, writing for Financial Buzz, reports that First Solar, Inc. announced the entry into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle a class action lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona -- Smilovitz v. First Solar, Inc. The lawsuit was filed previously in 2012. The company has agreed to settle claims with a payout of USD 350 Million that will be distributed to the individuals who purchased or acquired shares of the company between April 30th, 2008 - February 28th, 2012. The settlement must be approved by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. "We are confident that resolving this matter is the right business decision for First Solar and its shareholders," said Mark Widmar, Chief Executive Officer of First Solar. "While we are confident in the facts and the merits of our position, we believe it is prudent to end this protracted and uncertain class action litigation process, and focus on driving the business forward. We remain in a strong financial position, are pleased with our progress with Series 6 and our contracted customer pipeline, and are focused on executing our global strategy and serving our customers." The company anticipated that the USD 350 Million will be utilized in the results of operations and financial condition of the company for the fiscal year ended December 31st, 2019. [GN] FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: March 2 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of the publicly-traded company Forescout Technologies, Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT) FSCT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 7, 2019 - October 9, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 2, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/forescout-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=5165&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Forescout Technologies, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Forescout was experiencing significant volatility with respect to large deals and issues related to the timing and execution of deals in the Company's pipeline, especially in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa; (ii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Reminds of March 2 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Forescout Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSCT) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 20-cv-00076, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Forescout securities between February 7, 2019, and October 9, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Forescout securities during the class period, you have until March 2, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Forescout was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. The Company provides network security products in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and Japan, selling its products and services through distributors and resellers. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Forescout was experiencing significant volatility with respect to large deals and issues related to the timing and execution of deals in the Company's pipeline, especially in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa ("EMEA"); (ii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 10, 2019, during pre-market hours, Forescout issued a press release announcing preliminary third quarter 2019 ("3Q19") financial results. That press release lowered 3Q19 revenue guidance to $90.6 million from $91.6 million, compared to prior revenue guidance of $98.8 million to $101.8 million, and market consensus of $100.52 million. In explaining these results, Defendants cited "extended approval cycles which pushed several deals out of the third quarter," which "was most pronounced in EMEA." On this news, Forescout's stock price fell $14.63 per share, or 37.32%, to close at $24.57 per share on October 10, 2019. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. Contact: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] FRANKLIN LOAN: Berengut Seeks Fines Under PAGA Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARK BERENGUT, individually and on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees v. FRANKLIN LOAN CORPORATION, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20VECV00068 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16, 2020), seeks penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code, arising from the Defendants' failure to pay aggrieved employees all wages, including minimum and regular wages for all hours worked and premium wages for overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to provide off-duty meal and rest periods, to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and to timely pay all wages due during and upon separation of employment. From Aug. 19, 2018, until April 18, 2018, Mr. Berengut was an employee of Franklin Loan with the position and/or title of "Mortgage Banker." He contends that he and all other Mortgage Bankers were uniformly and systematically misclassified as "outside sales" exempt employees, and were paid purely on commissions from loans generated and funded. The Defendants have operated banking operations in every major County in California accumulating customers and lead through their banking operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Singer, Esq. J. Jason Hill, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com jhill@ckslaw.com HARROW HEALTH: Gaukel Class Action Dismissed -------------------------------------------- Harrow Health, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 28, 2019, that the class action suit initiated by Anna Sue Gaukel and Lawrence Gaukel had been dismissed. In June 2019, Anna Sue Gaukel and Lawrence Gaukel served Harrow Health, Inc. with a lawsuit filed in state court in Idaho against the Company asserting class action allegations and product liability claims related to Mrs. Gaukel's doctor's use of a compounded drug injection in each of her eyes. The case was subsequently removed to Federal Court. On January 24, 2020, the Plaintiffs and the Company filed a joint stipulation, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. No economic consideration was exchanged between the parties related to the filing of the joint stipulation. This formally resolved all disputes between the parties as connected to this matter. Harrow Health, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, produces, and sells medications for unmet needs primarily in the United States. The company primarily provides ophthalmology based formulations to physicians and patients; and sterile and non-sterile compounded medications. The company was formerly known as Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to Harrow Health, Inc. in December 2018. Harrow Health, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. HSBC BANK: Settles Class Action Over Spam Calls for $2.4MM ---------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Maynard, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that following several years of litigation, HSBC Bank has agreed to pay $2.4 million to settle a class action lawsuit from consumers who said they received spam phone calls from the company. Originally filed in 2015, the suit claimed that HSBC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection ACT (TCPA) by using an automatic dialing system to call plaintiffs on their cell phones. The law, which was passed in 1991, protects consumers from calls using these systems, as well as fax, SMS, and pre-recorded voice messages. Over 160,000 class members were sent notices of the judgment in the mail, and another 70,000 have received emails about the suit. The judgment notes that class members would have received around $60 each when preliminary approval was granted for the settlement. However, that number has now bumped up to approximately $92 for each class member who submitted a claim form. "The court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable, appears to be the product of arm's-length and informed negotiations, and treats all members of the class fairly," the settlement order states. [GN] JAKARTA: Lawyers, Flood Survivors Mull Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Lenny Tristia Tambun, writing for Jakarta Globe, reports that Jakarta's provincial government is facing the prospect of a class action lawsuit from residents impacted by the disastrous New Year's Day floods that have so far killed 67 people. A group of lawyers and flood victims, who call themselves the Jakarta Flood Victims Advocacy Team, announced on Jan. 5 their intention to bring the city administration to court for "negligence and inability to prevent and overcome floods." "We've assessed the problems that have occured [because of the negligence] and the losses suffered by the community thanks to that negligence, [which is] against the law. We invite other [flood victims] to bring this class action suit together," Alvon Kurnia Palma, the advocacy team's spokesperson, said on Jan. 5. This will be the second class action the Jakarta administration will have to deal with for its inadequate handling of disasters. A group of flood victims also brought the administration to court in 2007 but lost the lawsuit. Yayan Yuhanah, the head of the city's legal department, said it has not received any notice of a new lawsuit. But, he said the city is ready to go to court if necessary. "Yes, we will face the suit. We won't be running away from it," Yayan said. Jakarta suffered its worst flood in five years. Torrential rains -- the worst in more than two decades according to the weather agency -- put more than half of the city's subdistricts and many areas in the capital's satellite cities under water. The National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) has updated the death toll from the floods in Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang and Bekasi to 67. Prasetio Edi Marsudi, the Jakarta city council (DPRD Jakarta) speaker, said he supported the flood victims' class action against the provincial government. "That's their right. Everyone who feels aggrieved by the flood can file a lawsuit," Prasetio said. "Some of these residents think the severity of the flood was due to the provincial government's inadequate response. The city lacked preparation [against floods]. Its flood management was practically non-existent," Prasetio said. [GN] JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Scavone Sues Over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Tatyana Scavone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00287 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2020), seeks to recover damages for the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's allegation that the Plaintiff owed $1,158.06, when the Plaintiff did not owe this amount to the entity on whose behalf the Defendant was seeking to collect, is a false representation made by the Defendant in connection with its collection of the alleged Debt. The alleged Debt is an alleged obligation of the Plaintiff to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Jefferson Capital provides financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com JEROME H MEYER: Faces McNeil Suit Over Violation of Chicago RLTO ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kristine McNeil, Individually And As Representative of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons v. JEROME H. MEYER & CO. & 525 WEST DEMING, L.L.C., Case No. 2020CH01443 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 4, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance in connection with the Plaintiff's tenancy with the Defendants. The Deming building is a large residential apartment building in Chicago containing over 50 residential rental dwelling units, with tenants currently living there. The Deming Building was owned by 525 West Deming, L.L.C. The Defendant, Jerome H. Meyer & Co., was/is the lessor, manager, authorized agent for the Owner, and landlord of the Deming Building during the Plaintiff's tenancy. As part of their manager responsibilities with all buildings owned or managed by JHM, supervised, prepared and offered rental agreements and renewals, with disclosures, to Chicago tenants and prospective tenants. On October 1, 2018, JHM initially offered the Plaintiff a 31-page rental agreement for her dwelling unit. The Plaintiff contends that JHM failed to provide her with an updated RLTO Summary from the Commissioner of the Department of Housing when her rental agreement was initially offered. She notes that JHM provides/provided its own, "copy and paste version" of the RLTO Summary, which was not directly from the City of Chicago. Ms. McNeil alleges that the unofficial RLTO Summary version provided omits 1 of the 4 pages of the RLTO Summary (the Chicago Rents Rights cover page) which contains the phone number "312-742-RENT (7368) for further "information" about Chicago renters rights. The Plaintiff, as the representative party, seeks adjudication in her favor and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. The Plaintiff fully understands her rights and other class members' rights under the Chicago RLTO Section 5-12-170, says the complaint. Plaintiff Kristine McNeil was a tenant at 525 W. Deming, Unit #321, in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron A. Krolik, Esq. AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.A. 225 W. Washington St., suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 924-0278 Fax: (312) 650-8241 Email: akrolik@securitydepositlaw.com - and - Mark Silverman, Esq. MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD. 225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 775-1015 Fax: (312) 256-2055 Email: mark@depositlaw.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Grants FLSA Conditional Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- OPHELIA HAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-2174-T-33AEP (M.D. Fla., Filed June 25, 2019), the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington entered an order on Feb. 5, 2020: 1. granting Plaintiff's Motion for Fair Labor Standards Act Conditional Certification and Notice: "all persons who are, have been, or will be employed by Defendant as exempt classified "Investigators," "Investigations Specialists," and other similar investigation employees in similar job titles in Chase's Fraud Compliance Operations and Investigations ("FCOI") Division within the United States at any time during the last three years through the entry of judgment in this case and who did not sign a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement; 2. directing Defendant to produce to Plaintiff, within 14 days of the concerning date potential of this opt-in Order, the plaintiff information; and 3. directing the Parties to meet and confer with respect to any remaining objections to certain provisions of the notice (to the extent not already addressed by the Court). After consulting with defense counsel, Plaintiff's counsel shall file a motion for approval of the revised proposed notice within 14 days of the date of this Order, noting any objections to the proposed notice which have not been resolved by the parties. The Court said, "To the extent Chase tenders competing declarations, the Court declines to engage in a credibility analysis. The Court finds that Hawkins has met her fairly lenient burden at this stage of showing that there are similarly situated FCOI Investigators who wish to opt into this litigation." JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase Bank, is a national bank headquartered in Manhattan that constitutes the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the U.S. multinational banking and financial services holding company, JPMorgan Chase.[CC] KRAFT FOOD: Must Face Commodities Traders' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Kraft Food Group Inc. must face a certified class action by commodities traders alleging a long-running scheme by the processed foods giant to manipulate the wheat futures market, a Chicago federal judge ruled. The antitrust suit accuses Kraft of buying $90 million in wheat futures in late 2011--well more than it legitimately needed--and maintaining its position for months while ceasing all cash purchases. The move misled traders into believing that the company, a major bulk buyer, was meeting its wheat needs solely through futures, according to the suit. [GN] LEADDOG MARKETING: Davies Seeks Overtime Pay, Missing Pay Stubs --------------------------------------------------------------- Annie Davies, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Leaddog Marketing Group and CSM Sport & Entertainment LLP, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00351 (S.D. N.Y., January 15, 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. LeadDog Marketing Group is a provider of advertising and marketing services. CSM Sport & Entertainment acquired ownership of Leaddog in or about 2016. Davies was jointly employed by the defendants as a Senior Account Coordinator up to June 2017 at their New York City offices. She claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime pay including those hours he when he worked through his break times. She also claims to not receiving any wage statement.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Hoffmann, Esq. HOFFMANN & ASSOCIATES 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1400 New York, NY 10123 Tel: (212) 679-0400 Fax: (212) 679-1080 LENNAR INC: Treasure Island Residents File $2 Billion Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jay Barmann, writing for SF News, reports that 47 named residents of Treasure Island are suing the developers, contractors, and city and state entities involved in the redevelopment of the island, claiming among other things that they were misled about radioactive contamination levels on the island. The lawsuit, filed January 21, 2020, in San Francisco Superior Court, seeks to halt the development project slated to bring 8,000 new residential units to the island, and seeks $2 billion in damages for as many as 2,000 current residents of Treasure Island. As the SF Business Times reports, named defendants include the developer Lennar Inc., its offshoot Five Point Holdings, and two Navy contractors Tetra Tech, the company implicated in falsifying soil samples in the cleanup of the Naval shipyard at Hunters Point in San Francisco. Also named in the suit are the Treasure Island Development Authority, the Treasure Island Homeless Development Initiative, and San Francisco's Department of Public Health. After the U.S. Navy ceased operations on the island in the 1990s and civilians -- including the formerly homeless -- began moving into rehabbed housing units there, the lawsuit alleges that the Navy did not adequately measure "the levels of cesium-137, a fission byproduct, in soil samples dating back to the 1970s." And the suit says that "In reality, contamination levels are some three times higher than the Navy reported, and 60 percent higher than the Navy's own safety guidelines." Dustups over the contaminated soil on the island date back several years, and as the Examiner reported last May, residents were battling displacement even as they were complaining about the potential toxic effects of the land they've been living on. One former resident, Andre Patterson, claims he was retaliated against and "thrown off the island" for complaining that he had been diagnosed with cancer and spoke out about it. Ground was ostensibly broken on the mega-project on Treasure Island in 2016, with evictions of some existing residents dating back to the fall of 2015. But there has been plenty of controversy ever since about the relocation of residents on the island, with a report in October 2019 detailing how those residents who had lived there since 2011, when an agreement was signed for the redevelopment project, have more relocation benefit options than those who have been there for less time. The first new residential units, which some residents will be eligible to inhabit, are set to be complete as soon as May 2021, with the entire redevelopment project extending in phases for 15 years, to 2035. But now this lawsuit may further stymie the process, with existing residents now seeking monetary compensation for the contamination they've been living with. In September 2019, as Curbed reported, the Navy disclosed that it had found a "basketball-sized" chunk of "low-level radioactive dirt buried beneath the front door of a Treasure Island home." This was after earlier soil remediation efforts had purportedly taken place, but the Navy insists that Treasure Island poses "no health risk to local residents or the public." Assessing that risk and any ongoing radioactivity will apparently be key in how far the class-action suit gets. [GN] LEXISNEXIS RISK: Court Compels Discovery Responses in Gaston Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DELORIS GASTON, and LEONARD GASTON, Plaintiffs, v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., and POLICEREPORTS.US, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:16-CV-009-KDB-DCK (W.D. N.C.), Magistrate Judge David S. Keesler of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Statesville Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Discovery Responses. The Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit with the filing of a Class Action Complaint on Jan. 12, 2016. They then filed a Class Action Amended Complaint on May 12, 2016. The Complaint asserts a cause of action against LexisNexis and PoliceReports for violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants obtained Putative Class Representatives' and Class Members' Personal Information from Motor Vehicle Records ("MVRs") maintained by the State Motor Vehicle Department, for purposes that violate the DPPA including: processing, re-disclosing, reselling personal information. On June 7, 2016, the Defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr. summarily denied their motion on Sept. 13, 2017. The Defendants then filed a Motion For Certification Of An Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) on Oct. 11, 2017. Judge Cogburn denied their motion for an interlocutory appeal on Nov. 13, 2017, stating that it was clear that the Plaintiffs had stated a cognizable cause of action. The Court issued a "Pretrial Order And Case Management Plan" on March 6, 2018. The "Case Management Plan" included the following deadlines: discovery completion – Oct. 1, 2019; mediation report – Oct. 15, 2019; dispositive motions – Nov. 1, 2019, and a trial ready date – Feb. 17, 2020. The case was reassigned to the Honorable Kenneth D. Bell on June 14, 2019. The Plaintiffs' first Motion To Compel Discovery Responses And Sanctions and Extend Discovery By 90 Days was filed Aug. 22, 2019. On Sept. 18, 2019, at the Plaintiffs' request, Magistrate Judge Keesler held a telephone conference to discuss the pending discovery dispute(s) raised in the Plaintiffs' motion, as well as Keith Clinic Estramonte Chiropractic, P.A.'s Motion To Quash. At the conclusion of that telephone conference, the Magistrate Judge directed the counsel for both sides to further confer in an attempt to resolve their disputes, and encouraged the Plaintiffs' counsel to narrow the discovery requests while advising the Defendants' counsel that they were going to have to respond more fully to the Plaintiffs' discovery requests. Keith Clinic Estramonte Chiropractic, P.A.'s Motion To Quash was withdrawn on Oct. 1, 2019. In addition, the Plaintiffs' counsel provided email updates to the undersigned's staff indicating that the issues in their pending motion to compel were being substantially narrowed or resolved. The Plaintiffs' counsel failed to provide an update the next week, or the week after, and on Nov. 4, 2019, the Court denied the motion to compel, without prejudice. On Nov. 7, 2019, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to reconsider its denial of the motion to compel and to issue a new order compelling the Defendants to respond fully and completely to all of their First and Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production and to comply with a 30(b)(6) notice of deposition. Contrary to the parties' purported progress resolving their disputes, the counsel have not only failed to resolve or narrow the issues, but have now expanded their dispute to include all of the Plaintiffs' discovery requests. The Plaintiffs argue that they only discovered on Nov. 1, 2019, that the Defendants had repeatedly provided improper/incomplete responses to Interrogatory No. 1 by identifying four entities that purchased the Gaston accident report as an individual report, and not identifying many other entities that purchased the report as "monthly subscription users" or "monthly subscription holders." The Plaintiffs contend that by withholding the information, the Defendants misled the Plaintiffs and delayed discovery for months. They further argue that they need documents from the Defendant that show all the entities that received the Gastons', and other class members, accident reports. They need records of the Defendants' payments to the law enforcement agencies to confirm that the Plaintiffs have received records of all the disclosed accident reports, and to measure the amount that the Defendants profited from the activity. Judge Keesler denied the Motion For Reconsideration Of Order On Motion To Compel, but allowed the Plaintiffs an extension of time to file a new motion -- following a final attempt by the counsel to resolve their discovery disputes. Now pending is the Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Discovery Responses filed on Nov. 15, 2019. They request that the Court compels the Defendants to: respond completely with respect to their First Set of Interrogatories dated Oct. 11, 2018, the Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents served on May 3, 2019, and their Notices of Depositions. The Plaintiffs contend that despite months of meet and confers between the parties, the Defendants still refuse to answer significant parts of their discovery requests. Magistrate Judge Keesler holds that it is unfortunate that the capable counsel on both sides of this lawsuit have failed to at least narrow the issues in the discovery dispute, even after multiple conversations and correspondence with each other and a telephone conference with the Court. After careful consideration of the record and the parties' briefs and attachments, as well as arguments during the Court's telephone conference, the Magistrate Judge finds that the motion to compel should be granted. The rules of discovery are to be accorded broad and liberal construction, and the undersigned finds that much of the information sought by the Plaintiffs is proportional to the needs of the case, and thus discoverable. The admissibility of that information will be a decision for another day. The Defendants will provide full responses or amend/supplement their responses to the Plaintiffs' discovery requests as follows: A. The Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories: (i) No. 1 - Defendants will supplement response to include requested identification information for all monthly subscription users/subscribers who could have accessed any of the Gastons' accident reports; (ii) No. 2 - Defendants will supplement response; (iii) No. 3 - Defendants will provide supplemental response confirming position; (iv) No. 4 - Defendants will provide supplemental response confirming position; (v) No. 5 - Defendants will provide the total number of accident reports the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) transmitted to PoliceReports.US (PRUS) from Jan. 1, 2012 to present; (vi) f. No. 6 - Defendants will supplement response, to the extent the information is not already provided in their supplement to No. 1; (vii) No. 9 - Defendants will supplement response; and (viii) No. 10 - Defendants will supplement response with organizational charts with employees names and positions -- as offered by the Defendants. B. Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories (i) No. 15 - The undersigned finds this request to be overly broad; however, the Defendants will amend/supplement response to identify persons who have knowledge of the policies, practices and procedures they employed concerning the manner of assessing whether or not their customers or users of their accident data were 'permitted users' as defined by 18 U.S.C. 2721, et. seq. To the extent the Defendants contend responsive information is privileged, they will provide a privilege log; (ii) No. 16 - Further supplementation not required; (iii) No. 17 - The Defendants will amend/supplement response to identify all policies, practices or procedures they used, at any time during the relevant time period, to assess whether or not your customers or users of your accident data were 'permitted users' as defined by 18 U.S.C. 2721, et. seq. The response to the request should include a description of any proposed or implemented changes to that policy, practice, or procedures used during that time frame. C. Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents: (i) No. 2 - The undersigned finds this request to be overly broad; further supplementation not required; (ii) No. 4 - Defendants will supplement response to the extent necessary to provide requested documents as to the Gastons; (iii) No. 5 - Defendants will produce responsive documents from the relevant time period; (iv) No. 6 - Defendants will produce responsive documents from the relevant time period; (v) No. 7 - Defendants will produce documents as they have indicated they will; (vi) No. 8 - Defendants will produce documents as they have indicated they will; (vii) No. 9 - Defendants will produce responsive, non-privileged documents from the relevant time period, including: all correspondence of any kind between the Defendants and a third-party or customer regarding permissive use as defined by 18 U.S.C. 2721, et. seq, or any other statute, including all correspondence between CMPD and the Defendants; (viii) No. 10 - Defendants will produce responsive documents from the relevant time period; (ix) No. 11 - Defendants will produce responsive documents from the relevant time period; (x) No. 12 - Defendants will produce responsive documents from the relevant time period; (xi) No. 14 - Defendants will produce responsive, non-privileged documents from the relevant time period; (xii) No. 15 - Defendants will produce responsive, non-privileged documents from the relevant time period; (xiii) No. 17 - No further response required; (xiv) No. 18 - Defendants will respond to the extent there are commercial agreements for the purchase or sale of accident reports between the Defendants and third parties, that the Defendants have not already produced. The Court declines to compel all related documents and ESI. (xv) No. 19 - Defendants will produce copies of all contracts between the Defendants and CMPD and all law enforcement agencies in New York. The Court declines to compel all related documents and ESI; (xvi) No. 20 - Defendants will produce responsive documents including correspondence with CMPD and law enforcement agencies in New York regarding the DPPA; (xvii) No. 21 - Defendants will produce documents showing sales and revenue from the sale of accident reports from CMPD and law enforcement agencies in New York; (xviii) No. 22 - Defendants will provide responsive documents, including organizational charts for both the Defendants, as requested; (xix) No. 27 - It appears the request is currently off the table. No further action required at this time; (xx) No. 28 - Defendants will supplement response as proposed. See (Document No. 76, p. 18); (xxi) No. 29 - No production required at this time; and (xxii) No. 30 - No production required at this time; (xxiii) No. 31 - No production required at this time. To the extent necessary, the parties will work together to clarify search terms and appropriately deal with confidential and/or privileged documents consistent with the Rules and the Joint Stipulated Protective Order in a good faith effort to provide responses consistent with the directions stated. The Defendants will also make representatives available for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A), the Defendants will pay the Plaintiffs' reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, associated with preparing and filing Document Nos. 72 and 77. Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Keesler granted the Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Discovery Responses. The Defendants was to provide full and complete discovery responses as directed on Jan. 13, 2020. The Defendants' counsel was to confer with the Plaintiffs' counsel by telephone or in person, on Jan. 20, 2020, in a good faith attempt to arrange the Defendants' payment of reasonable expenses and attorney's fees as directed. If the counsel for the parties was unable to resolve the issue of expenses and fees without further Court intervention, the Plaintiffs' counsel may file a motion with appropriate supporting documentation that seeks such relief on Jan. 24, 2020. The case deadlines are revised as follows: (i) discovery completion - March 13, 2020; (ii) mediation report - March 27, 2020; (iii) dispositive motions - April 10, 2020; (iv) trial - Sept. 21, 2020. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/S8bwSp from Leagle.com. Deloris Gaston, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Wilkerson, The Van Winkle Law Firm. Deloris Gaston, Plaintiff, represented by Eugene Clark Covington, Jr., Covington, Patrick, Hagins, Stern & Lewis, P.A., pro hac vice, Heather Whitaker Goldstein, The Van Winkle Law Firm & Larry S. McDevitt -- --lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com -- -- The Van Winkle Law Firm. Leonard Gaston, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Wilkerson, The Van Winkle Law Firm, Eugene Clark Covington, Jr., Covington, Patrick, Hagins, Stern & Lewis, P.A., pro hac vice, Heather Whitaker Goldstein, The Van Winkle Law Firm & Larry S. McDevitt, The Van Winkle Law Firm. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Kyle Deak -- kyle.deak@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP, Hsiao (Mark) C. Mao -- mark.mao@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice & Ronald I. Raether, Jr. -- ron.raether@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders, pro hac vice. PoliceReports.US, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis Kyle Deak, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Hsiao (Mark) C. Mao, Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice & Ronald I. Raether, Jr., Troutman Sanders, pro hac vice. LIBERTY INSURANCE: Dismissal of Roof Coverage Class Action Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that the Sixth Circuit on Jan. 6 upheld the dismissal of a homeowner's proposed class action accusing Liberty Insurance Corp. of defrauding policyholders by refusing to pay the full cost to replace roofs damaged by wind or hail, saying Liberty's policies clearly limited coverage in such circumstances. [GN] LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit in Conn. --------------------------------------------------------------- LifeVantage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35 (D. Conn., filed Jan. 24, 2018). In this action, Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing Officer operated a pyramid scheme in violation of a variety of federal and state statutes, including RICO and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. On April 16, 2018, the Company filed motions with the court to dismiss the complaint against LifeVantage, dismiss the complaint against the Company's executives, transfer the venue of the case from the State of Connecticut to the State of Utah, and contest class certification. On July 23, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation with the Court agreeing to transfer the case to the Federal District Court for Utah. On September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in Utah. As per the parties stipulated agreement, Plaintiff's amended complaint dropped the RICO and Connecticut state law claims and removed the Company's Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing Officer as individual defendants (the Chief Executive Officer remains a defendant in the case). The Plaintiffs' amended complaint added an antitrust claim, alleging that the Company fraudulently obtained patents for its products and is attempting to use those patents in an anti-competitive manner. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on November 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a response to the Company's Motion to Dismiss on December 17, 2018, and the Company filed a reply brief on January 10, 2019. The Court ruled on the motion on December 5, 2019, dismissing three of the Plaintiff's four claims, including the antitrust claim, unjust enrichment claim, and the securities claim for the sale of unregistered securities. On December 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which included three causes of action, including a 10(b)(5) securities fraud claim, and renewed claims relating to the sale of unregistered securities and unjust enrichment. The Company's response is due on January 28, 2020. LifeVantage said, "The Company has not established a loss contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations or financial conditions." LifeVantage Corporation engages in the identification, research, development, and distribution of nutraceutical dietary supplements and skin care products. The company sells its products through a direct sales model, as well as a network of independent distributors in the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, and Taiwan. LifeVantage Corporation is headquartered in Sandy, Utah. LONGFIN CORP: Investors Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------ Law360 reports that investors in shuttered cryptocurrency company Longfin Corp. asked a New York federal judge last month to certify their class so they can seek default judgment in their private securities class action accusing the company of inflating its investor numbers on the heels of a 2017 offering. [GN] LUSAMERICA FOODS: Brooke Seeks Unpaid OT and Final Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Jeremiah Brooke, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lusamerica Foods, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CV361692 (Cal. Super., January 14, 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, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Brooke was employed by Lusamerica Foods as a non-exempt driver, receiving a "piece-rate" compensation based on distance traveled. He claims to be unpaid for non-driving and/or non-mileage related work. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Singer, Esq. Kristina De La Rosa, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 Email: msinger@ckslaw.com kdelarosa@ckslaw.com MANFREDINI LANDSCAPING: Gatica Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Over 40 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Gatica, on behalf of themselves, and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Manfredini Landscaping and Design Co., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00260, (N.D. Ill., January 14, 2020), seeks liquidated damages equal to the amount of all unpaid compensation, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred and additional relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Manfredini is engaged in landscaping where Gatica worked as a landscaper. He claims to have been denied time and one-half his regular or effective hourly rate for work performed in excess of forty hours within a statutory workweek. Gatica also claims that Defendant took out unauthorized deductions from his paycheck. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel. (312) 853-1450 Website: www.billhornlaw.com MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN: $25K Attorneys' Fees in Pentel Suit Awarded ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RANDOLPH PENTEL, KIM POVOLNY, MICHELLE POVOLNY, MICHAEL POVOLNY, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL SHEPARD and CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-1447 (NEB/TNL) (D. Minn.), Judge Nancy E. Brasel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part the Settling Plaintiffs' motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as modified. Together with Pentel and Michael Povolny ("Non-Settling Plaintiffs"), Michelle Povolny and Kim Povolny ("Settling Plaintiffs") brought the putative class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"), and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act ("MGDPA"). The Settling Plaintiffs claimed that Shepard, a police officer, wrongfully accessed their driver's license information. On March 15, 2019, the Defendants served offers of judgment on the Settling Plaintiffs under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Settling Plaintiffs accepted those offers on April 1, 2019. According to the terms of the offers, each Defendant agreed to pay each Settling Plaintiff $2,550. The Defendants also agreed that the Settling Plaintiffs could petition the Court for an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. After the Settling Plaintiffs' acceptance of the Rule 68 offers in April 2019, the Non-Settling Plaintiffs have continued to litigate their own claims and those of the remaining members of the putative class. The Court has yet to issue a final judgment on the Non-Settling Plaintiffs' claims or those they assert on behalf of the putative class. On June 12, 2019, the Settling Plaintiffs filed their Motion, then seeking $60,475 in attorneys' fees and $264.76 in costs. The Defendants jointly opposed the request. In a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung recommended that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. The Settling Plaintiffs filed an objection to the R&R. The R&R agrees that the fees sought are unreasonable and recommends that they be reduced. Although Plaintiffs agree that the requested $60,475 inadvertently included $216.50 for time spent on the Non-Settling Plaintiffs' claims, they object to the R&R on various other grounds, maintaining that they are entitled to the remaining $60,258.50. The City of Mendota Heights and Michael Shepard filed a joint response to that objection. Judge Brasel finds no merit in the Settling Plaintiffs' argument that it would be proper to award attorneys' fees for time spent litigating claims asserted on behalf of the putative class at this stage of the litigation. Even they do not dispute that it is too early to ascertain whether those claims will be successful. Thus, it would be unreasonable to award attorneys' fees for time expended class-related issues at this time. The Judge excludes the 34.225 hours spent on class-related issues from the lodestar calculation. Next, Judge Brasel agrees with the R&R that the case involves issues that are neither factually nor legally complex. Factually, it focuses narrowly on the frequency and circumstances of one individual's accesses of driver's license information. And, as the case follows years of DPPA litigation in the District, the legal issues it raises are banal. In these circumstances, Judge Brasel agrees with the R&R that the following entries indicate overstaffing that resulted in excessive and redundant hours: preparing the complaint (five timekeepers, 31.8 hours); preparing the Rule 26(f) report (two timekeepers, 8.3 hours); drafting discovery requests (three timekeepers, 12.7 hours); drafting discovery responses (four timekeepers, 9.45 hours), clerical and secretarial work (two timekeepers, 1.65 hours). While some of these entries include tasks that were properly assigned to a paralegal, Judge Brasel does not believe the time spent on those tasks reflects the efficiency it expects from a paralegal instructed by attorneys with years of experience litigating DPPA cases. Thus, the Judge reduces the time spent on these tasks by 40%. It is the Court's view that the hourly rates used in the lodestar calculation should be the same as in other DPPA cases litigated by the same counsel, and the Court is not persuaded by the Settling Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary. No expert affidavits from the Defendants are necessary for the Court to conclude that the hourly rates sought by the Settling Plaintiffs are unreasonable based on the counsel's skill and experience and the Court's knowledge and experience of prevailing market rates. The Court's conclusion is bolstered by the undisputed fact that the same counsel were awarded lower rates in the many comparable cases they have litigated in the District. The Court sees no basis for increasing counsel's rates in the particular case. Finally, the Court does not find the Settling Plaintiffs' arguments on the 20% reduction for partial success persuasive. The Settling Plaintiffs have obtained only $5,100 in liquidated damages each after seeking $100,000 and cannot be considered more successful. It is the Court's view that a 20% reduction in light of the Settling Plaintiffs' partial success is warranted. Based on the foregoing, Judge Brasel adopted the R&R as modified. The Settling Plaintiffs' motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs is granted in part and denied in part. The Movants are awarded $25,247.60 in attorneys' fees and $264.76 in costs against Defendants the City of Mendota Heights and Michael Shepard. These Defendants are ordered to remit to the Settling Plaintiffs $25,247.60 in attorneys' fees and $264.76 in costs. A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/AMpxkl from Leagle.com. Randolph Pentel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Kim Povolny, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Michelle Povolny, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated & Michael Povolny, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles V. Firth , Engelmeier & Umanah, PA, Jonathan A. Strauss , Sapientia Law Group PLLC, Lorenz F. Fett, Jr. , Sapientia Law Group, Robin M. Wolpert -- robinw@sapientialaw.com -- Sapientia Law Group PLLC & Sonia L. Miller-Van Oort -- SoniaMV@sapientialaw.com -- Sapientia Law Group. Michael Shepard, in his individual capacity as an employee of the City of Mendota Heights, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Peppin Ridley -- eridley@heleyduncan.com -- Heley, Duncan & Melander, PLLP & Mark P. Hodkinson -- mhodkinson@heleyduncan.com -- Heley Duncan & Melander, PLLP. City of Mendota Heights, Defendant, represented by Jon K. Iverson -- jon@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon, Stephanie A. Angolkar -- stephanie@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon & Susan M. Tindal -- susan@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon. Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Respondent, represented by Oliver J. Larson, Minnesota Attorney General's Office. MICROSOFT CORP: Denial of Class Cert. in Moussouris Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the denial of class certification in Moussouris v. Microsoft. Current and former female Microsoft employees in certain engineering and information technology roles brought this class action in federal court in Seattle in 2015, alleging systemic gender discrimination in pay and promotions. The plaintiffs moved to certify the class in October 2017. Microsoft filed an opposition in January 2018, attaching an expert report showing no statistically significant disparity in pay and promotions between similarly situated men and women. In June 2018, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In December 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification. Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software, services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington. MINDGEEK HOLDING: Web Sites Not Accessible to Deaf, Suris Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- YAROSLAV SURIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MINDGEEK HOLDING SARL d/b/a PORNHUB.COM d/b/a REDTUBE.COM d/b/a YOUPORN.COM, MINDGEEK LOS ANGELES d/b/a PORNHUB.COM d/b/a REDTUBE.COM d/b/a YOUPORN.COM, JOHN DOE CORPS. AND LLC'S 1-100, Case No. 1:20-cv-00284-CBA-RML (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2020), is brought for retribution for the Defendants' actions against deaf and hard of hearing individuals residing in New York and within the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendants have denied the Plaintiff, who is deaf, and deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals' access to goods and services provided to non-disabled individuals through its Web site, http://www.pornhub.com/,as well as its Web sites, http://www.redtube.com/and http://www.youporn.com/,and in conjunction with its physical locations of offices, video studios, advertising offices and hosting locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the American with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief requiring the Defendants to correct the barriers, which prevent access for deaf and hard of hearing individuals so that they can enjoy the Defendants' Web sites as non-deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals are able to do. MindGeek Holding is a privately held Canadian company that focuses primarily on Internet pornography.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL, P.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 415 0100 Facsimile: (516) 706 6631 MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Rory O'Neill, writing for Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review, reports that a US federal judge has given preliminary approval to the proposed settlement in the class action suit led by Nashville General Hospital against Momenta Pharmaceuticals and Sandoz over their alleged manipulation of drug testing protocols. [GN] MYLAN NV: Bernstein Informs Investors of Feb. 14 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, disclosed that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Mylan N.V. ("Mylan" or the "Company") (MYL) between May 9, 2018 and May 6, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Mylan securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Mylan Shareholder Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Mylan's Morgantown facility was in significant violation of the FDA's Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations; (2) Mylan would need to engage in a massive restructuring and remediation program; (3) Mylan's North American Segment would be substantially impacted by said program, which would in turn materially impact Mylan's financial health; (3) Mylan lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The truth began to emerge with a series of disclosures (and subsequent stock drops) beginning on August 8, 2018. Finally, on May 7, 2019, before the market opened, Mylan issued a press release announcing the Company's financial and operating results for the first fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2019. The press release disclosed, among other information, that "North America segment net sales . . . [were] down 6% on an actual and constant currency basis, primarily driven by changes in the competitive environment and the impact of the Morgantown plant remediation activities." On this news, the price of the Company's common stock declined $6.73, from a close on May 6, 2019 of $28.26 per share, to a close on May 7, 2019 of $21.53 per share, a drop of approximately 23.81 percent. If you purchased MYL securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/mylannv-myl-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-234/apply contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 14, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. [GN] NATIONAL PLAN: Schick Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH SCHICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL PLAN ADVISORS, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00122-DJH (D. Ariz., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On March 12, 2019, the Plaintiff received a phone call from (925) 204-6325, which is owned or operated by the Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to the telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express consent; to stop the Defendant from calling consumers who are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry; and obtain redress, including statutory damages, for all persons injured by the Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks an award of pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees. National Plan Advisors, Inc. is an insurance agency that offers supplemental insurance plans, referred to as Medicare supplements or "Medigap" policies, to seniors, who are insured through Medicare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Penny L. Koepke, Esq. MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C. 4854 E. Baseline Road, Suite 104 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone (480) 833-1001 E-mail: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Stephen A. Klein, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com sklein@woodrowpeluso.com NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS: Faces Smith Insurance Suit in N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. The case is captioned as Abra Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., Case No. 1:20-cv-00108-SO (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 16, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. The suit alleges violation of insurance-related laws. Nationwide Agribusiness operates as an insurance company. The company provides agricultural insurance services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin C. Hulick, Esq. Stuart E. Scott, Esq. SPANGENBERG, SHIBLEY & LIBER 1001 Lakeside Avenue, E., Ste. 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 Facsimile: (216) 696-3924 E-mail: khulick@spanglaw.com sscott@spanglaw.com NEXUS HOLIDAYS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA/NYLL, Zhang Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHASHA ZHANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Employees Similarly Situated v. NEXUS HOLIDAYS NEW YORK INC., and NEXUS HOLIDAYS GROUP INC., SHANGHAI YILIAN INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AGENCY LTD., LINGMIN ZHANG a/k/a MARC ZHANG, MATTHEW WANG, and John Doe and Jane Doe, Case No. 2:20-cv-00275 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay their employees, including the Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knew that the nonpayment of overtime pays, unpaid "Spread of Hours" premium, and failure to provide the required wage notice at the time of hiring would financially injure the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and violate state and federal laws. From June 1, 2015 to 2019, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a travel counselor at their corporations at 41-60 Main Street, Suite 215, in Flushing, New York. Nexus Holidays is a leisure-travel tour operator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hui Chen, Esq. HUI CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 463-2666 E-mail: hui.chen@alum.cardozo.yu.edu NOVARTIS AG: Consolidated Exforge-Related Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Novartis AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit related Exforge. Since 2018, Novartis Group companies as well as other pharmaceutical companies have been sued by various direct and indirect purchasers of Exforge in multiple US individual and putative class action complaints. They claim that Novartis made a reverse payment in the form of an agreement not to launch an authorized generic, alleging violations of federal antitrust law and state antitrust, consumer protection and common laws, and seeking damages as well as injunctive relief. The cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the claims are being vigorously contested. Novartis AG researches, develops, manufactures, and markets a range of healthcare products worldwide. The company's Innovative Medicines segment offers patented prescription medicines to enhance health outcomes for patients and health-care providers. Novartis AG has collaboration agreements with Xencor; QIAGEN N.V.; Surface Oncology; Intellia Therapeutics; Caribou Biosciences; Bristol-Myers Squibb; IBM Watson Health; Amgen; Allergan plc; Science 37, Inc.; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; PEAR Therapeutics; Pfizer; and Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc. Novartis AG was founded in 1895 and is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. NOVARTIS AG: Enoxaparin-Related Class Suits Resolved ---------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suits against Sandoz Inc. related to its alleged engagement in anticompetitive and unfair business conduct with regard to sales of enoxaparin have been resolved. In 2015, Sandoz Inc. and Momenta Pharmaceuticals were sued in a putative antitrust class action in federal court in Tennessee alleging that Momenta and Sandoz engaged in anticompetitive and unfair business conduct with regard to sales of enoxaparin. The same allegations were made by Amphastar in a lawsuit filed in federal court in California and subsequently moved to federal court in Massachusetts. In 2019, Sandoz resolved both matters, with Sandoz agreeing to pay USD 85 million to resolve the Tennessee class action and paying Amphastar approximately USD 39 million to resolve the Massachusetts case. The class action settlement is contingent upon, among other conditions, court approval and the class participants not exceeding an opt-out threshold. Sandoz, Momenta and Amphastar were also engaged in patent litigation concerning enoxaparin that concluded in June 2019. Novartis AG researches, develops, manufactures, and markets a range of healthcare products worldwide. The company's Innovative Medicines segment offers patented prescription medicines to enhance health outcomes for patients and health-care providers. Novartis AG has collaboration agreements with Xencor; QIAGEN N.V.; Surface Oncology; Intellia Therapeutics; Caribou Biosciences; Bristol-Myers Squibb; IBM Watson Health; Amgen; Allergan plc; Science 37, Inc.; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; PEAR Therapeutics; Pfizer; and Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc. Novartis AG was founded in 1895 and is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. NOVARTIS AG: Sandoz and Fougera Continue to Defend Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Sandoz Inc. and Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. continue to defend multiple class action suits related to the price fixing of generic drugs. Since 2016, Sandoz Inc. has received grand jury subpoenas and a civil investigative demand and interrogatories from the Antitrust and Civil Divisions of the US Department of Justice (DoJ), and a subpoena and interrogatories from the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut in connection with alleged price fixing and market allocation of generic drugs in the US market as well as alleged FCA violations. The requests are for documents related to the marketing and pricing of generic pharmaceutical products sold by Sandoz Inc. and its subsidiary, Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Fougera), and related communications with competitors. Sandoz Inc. is cooperating with these investigations, which it believes to be part of a broader inquiry into industry practice. Since the third quarter of 2016, Sandoz Inc. and Fougera have been sued alongside other generic pharmaceutical companies in numerous individual and putative class action complaints by direct and indirect purchasers and Attorneys General for 54 states and territories. Plaintiffs claim that defendants, including Sandoz, engaged in price fixing and market allocation of generic drugs in the US market, and seek damages and injunctive relief. The actions contain product-specific complaints as well as complaints alleging the existence of an overarching industry conspiracy, and assert violations of federal and state antitrust laws as well as consumer protection laws. The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the USDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (E.D. Pa.), and the claims are being vigorously contested. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Novartis AG researches, develops, manufactures, and markets a range of healthcare products worldwide. The company's Innovative Medicines segment offers patented prescription medicines to enhance health outcomes for patients and health-care providers. Novartis AG has collaboration agreements with Xencor; QIAGEN N.V.; Surface Oncology; Intellia Therapeutics; Caribou Biosciences; Bristol-Myers Squibb; IBM Watson Health; Amgen; Allergan plc; Science 37, Inc.; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; PEAR Therapeutics; Pfizer; and Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc. Novartis AG was founded in 1895 and is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. NOVARTIS AG: Valsartan and Valsartan/HCT-Related Suits Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Novartis AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Sandoz Inc and other pharmaceutical companies continue to defend class action suits in Canada and a Multidistrict Litigation in New Jersey related to valsartan and valsartan/HCT product liability. Since 2018, claims have been brought against Sandoz Inc. and other pharmaceutical companies alleging injury from carcinogenic impurities found in valsartan and valsartan/HCT film-coated tablets and/or losartan marketed or manufactured by Sandoz, including several putative class actions in Canada and a Multidistrict Litigation in New Jersey. Claims have also been brought alleging injury from carcinogenic impurities in ranitidine-containing medicines, including several putative class actions in Canada. All of these claims are being vigorously contested. Novartis AG researches, develops, manufactures, and markets a range of healthcare products worldwide. The company's Innovative Medicines segment offers patented prescription medicines to enhance health outcomes for patients and health-care providers. Novartis AG has collaboration agreements with Xencor; QIAGEN N.V.; Surface Oncology; Intellia Therapeutics; Caribou Biosciences; Bristol-Myers Squibb; IBM Watson Health; Amgen; Allergan plc; Science 37, Inc.; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; PEAR Therapeutics; Pfizer; and Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc. Novartis AG was founded in 1895 and is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: Judge Rejects Second Amended Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that an Ohio federal judge on Jan. 6 rejected a second amended class action complaint from a group of alleged sexual assault victims of a former Ohio State University sports doctor, at least for now, again demanding the sides focus on ongoing mediation. [GN] OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Court Grants Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as RICHARD KNAAK, the Plaintiff, v. OPTIO SOLUTIONS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01036-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge J. P. Stadtmueller entered an order on Feb. 5, 2020 granting Plaintiff's placeholder motion for class certification. The Court has neglected to address a preliminary motion filed by Plaintiff seeking class certification. The motion was intended only as a placeholder to ensure that Defendant could not pick Plaintiff off as a potential class representative. See Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court will grant the motion, inasmuch as it will permit the motion to serve the placeholder function envisioned by Damasco. The Plaintiff will be permitted to pursue a fulsome class certification if and when he decides to file one. Optio Solutions is a national debt collection agency.[CC] PATTERN ENERGY: Krieger Files Suit Over Canada Pension Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Phillip Krieger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pattern Energy Group Inc., Alan R. Batkin, Michael Morgan Garland, Edmund John Philip Browne, Patricia M. Newson, Mona K. Sutphen, Richard A. Goodman and Douglas G. Hall, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-08437 (N.D. Cal., December 27, 2019) seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed merger between Pattern and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Pattern Energy shareholders stand to receive $26.75 in cash for each share of Pattern stock they own. According to the complaint, the registration statement for the merger failed to include critical financial forecasts performed by Evercore Group LLC, including the line items used to calculate these non-GAAP metrics or a reconciliation of these non-GAAP projections to the most comparable GAAP measures and failed to define Adjusted EBITDA, reconcile Adjusted EBITDA to its most comparable GAAP measure, or disclose the line items used to calculate Adjusted EBITDA that should support the fairness opinions in order to make a fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal needed by the shareholders to make an informed decision on the merger deal. Pattern is a vertically integrated renewable energy company with interests in 24 renewable energy projects in the United States, Canada and Japan.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New Yor006B, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Mar. 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PTLA). Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PTLA) PTLA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 5, 2019 - January 9, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 16, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/portola-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-form?prid=5312&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Portola's internal control over financial reporting regarding reserve for product returns was not effective; (2) Portola was shipping longer-dated product with 36-month shelf life; (3) Portola had not established adequate reserve for returns of prior shipments of short-dated product; (4) as a result, Portola was reasonably likely to need to "catch up" on accounting for return reserves; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Contact: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] QUALITY CARRIERS: Salter Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as CLAYTON SALTER, individually, and On behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., an Illinois Corporation; QUALITY DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Florida Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV35275 (Filed Oct. 3, 2019), was removed from the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 16, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:2020cv00479 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to recover wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required records, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in violation to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants under employment agreements that were partly written, partly oral, and partly implied. Quality Carriers was founded in 2002. The company's line of business includes providing trucking transportation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taras Kick, Esq. Roy K. Suh, Esq. Daniel J. Bass, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM APC 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 395 2988 Facsimile: (310) 395 2088 E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com Roy@kicklawfirm.com Daniel@kicklawfirm.com RAPID LOGISTICS: Faces Gonzales Employment Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rapid Logistics, et al. The case is captioned as Dominique Gonzales and other members of the general public similarly situated v. Does 1-100, Rapid Logistics, Rapid Logistics Courier LLC, and Rapid Logistics LLC, Case No. 34-2020-00273567-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 16, 2020). The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws. Rapid Logistics was founded in 2005. The company's line of business includes the arranging of transportation of freight and cargo.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com RBC BANK: April 22 Settlement Hearing Set in Overdraft Fee Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for Southern District of Florida, Miami Division disclosed that a Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit claiming that RBC Bank (USA) ("RBC") improperly posted Debit Card Transactions from highest to lowest dollar amount to increase the number of Overdraft Fees charged to Account holders ("High-to-Low Posting"). The Settlement was reached with PNC Bank, N.A. ("PNC"), successor in interest to RBC when the two banks merged. PNC maintains that there was nothing wrong about the posting process used by RBC and that no laws were violated. The Court has not decided which side is right. Who's Included? The Settlement Class includes all holders of an RBC Account who, from October 10, 2007 through and including March 1, 2012, incurred one or more Overdraft Fees as a result of RBC's High-to-Low Posting. What Are the Settlement Terms? PNC has agreed to establish a Settlement Fund of $7.5 million. Individuals who remain in the Settlement Class, and if the Court approves the Settlement, will automatically receive a payment or Account credit for their pro rata portion of eligible Overdraft Fees they paid during the period covered by the Settlement. What Are My Other Options? Members of the Settlement Class who do not want to remain in the Settlement Class and be bound by the Settlement, must exclude themselves by March 18, 2020. Members of the Settlement Class who do not timely exclude themselves from the Settlement Class will release their claims against PNC and RBC. Alternatively, members of the Settlement Class may object to the Settlement by March 18, 2020. The Detailed Notice available at www.RBCBankOverdraftSettlement.com explains how to exclude yourself from or object to the Settlement. The Court will hold a hearing on April 22, 2020 to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys' fees up to 35% of the Settlement Fund and a $10,000 Service Award. Settlement Class Members may appear at the hearing, but are not required to do so. Settlement Class Members are not required to hire a lawyer to appear or speak for them at the hearing, but may do so if they choose, at their own expense. For Detailed information visit www.RBCBankOverdraftSettlement.com or call toll-free 1-855-958-0544. [GN] RESCARE INC: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Periods, Diaz Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUSANA DIAZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. RESCARE INC., a Kentucky Corporation; RSCR CALIFORNIA INC., a Kentucky Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20582235 (Cal. Super., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants have failed to provide the Plaintiff and others with meal and rest periods, and to pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods. Ms. Diaz also alleges that the Defendants failed to pay her and all other similarly situated employees for all hours worked, to provide them with accurate written wage statements, and to timely pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from August 26, 2018, through December 9, 2018. ResCare provides services and support to seniors, people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, children, and job seekers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Sabatini Suit Over ECI Acquisition --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS INC., KIM S. FENNEBRESQUE, BRUNS H. GRAYSON, BEATRIZ V. INFANTE, RICHARD J. LYNCH, KENT J. MATHY, SCOTT E. SCHUBERT, and RICK W. SMITH, Case No. 1:20-cv-00069-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Company's acquisition of ECI Telecom Group Ltd. On November 14, 2019, Ribbon Communications Inc.'s Board of Directors caused Ribbon to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Eclipse Communications Ltd., Ribbon Communications Israel Ltd., ECI Telecom Group Ltd., and ECI Holding (Hungary) Korlatolt Felelossegu Tarsasag. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, all ECI equity securities will be converted into the right to receive $324 million in cash and 32.5 million shares of Ribbon common stock, and Merger Sub will be merged with and into ECI, with ECI continuing as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ribbon. On January 10, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that Ribbon's stockholders vote to approve the Proposed Transaction at a special meeting scheduled on Jan. 27, 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. The disclosure of projected financial information is material because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses performed by the company's financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff is the owner of Ribbon common stock. Ribbon delivers market-leading software solutions that secure and power many of the world's leading service provider and enterprise communications environments.[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 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com RING: Faces Class Action Over Home Security Camera Hacking ---------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Sonnemaker, writing for Business Insider, reports that two couples who allege that their Ring home security cameras were recently hacked filed a lawsuit seeking class action status against the Amazon-owned company, accusing it of negligence, breach of implied contract, and invasion of privacy, among other claims. One couple, Ashley LeMay and Dylan Blakely, was at the center of an incident in December where hackers spied on and taunted their eight-year-old daughter after accessing an indoor camera they had installed. The other couple named in the lawsuit, Todd Craig and Tania Amador, were allegedly harassed by hackers who accessed their doorbell camera and told them "I'm outside your front door" as well as threatened them with "termination" if they did not pay a ransom of 50 bitcoin, according to their attorneys. The couples' attorneys said the lawsuit was filed "to hold Ring responsible for its defective devices and systems, require that Ring take all necessary measures to secure the privacy of user accounts and devices, and compensate Plaintiffs and the Class members for the damage that its acts and omissions have caused." In recent months, Ring has faced growing criticism over its security practices after hackers repeatedly accessed Ring cameras, with multiple cases involving spying on children and one leading to a separate lawsuit against the company. The lawsuit, which was filed in US federal court in the Central District of California on Jan. 3, must win class action certification before it can proceed as a class action. The plaintiffs are represented by the law firms Stueve Siegel & Hanson, and Tycko & Zavareei. [GN] RUNWAY TOWING: Faces Class Action in NY Over Massive Overcharges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law LLC disclosed that a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against a towing company which the complaint claims has overcharged thousands of consumers who required towing services from a towing company that is the exclusive towing company authorized by the New York City Police Department to tow vehicles on seven (7) highways with a daily vehicle volume of 1.2 million cars per day (Abbey, et.al. v. Runway Towing Corp., et.al., Case No. 19-cv-7116 (FB/SB). According to the Complaint, instead of charging New York's consumers and businesses $125 to have their cars towed up to 10 miles off of the seven (7) New York highways, parkway and expressways, including the BQE, Gowanus Expressway, Prospect Expressway, Belt Parkway, Cross Island Parkway, Staten Island Expressway and 3 other Staten Island highways, Runway Towing Corp was charging up to $400 for the tow that they are only permitted to charge $125 for. The complaint states that thousands of motorists were overcharged between April 1, 2017 and the present date. The amount of overcharges are estimated to be millions of dollars from April 1, 2017 to the present date. It is alleged in the complaint, that numerous insurance companies, including Progressive Insurance Company and Geico Insurance as well as the American Automobile Association have been victims of the overcharges. It is alleged in the complaint that the New York City Police Department and the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs knew that Runway Towing Corp. was overcharging consumers and businesses, but Runway Towing Corp. was permitted to continue their scheme to overcharge. It is alleged in the complaint that Runway Towing Corp. was given a monopoly in towing services since April 1, 2017 by the New York City Police Department, damaging consumers and businesses who transport goods in interstate commerce on New York City roadways. The complaint alleges that Runway Towing Corp. engaged in racketeering activity and is being sued under Civil Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), which was used to prosecute organized crime figures. Plaintiff Timothy Abbey is represented by Gary Rosen, Esq., Rosen Law LLC in Great Neck, New York – 516-437-3400 x223. [GN] SETERUS INC: Savage FDCPA Suit Transferred From S.D. to M.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as SUSAN SAVAGE, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. SETERUS, INC. and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC (as successor in interest to Seterus, Inc.), Case No 2:19-cv-14256 (Filed July 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers) on Jan. 16, 2020. The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20- cv-00032-SPC-NPM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. The case is a consumer protection action brought by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to obtain redress from Seterus' systematic use of unlawful and unfair false ultimatums in its attempts to collect upon residential consumer mortgage loans alleged to be in default, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. Seterus is regularly engaged in the business of collecting debt in the State of Florida. Nationstar, 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: Scott C. Harris, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: scott@wbmllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Brittney Lauren Difato, Esq. Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 50 N Laura St., Suite 3300 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 798-3463 E-mail: bbell@mcguirewoods.com sfhollad@mcguirewoods.com SITE WORKS: Underpays Laborers, Cerda Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------- JAIME CERDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SITE WORKS CONTRACTING CORP.; SITE-TECH CONSTRUCTION CORP.; PATRICIA ROSSI; and ARTIE ROSSI, Defendants, Case No. 600301/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Jan. 8, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Cerda was employed by the Defendants as laborer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 SM LAW PC: Debesay Hits Collection Letter Validity -------------------------------------------------- Biniam Debesay, individually and on behalf of other similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. SM Law, PC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00109 (D. Ariz., January 14, 2020), seeks actual damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Defendant is a debt collector who attempted to collect, via collection letter, an obligation allegedly incurred by Debesay who allegedly fell behind in the payments. Plaintiff disputed the validity of this alleged debt since the notice required a dispute to be in writing in order to dispute the validity of the debt. Debesay also alleges that SM Law is not a licensed debt-collector in Arizona. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. (SBN 032001) KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: david@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com STADION MONEY: Davis ERISA Suit Venue Moved to Nebraska District ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KIMBERLY DAVIS, individually and as The representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. STADION MONEY MANAGEMENT, LLC and UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendants, Case No. 1:19CV119 (M.D. N.C.), Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (i) declined to resolve the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint, and (ii) granted United's Motion to Transfer Venue to the District of Nebraska. The action is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Plaintiff Davis lives in Greensboro, North Carolina, where she worked for Festival Fun Parks, LLC, doing business as Palace Entertainment. Palace Entertainment is a California-based company. Davis was automatically enrolled by her employer in the "Palace Plan," Palace Entertainment's QDIA. The Palace Plan was managed by Stadion. Stadion canceled Davis' service when she received a distribution of benefits in March 2013. Defendant Stadion is a registered investment adviser based in Watkinsville, Georgia. It provides managed account services to participants in ERISA-covered plans throughout the United States. In return for its investing services, Stadion receives a fee agreed to by the plan's sponsor. Defendant United is an insurance company based in Omaha, Nebraska. It issues group variable annuity contracts to employer-sponsored retirement plans and provides attendant administrative and investment services. According to the Plaintiff, Stadion's managed account service has consistently delivered underwhelming results. Given the poor performance, Stadion could only expand by establishing new marketing relationships with insurance companies, like United, who could pitch Stadion's managed account service to the participants in the group variable annuities they managed. In exchange for these managed account services, Stadion receives a managed account fee which it splits with United. The Plaintiff initiated the lawsuit on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries whose accounts were enrolled in Stadion's managed account service within a retirement plan administered by United of Omaha for any period of time after Jan. 25, 2013. At its core, the Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Stadion selected investment options that generated higher fees for United and, in exchange, United kept referring Stadion to provide managed account services despite Stadion's lackluster track record. In Count One, the Plaintiff alleges Stadion violated its fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by investing in investment options affiliated with Defendants when unaffiliated options would have provided better performance at lower costs. In Count Two, she alleges United wrongfully and knowingly profited from Stadion's ERISA violations. In Count Three, the Plaintiff alleges Stadion engaged in prohibited transactions with a party in interest, United. Finally, in Count Four, she alleges Stadion engaged in prohibited transactions with itself. Before the Court are motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint filed by the Defendants, as well as United's Motion to Transfer Venue to the District of Nebraska. The Plaintiff is suing under ERISA in her home state of North Carolina. While courts should be hesitant to disrupt such a plaintiff's choice of forum, the Plaintiff's decision to sue in the District should be afforded less than the usual deference for two reasons. First, she is the representative of a broad class that is not intimately tied to any state and that is, in fact, more closely connected with Nebraska than North Carolina. Second, the Plaintiff's choice of forum is owed less than the usual deference because of the limited connection between North Carolina and her cause of action. In sum, the first discretionary factor -- the Plaintiff's initial choice of forum -- is accorded substantially less weight here as she chose to litigate an ERISA case in her home state while serving as the head of a putative, diffuse class in an action that has little to do with North Carolina. While the Court agrees with the Plaintiff that the physical location of documents should be of little importance in the age of digitized documents, Judge Biggs holds that the fact remains that Omaha is the epicenter of United's retirement service business and the location where all of the executive and management activities, decision-making, and strategy takes place. Thus, it is likely that most of the critical witnesses are located there. North Carolina, by contrast, is home only to Davis, who would likely suffer less personal inconvenience from transferring the case, particularly as United has offered to depose her in North Carolina. Therefore, it appears that Nebraska would be far more convenient for the great majority of the witnesses in the case -- a factor that weighs heavily in favor of transfer. Next, there is no indication that any witness will be unwilling to participate in the litigation, the Court notes. Thus, the Judge's analysis of the third discretionary factor -- the cost of obtaining attendance of willing and unwilling witnesses -- folds into the analysis related to ease of access to proof, further bolstering the Defendant's case for transfer. The Defendant offers statistics indicating that in 2018, the median civil case advanced from filing to disposition in 10.4 months in this District and in 7.4 months in Nebraska. This is consistent with data going back to 2013 indicating that Nebraska handles cases slightly faster than the Middle District does. Judge Biggs does not find the three-month difference to be so sizable as to weigh more than slightly in favor of transfer. The ninth factor -- the local interest in having localized controversies settled at home -- reflects the judgment of the federal courts that litigation should take place in the federal judicial district or division with the closest relationship to the operative events. Nebraska has a closer relationship with the operative events because -- while both states are home to a party and to putative class members -- only Nebraska has a substantial connection with the heart of the matter: whether the Defendants engaged in impermissible self-dealing. Thus, the factor weighs in favor of transfer. Finally, Judge Biggs holds that the remaining factors are not germane to her inquiry. United has carried its burden of persuading the Court that more than a bare balance of convenience is in its favor and that a transfer would further the interests of justice by doing more than "merely shifting the inconvenience" from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to transfer will be granted. Judge Biggs concludes that it would further the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties and potential witnesses to transfer this matter to the District of Nebraska. The Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue is thus granted, the Court rules. The Clerk of Court will transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The North Carolina Court declined to resolve the Defendants' motions to dismiss, which will be transferred, as part of the action, to the District of Nebraska. A full-text copy of the North Carolina Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/mNL4iX from Leagle.com. KIMBERLY DAVIS, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by BRANDON T. MCDONOUGH -- bmcdonough@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, BROCK J. SPECHT -- bspecht@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, CARL F. ENGSTROM -- cengstrom@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, KAI H. RICHTER -- krichter@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, PAUL JOSEPH LUKAS -- lukas@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP & F. HILL ALLEN, IV -- hallen@tharringtonsmith.com -- THARRINGTON SMITH. STADION MONEY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER K. VAN ZANT -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- BROOKS PIERCE MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD, JAMES O. FLECKNER -- jfleckner@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP & MATTHEW L. RIFFEE -- mriffee@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by BRENT F. POWELL, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, ABBEY M. GLENN, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, CHRISTOPHER J. BORAN, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & JEREMY P. BLUMENFELD, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP. STAR SNACKS: Class Action Says Cashew Nut Mix is Mostly Peanuts --------------------------------------------------------------- Farron Cousins, writing for trofire.com, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Star Snacks Company by a consumer who claims that the Imperial Nuts Cashew Snack Mix made by the defendant is made up of mostly peanut pieces. Gregory Lowery says he purchased three packages of the Imperial Nuts Cashew Snack Mix expecting the package to contain mostly cashews based on the product's name. But when he opened the bag, he allegedly found out that it contained a plethora of peanuts instead. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins discusses this with Scott Hardy, the President of Top Class Actions. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos. Farron Cousins: As I have said repeatedly, American consumers are not complicated. We're not asking for too much either. All we want is that if you advertise something and we go and buy it, we want the thing that you're selling us to actually be the thing that we're getting. But unfortunately, we are seeing far too often in this country what is being advertised to us and what is the actual product, sometimes they're two completely different things and that's actually what we're seeing right now with Imperial Nuts. Joining me to talk about this is Scott Hardy with Top Class Actions, and Scott, if you buy, you know, a bag of mixed nuts, you know, cashew mixed nuts, whatever it is, you expect it to actually contain mixed nuts, which is a mix, a variety. But this new class action says, yeah, that's not happening with this product, is it? Scott Hardy: No, the Imperial Nuts Cashew Snack Mix class action alleges that this customer went in there, bought the snack mix. They say, hey, I like cashews. Let's have some cashews. Here's my cashew snack mix, crack open that little bag, start taking out those yummy, nutty goodness and lo and behold, it's mostly peanuts, very few cashews and not just peanuts, you know, nice whole little peanuts. No, they're all just peanut bits that have been all broken and cracked. So this class, class action actually mentions two things. One, they're saying, hey, if you're selling me a cashew snack mix, give me my dog on cashews. This is what I want. You know, I understand if you're putting a couple of peanuts in there, that's fine. But I expect the majority of what I get will be cashews. Second, if you're going to show on this bag, these pretty pictures of these nice looking cashews and even some peanuts, because I know I'm going to get some peanuts in this yummy snack mix. Make sure they're not just peanut bits. They're not just crumpled and crunched and, you know, I'm not even getting any whole peanuts in here either. So it's twofold. But the main thing is all of us have gotten a snack and gone and gotten some, you know, a bag of nuts at the gas station as you're going on a road trip, hoping that you're going to get those yummy cashews or pistachios or whatever you're getting and then get short changed. Well, these lawyers are trying to fight for you to make sure you don't get short changed for those cashews or other, what I would term premium nuts, that you buy. Farron Cousins: Well, and, you know I, I think it's funny too because people need to understand this isn't just anger, a guy's mad because he didn't have enough cashews in the bag. On the back of the bag, on the ingredients label, which has to list the ingredients in descending order from most to least, cashews is number one. But you open up the package and that's not true. So, so, so there is a pretty big labeling problem here with this and that's what this, essentially what this lawsuit is predicated upon. You're telling us on this package that there are more cashews in this bag than anything else and you can open the bag for yourself and see that this is totally a false claim here. Scott Hardy: Yeah, it's, you know, you open it up. If you're buying a cashew snack mix, you're expecting a whole lot of cashews. You're not expecting mostly peanuts. And so that's what they're trying to fix here is if you're going to label a product as cashews or pistachios or whatever the case is, make sure the majority of what you're putting in there are, you know, is that actual star ingredient. Is that premium nut that yumminess that people are buying, that people are paying extra for. If somebody wanted a bag of peanuts, they'll buy a bag of peanuts, but if they are looking for a cashew or something like that, then just, just help us out. Put more of that in there than anything else. That's all we're asking. Farron Cousins: Right, and that, that's part of the thing too is, you know the reason they, they name it cashew is because that, that catches your eye. If you're a big cashew fan, that's what you're going after. Instead of just calling it, you know, they, it's called cashew snack mix. They could call it nut snack mix then okay, you, you know, you're getting nuts. You don't know what kind, you don't know how many of each, but okay, you're just buying nuts. So whatever you get, you're happy with. You advertised it as cashew, you got only a couple in there and then a bunch of broken peanut pieces, this isn't even close to what you're claiming it is. So can you just do the right thing for once, either change your label to say pieces of nuts in a bag or throw some extra cashews in there and give us what we're paying for. Scott Hardy: Right, right. If I just want to get, you know, broken nuts in a zip lock bag, I'm pretty sure that'll be a lot less expensive than a fancy, Imperial Nuts sounds very, you know, it's super Royal here. Imperial Nuts Cashew Snack Mix, give me my cashews. I don't want, I don't want sad peanut pieces snack mix, like you said, that wouldn't sell very well. Farron Cousins: No, it wouldn't. For more information about this issue. You can follow the link in the description of this video, head on over to Top Class Actions, and of course while you're there, if you have not already done so, please subscribe to their weekly newsletter. Scott Hardy with Top Class Actions, thank you very much for talking with us. Scott Hardy: You're welcome. Thanks for your time, Farron. [GN] STATE FARM: Settles Homeowners' Insurance Class Action for $8.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.'s $8.5 million settlement of a class action, which claimed the company breached the terms of its homeowner's insurance contracts in Arkansas, was given preliminary approval by a federal court Jan. 3. The plaintiffs alleged that State Farm, in calculating the actual cash value of covered losses, depreciated labor costs contrary to Arkansas law. State Farm agreed to settle after six years of litigation, although it told the court it "remains confident in its view that it would ultimately prevail in the litigation" and that the plaintiffs "were fully and appropriately compensated for their losses." [GN] STRANGE HONEY: Consumers File Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Citizen Tribune reports that two Knoxville honey consumers who claim to represent hundreds of others have filed a class-action lawsuit against Cocke County-based Strange Honey Farm, alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Strange Honey is a limited-liability company owned by Gary Strange and his wife, Fonda Strange. Strange Honey markets and sells its produce as being 100% raw honey from Tennessee. Eight analysis reports of Strange Honey, which were filed as exhibits to the lawsuit, indicate the honey the Del Rio company came from Vietnam. Bruker Biospin, a German company with an office in Massachusetts, analyzed Strange honey products in 2018 and 2019. The federal lawsuit, which was filed by Knoxville attorney Al Holifield on behalf of Knoxville honey consumers Robert Greer and James Reimer as representatives of the class, maintains there's a good reason Strange Honey sells honey harvested in Southeast Asia and other places. "Strange Honey cannot collect enough honey from its own hives and other Tennessee hives to keep up with demand," the lawsuit states. The alleged false marketing about "raw" honey relates to science and honey's reputed health benefits. Honey processors frequently heat the viscous substance to make it easier to pour into containers. When raw honey is heated above 105 degrees Fahrenheit, however, the warmth destroys beneficial compounds, including enzymes, for which raw honey is prized, according to the lawsuit. Determining whether honey has been excessively heated isn't rocket science. It's easy to know by testing its so-called 5-hydroxymethylfurfural, or HMF value. "The scientific community has long recognized that an HMF value over 40 milligrams per kilogram is strong evidence that raw honey was heated to a high enough temperature for a long enough period of time to break down the enzymes contained in the honey," the lawsuit states. Strange Honey samples that were tested measured HMF values between 57 mg/kg and 109 mg/kg, according to the lawsuit. The federal lawsuit alleges the amount of honey involved exceeds $5 million in value, but concedes it's impossible to quantify the lost heath benefits. The plaintiffs want Strange Honey to establish a five-year, court-supervised testing system to ensure the honey advertised as coming from Tennessee originates in Tennessee, and that the product has not been excessively heated. The plaintiffs are also asking for attorneys' fees and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. [GN] TIME WARNER CABLE: Wage & Hour Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Dailey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports a group of Time Warner Cable customer service and call center employees submitted enough evidence to support their wage and hour claims, but can't proceed as a class action, a California federal court ruled. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted TWC's motion to deny certification of the proposed class, which comprises nearly 900 employees based in TWC's San Diego and Ontario, Calif., offices. The court also partially granted TWC's motion to dismiss. Laurence Gibbs, Carmen Fuller, and three other TWC employees filed a proposed class action against TWC Administration LLC. [GN] TJX COMPANIES: Faces Migyanko ADA Suit Over Access Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------- RONALD J. MIGYANKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., d/b/a/ MARSHALLS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00077-MJH (W.D. Pa., Jan. 16, 2020), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and expenses for the Defendant's violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to the Defendant's stores as a result of accessibility barriers existing in interior paths of travel. These access barriers include merchandise displays, stocking carts, boxes, and/or other items, positioned so that they impermissibly block or narrow the aisle pathways. The Plaintiff contends that these conditions violate the ADA and deny the Plaintiff's equal access to the goods and services offered at the Defendant's stores. TJX Companies is an American multinational off-price department store corporation, headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Bryan A. Fox, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh PA, 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com kiverson@carlsonlynch.com bfox@carlsonlynch.com TRUMP ORGANIZATION: Settles Caterers' Class Action Over Tips ------------------------------------------------------------ Gen.medium.com reports that the Trump Organization is paying up after a class-action lawsuit claimed his company stiffed caterers out of their tips. Andrew Redlawsk thinks it's bizarre he kicked off the new year by receiving a check for $944.72 from the Trump Organization. "When you find out that a guy worth billions is stealing tips from people who are just trying to feed their kids and put food on the table, it's unreal honestly," he said. "And then the other part of that is like it's not just a billionaire -- it's the president." Donald Trump has been long famous for his ongoing legal troubles. (As of June 2016, he had been involved in at least 3,500 legal actions over three decades.) Among them was a lawsuit by a former catering staffer named Deborah Garcia, who in 2015 sued Trump and his children, Donald Jr. and Ivanka, claiming the Trump Organization stiffed her and other service workers out of tips. Garcia said the company pocketed a mandatory 22% service fee on events at the hotel Trump SoHo -- a charge customers likely assumed was meant as gratuity. She alleged she was paid $15 an hour, but never received any tips. New York law prohibits employers from retaining workers' tips or fees "purported to be a gratuity." The state also requires businesses to clearly disclose on invoices, menus, and bills when a service charge is not a tip, which Garcia claimed the Trump Organization never did. The lawsuit also named the Sapir Organization and the Bayrock Group as defendants. The companies owned the hotel until it was foreclosed on in 2014, while the Trump Organization was managing it and had licensed out the family name. In November 2017, the Trumps finally cut ties with the hotel, which has since been renamed The Dominick. The lawsuit was eventually settled for an undisclosed amount and a judge signed off on it in August 2019. The firm that represented Garcia declined GEN's request for comment because it would be in violation of the agreement's terms. Redlawsk, a 33-year-old based in Arlington, Virginia, received a letter in May 2019 notifying him of the lawsuit and that he qualified for the class action. [GN] UKRAINIAN INTERNATIONAL: Canadian Firm File Suit Over Iran Crash ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katya Slepian, writing for Aldergrove Star, reports that a Canadian law firm has launched a class action lawsuit on behalf of the families of the 176 people who died when Iran shot down a Ukrainian plane on Jan. 8. Himelfarb Proszanski, a law firm based in Toronto, said New York litigation funding company Galactic Litigation Partners LLC will fund the legal effort. Ukrainian International Airline flight 752 crashed just after taking off from Tehran on Jan. 8. Initially, the Iranian government claimed technical failures were to blame but it has since admitted its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. mistakenly shot down the plane, killing all 176 on board. Canada, which lost 57 of its own in the crash, and the international community have called for Iran to complete a thorough investigation and compensate the victims' families. The law firm said the flight took off despite the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration banning civilian flights over Iran. Although the Ukrainian airline is not subject to U.S. flight bans, the law firm said many airlines respect such FAA notices, and that other airlines rerouted their flights due to general unrest in the region after the U.S. killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani. "Flight PS752 departed despite the known risks," the law firm said. The class action has not yet been certified by the courts and none of the allegations have been proven in court. [GN] [*] Court Stays Class Action Against CBD Company Pending FDA Rules ------------------------------------------------------------------ J. R. Pegg, writing for IEG Policy Agribusiness, reports that resolution of a class action targeting a Florida-based CBD company for allegedly misleading consumers about the potency of its products must wait until FDA issues rules governing use of the non-psychoactive cannabis ingredient, a federal judge ruled. [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 ***