/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200406.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 6, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 69 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Oberholtzer Claims Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Vandamas Asserts Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 48FORTY SOLUTIONS: Norwood Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois 7-ELEVEN INC: Misrepresents Iced Lemon Cookies, Rodriguez Claims ACADIA PHARMA: Continues to Defend NUPLAZID Securities Suit ACCOR HOTEL: Stohl Sues in California Alleging Violation of ADA ACE HIGH MARKETING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Eyo Suit Claims AIR METHODS: Lyons Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California AMEREN ILLINOIS: Rossman Files CLASS Suit in Illinois AMERICAN STRATEGIC: Buchanan Files Suit Over Insurance Policy AMERICAN-PARAGON: Underpays Armed Security Guards, Aguilar Claims ANTERO RESOURCES: Court Certifies Class in Romeo Suit ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS: Rosenkrantz Sues Over Unrefunded Fees ASR PIZZA INC: Amato Files Civil Suit in Florida Circuit Court B. LESTER LAW FIRM: McClinton Files FDCPA Suit in Arizona BACARDI USA: Court Dismisses Marrache FDUTPA Suit with Prejudice BAIRES VALET: Vetek Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA BATTLE CREEK PIZZA: Fails to Pay FLSA Minimum Wages, Parker Says BLAZE PIZZA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Alcazar Claims BP EXPLORATION: Denial of Review of $1M Award to Walmart Upheld BR BRAND HOLDINGS: Faces Gonzalez ADA Suit in S.D. New York BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Violates Detainees' Rights, Savino Alleges BURROW GLOBAL: Campanaro Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Employees BUSINESS FIRST: Parshall Suit Challenges Merger With Pedestal C. & M. SMITH: White Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages CANOPY ENERGY: Aussieker Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settlement in Rael FTCA Suit Has Prelim Approval CLIENT SERVICES: Baranskyi Alleges Violation under FDCPA CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Shields FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York CLIENT SERVICES: Stolzberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York CMC ASSET: Valencia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA COBBFENDLEY INTERNATIONAL: Leal Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Staff COLBURN ELECTRIC: De La Torre Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages COMPASS GROUP: Bryant Remanded to Cook County Circuit Court CORECIVIC INC: Kansas Dist. Denies Bids to Intervene in Huff Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Taylor Sues Over Sale of Herbicide Roundup CR ENGLAND: Clarke Suit Transferred to Utah CREDIT CONTROL: Humphreys Files Suit in Pennsylvania CREDIT CONTROL: Teage Sues in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation D & A SERVICES: Faces Friedman FDCPA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois DEBT RECOVERY: Ruffin Sues in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation DEVA CONCEPTS: Faces Bolash Product Liability Suit in New York DOUBLE DOWN: 9th Cir. Upholds Arbitration Bid Denial in Benson Suit EARNHARDT'S GILBERT: Winters Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls EISAI INC: Sued by Zottola for Selling Defective Belviq Drug ENSIGN UNITED: Filing of Third Amended Newell Complaint Allowed EURO HOMECARE: Bid for Conditional Class Certification Sought FCA US LLC: Melson Files Product Liability Suit in D. Montana FCA US: Faces Galloway Suit in Utah Over Unsolicited Phone Sales FERNANDES BROTHERS: Faces Gutierrez Employment Suit in California FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Parish Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Marketing GLASS MOUNTAIN: Faces Kennedy Suit over Recording of Phone Calls GREAT DESTINATIONS: Threde Files TCPA Suit in California HANNA LAW: 6th Cir. Affirms Amended Judgment in McClain Suit HF FOODS GROUP: Faces Mendoza Securities Suit in C.D. California HIRSCH PIPE: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Loera Says IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Pacheco Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York INTERSECT ENT: Continues to Defend Yaron Class Suit JACOBY & MEYERS: Summary Judgment Bid in Harding Suit Partly Okayed JOHN B. STETSON COMPANY: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York JOHNS HOPKINS: $4.7MM Attorneys Fees Awarded in Kelly Labor Suit JUN WEI INC: Faces Zhang Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA & NYLL KONG KEE FOOD: Loh Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages LANDCORP STAFFING: Wilson-Sewell Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. LOUIS LEEMAN: Gonzalez Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation LOYA INSURANCE: Robledo Sues in Northern District of Illinois MANETTA ENTERPRISES: Loper Sues over Unpaid OT, Prevailing Wages MDL 2047: Court Denies Class Certification in Drywall Products Suit MERCK & CO: Faces Seals Suit Over Sale of Defective Zostavax MIKE KELLY: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages MOLLY MAID: Underpays Maids-Team Leads, Leyva-Ugalde et al. Claim MYLAN INC: Faces Rochester Drug Suit Over EpiPen Overcharges NATIONAL COURT: Curran Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Fees NATIONAL DEBT: Thompson Sues Over Abusive Telemarketing Calls NATIONAL TIRE: Florida Southern Dist. Narrows Claims in Exum Suit NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Jenkins Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida NCU: Falsely Markets Doctoral Program, Katzakian Suit Alleges NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Rosenfeld FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York OUTLAW LAB: Stores' Bid to File 3rd Amended Counterclaims Denied PAM TRANSPORT: Browne Partial Summary Judgment Bid Partly Granted PELICAN WASTE: Verrett Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages POLK COUNTY, FL: Court Denies Class Certification in Case Suit POTBELLY CORP: Settlement in Asst. Managers' Suit Finally Approved PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Faces Gonzalez ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Case v LogistiCare Certified as Class Suit PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Continues to Defend Patel Class Suit PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Lynch Suit Against Ride Plus in Calif. Ongoing PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Talarico Suit R.A. ROGERS INC: Faces Kramarsky FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey REDBOX AUTOMATED: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Jara TCPA Suit ROMEO & JULIETTE: Gonzalez Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA SANDHILLS EMERGENCY: Dennis Seeks OT Pay for Medical Personal SELIP & STYLIANOU: Raksin Files FDCPA Suit in New York SEMINOLE TOTAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Pauley Suit Alleges SI SOHO LLC: Bishop Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA ST. TROPEZ INC: Gonzalez Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation STERLING BANCORP: Orr Sues Challenging Decline in Share Price SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Briggs Class Suit in S.D. New York TAKEDA PHARMA: Interlocutory Appeal in Antitrust Suit Certified TERRILL OUTSOURCING: Pacheco Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California TOUCHSTONE MEDICAL: Katt ADA Suit Moved to District of Colorado UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Nava Suit UNITED STATES: Medicare Beneficiaries Seek to Certify Class USPI HOLDING: Andrews Sues Over Breach of Stock Incentive Plan VERIZON WIRELESS: Dunphy Files FDCPA Suit in Illinois VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Opheim Class Suit in District of New Jersey WELDO INDUSTRIAL: Underpays Mechanics & Welders, Alcalar et al Say WESTROCK COMPANY: Reyna Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California WRIGHT TRUCKING: Bid for Protective Order in Leeson Suit Denied XALER: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Derval TCPA Suit XP INC: Acerno Says SEC Registration Info False & Misleading ********* 3M COMPANY: Oberholtzer Claims Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EDWARD OBERHOLTZER, JR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-00966-RMG (D.S.C., March 6, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Oberholtzer case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 3M COMPANY: Vandamas Asserts Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF --------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD A. VANDAMAS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-00961-RMG (D.S.C., March 6, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Vandamas case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 48FORTY SOLUTIONS: Norwood Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Ashley Norwood, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. 48Forty Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2020CH01434, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 6, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01649 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edmond E. Chang. The suit demands $75,000 in damages asserting claims against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty. 48Forty is a pallet management services company in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon Michael Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Danielle M. Kays, Esq. Richard Patrick McArdle, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606-6448 Telephone: (312) 460-5674 E-mail: dkays@seyfarth.com rmcardle@seyfarth.com 7-ELEVEN INC: Misrepresents Iced Lemon Cookies, Rodriguez Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sonia Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02636 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2020), seeks damages under consumer protection laws arising from the Defendant's misleading representations on their iced lemon cookies under the 7-Select brand. The Product's relevant representations include "7-Select," "Iced Lemon Cookies" (front), "Indulge in a classic childhood favorite! Our iced lemon cookies have a light crisp bite and are perfectly balanced with tart lemon and an irresistible coating of sweet lemon icing" (back) and a picture of the Product (front and back). By not including any qualifying terms preceding, following or in proximity to "Lemon," consumers expect the Product to contain sufficient lemon oil and/or lemon extract from lemons to flavor the Product and no other flavors from natural sources other than lemons or artificial sources, simulate, resemble, reinforce, enhance or extend the flavoring from lemons. The Plaintiff contends that the Product's front label is misleading to consumers because the ingredient list reveals "Natural and Artificial Flavor" are used to provide flavoring. The Plaintiff notes that consumers seek to avoid artificial flavors for reasons, including nutrition, health and/or the avoidance of chemicals and highly processed ingredients. Consumers cannot discern from the ingredient list that (1) the natural flavor listed on the ingredient list does not refer to an exclusively lemon ingredient nor (2) that the artificial flavor enhances the Product's lemon taste. The Product's ingredient list also indicates the presence of yellow food coloring, "YELLOW #5, YELLOW #6," which misleads consumers to think it contains more real lemon flavoring than it actually does, by making its color closer to that of real lemons. The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal consumption. Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it, says the complaint. 7-Eleven, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells iced lemon cookies, under the 7-Select brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com ACADIA PHARMA: Continues to Defend NUPLAZID Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-01647, related to NUPLAZID. Between July 19 and August 3, 2018, following negative publicity about NUPLAZID, three purported company stockholders filed putative securities class action complaints (captioned Staublein v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01647, Stone v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01672, and Barglow v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01812) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the company and certain of its current and former executive officers. Thereafter, several putative lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead plaintiff. On January 3, 2019, the Court consolidated the cases under the caption In re ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-01647, and took the lead plaintiff motions under submission. On February 26, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 15, 2019. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects by failing to disclose that adverse events and safety concerns regarding NUPLAZID threatened initial and continuing FDA approval, and by failing to disclose that the company engaged in business practices likely to attract regulatory scrutiny. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on June 7, 2019 and the lead plaintiff filed an opposition on July 23, 2019. Defendants filed a reply on August 22, 2019. On November 12, 2019, the Court determined that the motion to dismiss was suitable for resolution without oral argument and took the motion hearing off calendar. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of small molecule drugs that address unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders. The Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. ACCOR HOTEL: Stohl Sues in California Alleging Violation of ADA --------------------------------------------------------------- Ellen Stohl, and other similarly situated v. Accor Hotel and Resorts (Maryland) LLC dba Pullman Hotel; Merritt Hospitality, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company dba HEI Hotels and Resort; SPUS7 Redwood City Hotel Lessee, LLC; and SPUS7 Redwood City Hotel Owner LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-02140 (N.D. Cal., March 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. According to the complaint, the Defendant actively misrepresents itself as a disabled-accessible hotel. As the Plaintiff learned to her detriment, in reality it does not provide access as required by law. The Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Defendants, The Hotel owners and operators, to make The Hotel and associated facilities accessible to her and other similarly situated. The Plaintiff also seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and litigation expenses. The Plaintiff is a person with a disability. She is affected by paralysis that requires her to use a wheelchair for mobility. The Pullman Hotel San Francisco Bay is a boutique hotel located in Redwood City, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Celia McGuinness, Esq. DERBY, McGUINNESS & GOLDSMITH, LLP 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 987-8778 Facsimile: (510) 359-4419 Email: info@dmglawfirm.com - and - Anthony Goldsmith, Esq DERBY, McGUINNESS & GOLDSMITH, LLP 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (818) 213-2762 Facsimile: (510) 359-4419 Email: info@dmglawfirm.com ACE HIGH MARKETING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Eyo Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MAURICE EYO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ACE HIGH MARKETING, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01018-AT (N.D. Ga., March 5, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other employees minimum wage for all hours worked. The Plaintiff, a non-exempt employee, was employed by the Defendant as a Brand Ambassador. The Plaintiff and other Brand Ambassadors employed by the Defendant were similarly situated, with similar job duties and responsibilities, and with similar pay structures, says the complaint. Ace High identifies consumer needs both in general and ethnic markets, and implements marketing programs, communications and events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon Van Remmen, Esq. Andrew Lampros, Esq. Gordon Van Remmen, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 400 Galleria Pkwy. SE, Suite 1150 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 876-8100 Facsimile: (404) 876-3477 E-mail: alampros@hallandlampros.com gordon@hallandlampros.com AIR METHODS: Lyons Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTOPHER R. LYONS and AMELIA G. VIELGUTH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. RG20053409 (Filed Feb. 5, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 9, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01700 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for violation of the California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime wages. Air Methods is an American privately owned helicopter operator.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq. Christopher M. Ahearn, Esq. Sean T. Kingston, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 851-2424 Facsimile: (949) 851-0152 E-mail: lgiamela@fisherphillips.com cahearn@fisherphillips.com skingston@fisherphillips.com AMEREN ILLINOIS: Rossman Files CLASS Suit in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ameren Illinois Company. The case is styled as Kevin Rossman, individually and For Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Ameren Illinois Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-mc-03002-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill., April 1, 2020). The docket of the case states a motion to compel compliance with non-party subpoena has been filed in the case. Ameren Illinois Company provides utility services. The Company provides electric power and natural gas transmission services. Ameren Illinois serves its clients in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M Werman, Esq. Maureen A Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS PC 77 W Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 Fax: (312) 419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com mbantz@flsalaw.com - and - Richard J Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 1415 Louisiana St, Suite 2125 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com AMERICAN STRATEGIC: Buchanan Files Suit Over Insurance Policy ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Strategic Insurance Corp. The case is styled as Lekeitra Buchanan and Jarvis Buchanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. American Strategic Insurance Corp., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00106-DMB-RP (N.D. Miss., March 31, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance. American Strategic Insurance was formed in 1997 and led by CEO and President, John Auer. Its initial offering was Florida homeowners insurance.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Brandon McWherter, Esq. MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Tel: (615) 354-1144 Fax: (731) 664-1540 Email: brandon@msb.law AMERICAN-PARAGON: Underpays Armed Security Guards, Aguilar Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUNIOR AGUILAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN-PARAGON PROTECTIVE SERVICES, LLC., AMERICAN EAGLE PROTECTIVE SERVICES CORP., and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01982 (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff and the Collective, who were all present and former non-exempt security guards, were employed by Defendants in California within three years prior to the date of the filing of the lawsuit. Also, they were paid on an hourly basis but were paid different rates for different shifts. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and the Collective were subject to Defendants' common practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols, and plans of willfully failing and refusing to pay them for all their hours worked, and pay for all overtime owed, that includes: -- a rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours in excess of 40 hours during the workweek because of Defendants' failure to use the weighted average in calculating their regular rate of pay; and -- the off-the-clock time spent donning and doffing their uniforms which process took approximately 20-30 minutes daily. American Eagle Protective Services Corp. provides security services and offers personal protection and security officers, private investigation, lie detection, drug screening, hospital housekeeping, landscaping, and technical training services. American-Paragon Protective Services, LLC provides detective, guard, and armored car services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Rose, Esq. Manny M. Starr, Esq. Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, STE #2074 Calabasas, CA 91302 Tel: (818)914-3433 Fax: (818)914-3433 Emails: adam@frontierlawcenter.com manny@frontierlawcenter.com dan@frontierlawcenter.com ANTERO RESOURCES: Court Certifies Class in Romeo Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JACKLIN ROMEO, SUSAN S. RINE, and DEBRA SNYDER MILLER, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORP., Case No. 1:17-cv-00088-IMK-MJA (N.D. W. Va.), the Court entered an order: 1. denying Antero's motions to exclude; 2. denying Antero's motion to strike; 3. certifying a class of: "Persons and entities, including their respective successors and assigns, to whom Antero has paid royalties ("Royalties") on Natural Gas, including natural gas liquids, produced by Antero from wells located in West Virginia at any time since January 1, 2009, pursuant to Leases which contain either of the following gas royalty provisions: (a) [Lessee] covenants and agrees "to pay monthly Lessors' proportionate share of the one-eighth (1/8) of the value at the well of the gas from each and every gas well drilled on said premises, the product from which is marketed and used off the premises, said gas to be measured at a meter set on the farm"; or (b) "Lessee covenants and agrees to pay Lessor as royalty for the native gas from each and every well drilled on said premised producing native gas, as amount equal to one- eighth (1/8) of the gross proceeds received from the sale of the same at the prevailing price for gas sold at the well, for all native gas saved and marketed from the said premises, payable quarterly." The Class excludes: (1) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United State of America; (2) publicly traded oil and gas exploration companies; (3) any person who is or has been a working interest owner in a well produced by Antero in West Virginia; and (4) Antero. 4. appointing Romeo, Rine, and Miller as class representatives; and 5. appoinitng Larry Lee Javins, II, George A. Barton, and Howard M. Persinger, III as class counsel. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' proposed class is readily identifiable, and Antero's claims otherwise lack merit. Antero's Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Alvyn Schopp, confirmed during his deposition that its summary royalty reports are a summary of all payments from 2010 to 2018. He also confirmed that the summary royalty reports identified payees by payee number, and that Antero's accounting system maintains information about royalty calculations and payments. Moreover, Phil Yoo, an Antero employee in charge of its accounting department, confirmed that Antero maintains electronic information of all royalty payments it has made to payees since 2010, even though that information spans two different accounting systems: Excalibur (2010 to 2013 or 2014) and Enertia (2013 or 2014 to present). In other words, although Antero has not yet identified the potential class members by name, it maintains accounting information that makes them readily identifiable, thereby satisfying Rule 23's implicit requirement." Antero is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration. It is organized in Delaware and headquartered in Denver, Colorado. The company's reserves are entirely in the Appalachian Basin and are extracted using hydraulic fracturing.[CC] ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS: Rosenkrantz Sues Over Unrefunded Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Rosenkrantz, Susan Bishop, and Christopher Bishop, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arizona Board of Regents, Case No. 2:20-cv-00613-JZB (D. Ariz., March 27, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal and unfair conduct in retaining the costs of room and board and fees paid by the Plaintiffs and others, while forcing or encouraging them to move off campus. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid fees and/or the cost of room and board for the Spring 2020 academic semester at The University of Arizona, Arizona State University, and/or Northern Arizona University and who, because of ABOR's response and policies relating to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, lost the benefits of the room and board for which they had paid, and/or the services for which their fees were paid, without having those fees and costs refunded to them. In March 2020, ABOR and the Universities announced that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, all classes would be moved online for the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester. Students who lived in on-campus housing were told they had to move out or were strongly encouraged to do so, such that they had no meaningful choice but to comply. Further, because all classes were moved online, there was no reason for students to remain on campus if they had other housing available to them. This is particularly so in the face of the dangers, risks, and fear associated with the pandemic. Despite its constructive eviction of students at the Universities for the remainder of the semester and ending all campus activities for at least that same time period, ABOR has not offered refunds to students for the unused portion of their room and board, nor has it offered refunds of fees paid to cover the cost of certain on-campus services, which will no longer be available to students, the Plaintiffs say. To the extent refunds have been offered, the refunds have not been commensurate with the financial losses to the students and their families. ABOR is, in essence, profiting from this pandemic, they add. The Plaintiffs are parents of a University of Arizona student and paid their child's room and board and fees for the Spring 2020 semester. Arizona Board of Regents is the governing board created under the Arizona Constitution as the governing body for the Universities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT D. RYAN, P.L.C. 343 West Roosevelt Street, Suite 220 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Phone: 602-256-2333 Email: rob@robertdryan.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-214-7900 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com lreasons@dicellolevitt.com - and - Matthew S. Miller, Esq. MATTHEW S. MILLER LLC 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-741-1085 Email: mmiller@msmillerlaw.com ASR PIZZA INC: Amato Files Civil Suit in Florida Circuit Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASR PIZZA INC., DBA DOMINOS PIZZA, et al. The case is styled as Tamara Amato, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ASR PIZZA INC. DBA DOMINOS PIZZA, ANTHONY REULBACH, individually, Case No. 2020-10464-CIDL (Fla. Cir., Volusia Cty., March 27, 2020). The case type is stated as "OTHER CIVIL-CIRCUIT." Domino's Pizza, Inc., branded as Domino's, is an American multinational pizza restaurant chain founded in 1960.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N Orange Ave., 14th Floor B. LESTER LAW FIRM: McClinton Files FDCPA Suit in Arizona --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against B. Lester Law Firm. The case is styled as Rachel McClinton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B. Lester Law Firm, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00642-DLR (D. Ariz., April 1, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. B.Lester Law Firm is a client focused bi-lingual (Espanol) neighborhood law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Marcus & Zelman LLC - Asbury Park, NJ 701 Cookman Ave., Ste. 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com BACARDI USA: Court Dismisses Marrache FDUTPA Suit with Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Uri Marrache, Plaintiff, v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc. and Winn-Dixie Supermarkets, Inc., Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-23856-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Marrache commenced the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") class action against Bacardi and Winn-Dixie, alleging that one of the products made by Bacardi and sold by Winn-Dixie, the Bombay Sapphire gin, contains a botanical the use of which is prohibited under Florida law. The botanical is called grains of paradise, and it is identified in a Florida Statute enacted in 1868 that criminalizes the adulteration of liquor. Marrache does not allege that the bottle of gin he bought containing grains of paradise caused him any health issues or other harm. He instead alleges that the product was "worthless" because it was adulterated with grains of paradise. Marrache brings the class action complaint against Bacardi and Winn-Dixie due to his purchase of the "valueless" gin. Now, before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Plaintiff argues that his claims are not preempted because the Twenty-First Amendment grants states the right to regulate liquor. Judge Scola holds that the Plaintiff's argument is mistaken. The Supreme Court has stated that the Twenty-first Amendment does not in any way diminish the force of the Supremacy Clause. Therefore, the Twenty-First Amendment does not meaningfully change the preemption analysis in the instant case. Moreover, the case is comparable to recent court decisions finding state law claims stemming from the use of partially hydrogenated oils ("PHOs") in food were preempted because they conflicted with the FFDCA, which deemed PHOs to be safe. Next, Judge Scola explains that FDUTPA provides a civil cause of action for unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. There are three elements of a FDUTPA claim for damages: (1) a deceptive or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages. The Judge finds that Marrache's complaint makes no such allegations. Instead, it states that the class members were injured by purchasing an illegal product which is worthless. Marrache does not set forth allegations explaining how the product could have been worthless. Moreover, the Florida Statute criminalizing the adulteration of any liquor with grains of paradise is preempted by the FFDCA and the FDA's regulations deeming the additive to be generally recognized as safe. It is not illegal to sell gin adulterated with grains of paradise, and therefore, unlike the supplements in Debernardis, the gin is not worthless. Likewise, Marrache's claim for unjust enrichment fails, the Court opines. Marrache alleges that the Defendants received and retained wrongful benefits from his purchase of the "valueless" gin. But, as described, the Florida Statute criminalizing the adulteration of gin with grains of paradise is preempted by federal law; it is not illegal to sell gin adulterated with grains of paradise; and the gin is not worthless. The Defendants were not unjustly enriched because they sold a bottle of gin in exchange for money. For the reasons stated, Judge Scola granted the Defendants motion to dismiss with prejudice. Because Marrache has already amended his complaint and because the Florida Statute prohibiting the adulteration of the gin with grains of paradise is preempted, repleading would be futile, the Court opines. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/qjPmsQ from Leagle.com. Uri Marrache, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maury Lorne Udell -- mudell@bmulaw.com -- Beighley, Myrick, Udell & Lynne, P.A. & Roniel Rodriguez, IV -- ron@rjrfirm.com -- Roniel Rodriguez IV PA. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware corporation & Winn-Dixie Supermarkets, Inc., doing business as Winn Dixie Liquors, Defendants, represented by David B. Massey -- david.massey@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Melissa Linn Levitt -- melissa.levitt@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Martin Leonard Steinberg -- melissa.levitt@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US, LLP. BAIRES VALET: Vetek Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco J. Vetek, and other similarly situated individuals v. BAIRES VALET PARKING, INC., Case No. 9:20-cv-80526-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 27, 2020), is brought to recover damages for half-time unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on March 2017, without being compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation at the rate of one-half of their regular rate of pay for all of the overtime hours worked, based in part upon the Defendant's custom and practice of failing to credit and pay for overtime hours actually worked, among other violations of the FLSA. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a valet parking attendant. BAIRES VALET PARKING is a company providing valet parking services in West Palm Beach County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com BATTLE CREEK PIZZA: Fails to Pay FLSA Minimum Wages, Parker Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Parker, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. BATTLE CREEK PIZZA, INC.; KEVEN HERSHOCK; DOE CORPORATION 1-10; JOHN DOE 1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-00277 (W.D. Mich., March 27, 2020), seeks relief from the Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiff with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants repeatedly violated the FLSA by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby, failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked, says the complaint. All delivery drivers at the Defendants' stores, including the Plaintiff, have been subject to the same employment policies and practices, including policies and practices with respect to wages and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. The Plaintiff worked at Battle Creek Pizza stores as a delivery driver for the Defendants. The Defendants operate five Hungry Howie's pizza restaurants in the Battle Creek, Michigan area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Badley K. Glazier, Esq. Robert M. Howard, Esq. BOS & GLAZIER, P.L.C. 990 Monroe Avenue, N.W. Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Phone: (616) 458-6814 Email: bglazier@bosglazier.com - and – Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Louise M. Roselle, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Phone: 513-715-8711 Fax: 614-340-4620 Email: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com lroselle@billerkimble.com BLAZE PIZZA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Alcazar Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- JUAN ALCAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLAZE PIZZA, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01971 (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff is legally blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, and member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA. According to the complaint, Defendant's website https://www.blazepizza.com is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. During Plaintiff's numerous visits to Defendant's website, he encountered multiple access barriers which denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services offered to the public. Allegedly, Defendant uses standards, criteria, or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination against others. Blaze Pizza, LLC operates restaurants that provide to the public important goods and services and its website provides consumers with access to a variety of fast-casual food and beverage menu items and apparel which are available online and in restaurant locations for purchase. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bobby Saadian, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213)381-9988 Fax: (213)381-9989 Emails: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com BP EXPLORATION: Denial of Review of $1M Award to Walmart Upheld --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Requesting Parties-Appellants, v. CLAIMANT ID 100354107, Objecting Party-Appellee, Case No. 18-31275 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying discretionary review of the appeal panel's decision affirming the compensation award of nearly $1 million to Walmart. In 2003, Walmart opened "supercenter" #5079 in Pass Christian, Mississippi, just across U.S. Highway 90 from the Gulf of Mexico. The company operated the store for approximately two years, until Hurricane Katrina decimated Pass Christian in August 2005. The hurricane destroyed the store, and what was left of the building was demolished. In the wake of the hurricane, Walmart immediately announced plans to reopen the store. By early 2007, the company had purchased an additional 34 acres of land for the purpose of expanding its Pass Christian operation. Construction of the expanded store began in late 2008 and continued until Fall 2009. All the while, from September 2005 through early October 2009, the Pass Christian Walmart had no revenue. In late July 2009, the City of Pass Christian issued a new annual privilege tax license for the store, effective Oct. 1, 2009 through Sept. 30, 2010. Finally, on Oct. 14, 2009, the rebuilt Walmart #5079 opened to the public. On April 20, 2010, just six months after the Pass Christian Walmart reopened, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. Following the spill, BP entered into the Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement Agreement with entities that suffered spill-related economic losses. The Settlement Agreement provides several compensation frameworks for business entities, including one for regular Business Economic Loss ("BEL") claims and another for Start-Up Business Economic Loss ("SBEL") claims. Both frameworks allow businesses to submit claims for economic losses computed in part by comparing actual profits during a post-spill "Compensation Period" to expected profits for the same timeframe. The "Compensation Period" is a period of three or more consecutive months selected by the claimant from between May 2010 and December 2010 (for regular BEL claims) or between May 2010 and April 2011 (for SBEL claims). A primary difference between the BEL and SBEL frameworks involves how expected profits are calculated. As described in Exhibit 4C to the Settlement Agreement, regular BEL claimants recover under the Settlement Agreement by showing that profits during the spill year were less than profits during the preceding year(s), whereas SBEL claimants recover by showing that profits during the spill year were less than profits the subsequent year. In June 2015, Walmart filed an SBEL claim for its Pass Christian store, selecting July 2010 to January 2011 as its Compensation Period and July 2011 to January 2012 as its Benchmark Period. Based on financial documentation provided by Walmart, the Settlement Program computed a total net compensation of $817,392.13 and issued an award for that amount. BP challenged this award before an appeal panel, urging that because the Pass Christian Walmart had a "longstanding" history dating back to its 2003 opening, it had more than 18 months of operating history and therefore should not have been treated under the SBEL framework. BP asserted that Walmart's claim properly belonged within the BEL framework, which, according to BP, would yield an award of $0. The appeal panel noted BP's arguments but affirmed the award. The panel acknowledged a prior decision finding that a business with no sales to customers from January 2008 until April 2009 did not qualify for SBEL treatment, but observed that Walmart distinguished that case while supplying several other decisions holding that periods of dormancy did not preclude start-up treatment. The appeal panel agreed with the majority of the decisions and adopted Walmart's Final Proposal. BP promptly sought discretionary review of the appeal panel decision in the district court. On Nov. 14, 2018, the district court denied BP's request without comment. BP timely appealed. BP argues that the appeal panel misapplied and contradicted the Settlement Agreement by ignoring its plain language. BP emphasizes that nothing in the Settlement Agreement indicates that the start-up classification requires a continuous 18-month period of revenue generation leading up to the spill. Pointing to Policy 381 v.3, BP asserts that a business does not count as a "start-up" if it "commenced operations" on or before Oct. 20, 2008. BP thus contends that because Walmart began doing business in Pass Christian in 2003 and had well over 18 months of operating history by the time of the spill, its claim should have been treated under the regular BEL framework. Walmart responds that the appeal panel properly applied the terms of the Settlement Agreement in light of Policy 362 v.2's "totality of circumstances" test. The Fifth Circuit holds that the appeal panel made a discretionary decision not incongruent with the language of the Settlement Agreement, Walmart's structural argument provides evidence that the circumstance was never even contemplated by the parties to the Settlement Agreement. The Fifth Circuit finds it difficult to believe that the parties intended to foreclose recovery by businesses that suffered spill-related losses mere months after finally resurfacing from the Gulf Coast's previous catastrophe, Hurricane Katrina. Quite to the contrary, the Settlement Agreement instructs the Claims Administrator to select the framework and information that will produce the greatest economic damage compensation amount. The different frameworks for BEL and SBEL claims were not implemented to favor a particular type of business or restrict recovery for others, but rather to account for specific circumstances in a claimant's business that might impede its ability to file a claim under one or the other framework. The Fifth Circuit also discerns no split among appeal panels on the issue presented, let alone a split likely to have a substantial impact on the Settlement Program. The appeal panel applied regular BEL treatment in what it described as a "close call." Nothing about the outcome indicates that the panel would "likely" have applied regular BEL treatment to Walmart's claim, where Hurricane Katrina destroyed the store and the surrounding community, and where over four years passed before the store managed to commence its second operating history. Moreover, even if BP was correct that APD 2017-3537 contradicts both APD 2017-3813 and the decision at issue, that would not be enough to mandate discretionary review. Where a singular decision only possibly diverges from the others in a fact-bound "close call," there is little likelihood of substantial impact on the administration of the Settlement Agreement. Because the underlying appeal panel decision did not actually contradict or misapply the Settlement Agreement on a pressing question of implementation, and because there was no split among appeal panels on the issue presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying review. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/A3oKZ2 from Leagle.com. Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. Neal Manne -- nmanne@susmangodfrey.com -- for Objecting Party-Appellee. James Andrew Langan -- andrew.langan@kirkland.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. Hoke Peacock, J. III -- tpeacock@susmangodfrey.com -- for Objecting Party-Appellee. Devin Chase Reid -- dcreid@liskow.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. Aaron Lloyd Nielson -- aaron.nielson@kirkland.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. George W. Hicks, Jr. -- george.hicks@kirkland.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. Sarah E. Warlick, for Requesting Party-Appellant. Daniel A. Cantor -- daniel.cantor@arnoldporter.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. David Weiner -- dweiner@wmllp.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. Christian D. Sheehan -- christian.sheehan@arnoldporter.com -- for Requesting Party-Appellant. BR BRAND HOLDINGS: Faces Gonzalez ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BR Brand Holdings LLC. The case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BR Brand Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02614 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. BR Brands, LLC, is a consumer packaged goods company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Violates Detainees' Rights, Savino Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Alejandra Celimen Savino, Julio Cesar Medeiros Neves, Thomas Hodgson, and all those similarly situated, Petitioners-Plaintiffs v. THOMAS HODGSON, Bristol County Sheriff in his Official Capacity; STEVEN J. SOUZA, Superintendent Bristol County House of Corrections in his Official Capacity; TODD LYONS, Boston Field Office, Acting Director, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement in his Official Capacity; CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, in his Official Capacity; MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his Official Capacity; and U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondents-Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10617-PBS (D. Mass., March 27, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the constitutional rights of immigration detainees. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other immigration detainees at Bristol County Immigration Detention Facilities to remedy alleged grave violations of their constitutional rights that imminently threaten them with serious illness and death and to seek a writ of habeas corpus to remedy their unconstitutional detention in life-threatening conditions at Bristol County Immigration Detention Facilities. Despite repeated pleas from the Plaintiffs and community advocates, and despite clear evidence that the dangerous conditions in the Bristol County Immigration Detention Facilities where the Plaintiffs are confined will imminently result in the uncontrolled spread of COVID-19 and the likely death of many detainees, including the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have continued to confine detainees in close proximity, without adequate soap, toilet paper, and other daily necessities; admit new detainees without COVID-19 testing or screening; deny access to testing and medical care for Plaintiffs and other detainees; and refuse to release even the most vulnerable detainees with medical conditions that heighten their risk for infection, sickness, and death, according to the complaint. According to the Plaintiffs, these actions by the Defendants are the result of two egregious errors: the Defendants' flawed policies and decision-making surrounding COVID-19; and the conditions and structure of immigration detention and confinement at Bristol County Immigration Detention Facilities. The Plaintiffs contend that they are subject to imminent infection, illness, and death because of their civil immigration detention--literally trapped, with no safe alternative available to them. The Plaintiffs assert that facility staff has rebuffed their inquiries about COVID-19 risks and precautions. They note that their confinement conditions and detention treatment have created a dangerous and hazardous situation that imminently threatens their lives, as well as the well-being of guards and others in the surrounding community, and the general public. They insist that immediate relief is necessary before the coronavirus ignites the tinderbox that is BCHOC and irreversible damage is done. Unless the Court intervenes to order the release of the Plaintiffs, they, along with many other detained individuals and outside communities, will face dramatically increased chances of contracting COVID-19, becoming seriously ill, and dying, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are immigrant detainees.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Oren Nimni, Esq. Oren Sellstrom, Esq. Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Esq. LAWYERS FOR RIGHTS 61 Batterymarch Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 988-0606 Email: onimni@lawyersforcivilrights.org - and - Michael Wishnie, Esq. JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION P.O. Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520 Phone: (203) 432-4800 Email: michael.wishnie@ylsclinics.org BURROW GLOBAL: Campanaro Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Employees ---------------------------------------------------------------- MATT CAMPANARO, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BURROW GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00114 (E.D. Tex., March 20, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Project Controls Manager from approximately August 2018 through March 2020. The complaint asserts that because of Defendant's employment pattern, practice, and policy, Plaintiff and other hourly employees were not properly compensated for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. Burrow Global Services, LLC is an Engineeriing, Procurement, and Construction company that operates throughout Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma and provides its services to the refining, specialty chemicals, petrochemicals, midstream, and onshore upstream industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-352-1100 Fax: 713-352-3300 Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com cfitz@mybackwages.com BUSINESS FIRST: Parshall Suit Challenges Merger With Pedestal ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Parshall, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BUSINESS FIRST BANCSHARES, INC., ROBERT S. GREER, JR., LLOYD BENNY ALFORD, JOHN GRAVES, DAVID L. LAXTON III, ROLFE HOOD MCCOLLISTER, JR., ANDREW D. MCLINDON, DAVID R. MELVILLE III, PATRICK E. MOCKLER, DAVID A. MONTGOMERY, ARTHUR PRICE, FAYEZ K. SHAMIEH, JR., KENNETH W. SMITH, ROBERT V. YARBOROUGH, THOMAS EVERETT STEWART, JR., STEVEN G. WHITE, JACK E. BYRD, JR., N. JEROME VASCOCU, and PEDESTAL BANCSHARES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00438-UNA (D. Del., March 27, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Business First Bancshares, Inc. will merge with Pedestal Bancshares, Inc. On January 22, 2020, Business First's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Pedestal. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Pedestal will merge with and into Business First, with Business First surviving, and shareholders of Pedestal will receive 1.745 shares of Business First common stock for each share of Pedestal common stock they own. On March 4, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement/prospectus with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Prospectus, which recommends that Business First's stockholders vote to approve the Proposed Transaction at a special meeting scheduled for April 14, 2020, omits material information, which renders the Prospectus false and misleading, the Plaintiff contends. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Prospectus. According to the complaint, the Prospectus omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction. The Prospectus omits material information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Raymond James & Associates, Inc. The Prospectus also omits material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of Raymond. The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Prospectus are material in that a reasonable stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction. Because of the false and misleading statements in the Prospectus, the Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an owner of Business First common stock. Business First, through its banking subsidiary b1BANK, operates twenty-six banking centers in markets across Louisiana and Texas.[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 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: 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 Phone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com C. & M. SMITH: White Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- William White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C. & M. SMITH RESTAURANTS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00217-CHB (W.D. Ky., March 27, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant has violated the wage laws by requiring its hourly-paid restaurant workers to perform work off-the-clock and altering punch time records, thereby, failing to pay the workers for all hours worked, the Plaintiff contends. As a result of the Defendant's illegal pay policies and practices, the Plaintiff and other hourly restaurant workers were deprived of the hard-earned wages including overtime at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked over forty per week, says the complaint. Mr. White was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid employee. The Defendant is in the business of "owning, operating, and developing Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut branded foodservice operations."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harvey Bradford Harris, Esq. HARRIS FEDERAL LAW FIRM 601 Perimeter Drive, Suite 220 Lexington, KY 40517 Phone: (859) 226-2723 Fax: (859) 273-1520 Email: brad@harrisfederal.com - and - Jessica R. Doogan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP 250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (800) 274-5297 Fax: (614) 744-2300 Email: jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com CANOPY ENERGY: Aussieker Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARK AUSSIEKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CANOPY ENERGY CALIFORNIA, a California corporation, Defenfant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02607 (C.D. Cal., March 19, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a pre-recorded message in his cellular telephone from Defendant on January 8, 2020 which he confirmed by responding to it and he was transferred to a live person named Frank who shortly identified himself as from Canopy Energy. Allegedly, Defendant used automated dialers and prerecorded messages as one of its telemarketing strategies to solicit potential customers to use its services. Plaintiff claims that he did not provide prior express written consent to receive Defendant's call prior to the receipt of the calls. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's call has invaded his privacy and intruded upon his right to seclusion; and occupied the capacity of his cellular phone and depleted the battery of his cellular phone. Canopy Energy California offers alternative energy solutions, including solar panels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL Tel: (305)469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settlement in Rael FTCA Suit Has Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MONICA RAEL and ALYSSA HEDRICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., a DELAWARE corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00370-GPC-LL (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' amended, unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement and provisional class certification. On Feb. 11, 2016, Plaintiff Rael brought suit on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against The Children's Place, Inc. ("TCP") and 50 unnamed Does. Plaintiff Rael amended the complaint three times and added a second Named Plaintiff, Alyssa Hendrick. On Nov. 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") alleging three causes of actions for violations of (1) California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (2) California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and (3) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). In short, the Plaintiffs' three causes of action stem from the accusation that the Defendant routinely advertises discounted prices from false original prices to deceive customers as to the real value of their goods and unlawfully drive sales. On Nov. 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs also filed the initial unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement and provisional class certification. The Court heard that motion on Feb. 8, 2018. On April 2, 2018, the Court stayed proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the petitions for rehearing en banc in In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Economy Litigation. It denied the Plaintiffs' initial settlement motion on June 8, 2018 as moot. The Parties filed status updates during the pendency of the stay. On June 17, 2019, the Court lifted the stay. Then, on Oct. 31, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for preliminary approval of settlement and provisional class certification. They included the declarations of Todd Carpenter as Class Counsel and Carla Peak of Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC ("KCC"). On Nov. 22, 2019, TCP filed a notice of non-opposition. On Dec. 6, 2019, the Court held a second hearing on the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion. It then ordered the Parties supplement the record with factual support for their assertions at the hearing. On Jan. 3, 2020, the Parties filed three documents complying with the Court's order: (a) another declaration by Class Counsel Todd Carpenter dated Jan. 3, 2020; (b) the Plaintiffs' supplemental briefing; and (c) the declaration of Vipul Jain, a TCP employee. The Plaintiffs seek provisional certification of a nationwide class including all individuals in the United States who, from Feb. 11, 2012 through the date the Court enters the preliminary approval order, purchased any product bearing a discount at one of The Children's Place retail or outlet stores. The Plaintiffs further divide the Class into three Tiers. "Tier 1 Authorized Claimants" include individuals whose qualifying purchases total less than $50, or any individuals who do not submit proof of their purchases. "Tier 2 Authorized Claimants" include individuals whose qualifying purchases total $50.01 to $150. "Tier 3 Authorized Claimants" include individuals whose qualifying purchases total more than $150. Tier 2 and Tier 3 Claimants are required to submit proof of their purchases. Tier 1 Claimants get one voucher, Tier 2 Claimants get two vouchers, and Tier 3 Claimants get three vouchers. To compensate the Class for settling the action, the Settlement Agreement provides for a "Voucher Fund", which will contain 800,000 vouchers to be awarded to the qualifying Class Members. Vouchers may be used at a TCP store, outlet, or online, and come in one of two forms: (i) $6 off a purchase (no minimum purchase) or (ii) 25% off a purchase (of the first $100). Vouchers are "transferable," valid for 6 months, and may be used on items that are on sale or otherwise discounted. They cannot be combined with any other coupon or promotional offer, redeemed for cash, or replaced if lost, stolen, or damaged. The $6 vouchers are "stackable" while the 25% vouchers are not. The Settlement Agreement also permits the Named Plaintiffs and the Class Counsel to recover fees independent of the Voucher Fund. Each Named Plaintiff may recover an "Individual Settlement Award" of $2,500 or less, subject to the Court's approval. The Class Counsel may seek up to $1.08 million in costs and fees (total), subject to the Court's approval. If the Court awards less than that maximum amount in fees and costs to the Class Counsel, the difference between the actual award and $1.08 million will go to the Voucher Fund or, if certain criteria are met, become a cy pres distribution to the National Consumer Law Center. The Settlement Agreement provides for a tri-part notice structure. First, the Claims Administrator will post the Full Notice -- a document explaining the Settlement Agreement, the Class, the Order, and other information critical to the Class Members -- to an internet website specifically created for the settlement. Second, the Claims Administrator will use reasonable efforts to identify those TCP customers who may be Class Members for whom it has a valid email address and provide e-mail notice to those addresses. Third, the Claims Administrator will start implementing an online notice program through the Google Display Network. The Parties claim that their tri-part Notice Plan will reach approximately 70% of the class on average 2.5 times each. TCP agrees to bear the "administration costs, notice costs and any other related costs (including, but not limited to, distribution), consistent with Section 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement, and up $1 million. The Parties, through the Claims Administrator, will execute the Notice Plan within 60 days of the entry of the Order. Judge Curiel granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and provisional certification of the Class. The Settlement Agreement, including the Full Notice, E-Mail Notice, Online Media Notice, and Claim Form, are preliminarily approved. The Notice Plan is approved. The Parties and the Claims Administrator will notify the Class Members of the Settlement in the manner specified under Section 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement. The Parties will comply with Cal. Civ. Code Section 1781(d) by giving notice of the Settlement by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the alleged transactions occurred as provided by law. The Class is provisionally certified as a class of all individuals in the United States who, within the Class Period, made a Qualifying Purchase. The Parties will send new CAFA Notice Packets which include notice as to the date, time, and location for the Final Fairness Hearing, and a copy of the Order. Plaintiffs Monica Rael and Alyssa Hedrick are conditionally certified as the Class Representatives to implement the Parties' settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The law firm of Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP is conditionally appointed as the Class Counsel. The firm of Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC is conditionally appointed as the Claims Administrator. The Class Members may (i) file a Claim, as explained in Section 3.6 of the Settlement Agreement, (ii) object to the Settlement Agreement, as explained in Section 3.9 of the Settlement Agreement; (iii) request to be excluded from the class, as explained in Section 3.10 of the Settlement Agreement; and (iv) appear at the Fairness Hearing upon request as explained in Section 3.9(c) of the Settlement Agreement. All discovery and pretrial proceedings and deadlines are stayed until further notice from the Court, except for such actions as are necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement and the Order. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on July 31, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. All parties must adhere to the following dates: a. Last day for Defendant, through the Claims Administrator, to: (1) Send E-Mail Notice, (2) Start operating Settlement Website, and (3) Begin to provide Online Media Notice - 60 days after entry of the Order 3/31/2020 b. Last day for Plaintiffs to file fee petition - 90 days after entry of the Order 4/30/2020 c. Last day for Class Members to: (1) File a claim, (2) Request an exclusion, or (3) Object to the Settlement - 20 days after entry of the Order 5/30/2020 d. Last day for Parties to file briefs in support of the Final Order and Judgment - One month before the 6/30/2020 e. Date of Fairness Hearing - 160 or more days 7/31/2020 at 1:30 p.m. (to be held in Courtroom 2D of the Edward J. after entry of the at Schwartz U.S. Courthouse, 221 West Order Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101) A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/HY55jP from Leagle.com. Monica Rael, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Courtney Casola, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP, Scott Gregory Braden, The Stone Law Group & Todd D. Carpenter -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch LLP. Alyssa Hedrick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Gregory Braden, The Stone Law Group & Todd D. Carpenter, Carlson Lynch LLP. The Children's Place, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle C. Doolin -- mdoolin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Darcie Tilly -- dtilly@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish. CLIENT SERVICES: Baranskyi Alleges Violation under FDCPA -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc. The case is styled as Anatoli Baranskyi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01620 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Client Services, Inc. offers collection services. The Company provides accounts receivable management, debt collection services, and customer care solutions. Client Services assists businesses throughout markets in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Michael Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 741-4799 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com - and - Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Shields FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc. The case is styled as Karimah Shields, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01566 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Client Services, Inc. offers collection services. The Company provides accounts receivable management, debt collection services, and customer care solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com CLIENT SERVICES: Stolzberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc. The case is styled as Aron Stolzberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01578 (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Client Services, Inc. offers collection services. The Company provides accounts receivable management, debt collection services, and customer care solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com CMC ASSET: Valencia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos M. Valencia, and other similarly-situated individuals v. CMC ASSET HOLDINGS, LLC THE LOCAL CUBAN, LLC a/k/a THE LOCAL CUBAN EATERY, and JULIO MALLEA and CARMEN MALLEA, Individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-21351-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 27, 2020), seeks to recover damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours every week; however, every week the Plaintiff was paid for less than 40 hours. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages and overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that they worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a cook, line cook, and prep cook. THE LOCAL CUBAN EATERY is a restaurant located in Miami Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com COBBFENDLEY INTERNATIONAL: Leal Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Staff ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES LEAL, Plaintiff v. COBBFENDLEY INTERNATIONAL, LLC and COBB FENDLEY & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex., March 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid crew chief from May of 2019 to the present. CobbFendley International, LLC is a domestic limited liability company whose registered agent for service is Allen Watson, at 13430 NW Freeway, Suite 1100 in Houston, Texas. Cobb Fendley & Associates, Inc. is a domestic, for-profit corporation. Its registered agent for service in Texas is Corporation Service Company located at 211 EastA 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC One Financial Center 650 s. Shackleford Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com COLBURN ELECTRIC: De La Torre Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Lee De La Torre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Colburn Electric Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-00127-JED-JFJ (N.D. Okla., March 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven day workweek. The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours in numerous seven-day workweeks as an employee of the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff time and one-half her regular rate of pay for all of those hours worked over 40 in each and every seven-day workweek in the time period relevant to the Plaintiff's claims, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an electrician for the Defendant from May 14, 2014, to January 21, 2020. The Defendant provides residential and commercial electrical installation, service, and repair.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 251-4157 Facsimile: (214) 261-5159 Email: vaught@txlaborlaw.com COMPASS GROUP: Bryant Remanded to Cook County Circuit Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case, CHRISTINE BRYANT, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC, Defendant, Case No. 19 C 6622 (N.D. Ill.), to the Circuit Court of Cook County for lack of Article III standing. Bryant filed the putative class action in the Chancery Division of Cook County Circuit Court on Aug. 23, 2019. In her complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Compass Group violated her statutory rights under two sections of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") when it required her to provide a fingerprint scan prior to purchasing items from its vending machine. The Plaintiff first alleges that the Defendant violated Section 15(b) of BIPA by collecting her biometric data at one of its SmartMarket vending machines without obtaining her written consent. She alleges that the fingerprint collection also violated Section 15(a) of BIPA because the Defendant obtained her fingerprint without establishing a written retention schedule and destruction guidelines for possession of biometric data. The Plaintiff does not allege that the Defendant collected her biometric data without the Plaintiff's knowledge, shared her data with any third party, or created a risk that her data would fall into the hands of an unauthorized third party. On Oct. 4, 2019, the Defendant filed a notice of removal in the Circuit Court. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for remand, claiming that she lacks standing because she has not alleged an injury-in-fact as required by Article III standing requirements. The Defendant opposes remand, arguing that the Plaintiff has alleged an injury-in-fact such that she has standing to bring the claim in federal court. The question before the District Court is whether procedural violations of sections 15(a) and 15(b) -- without any allegation of harm stemming from the violations or any distribution of biometric data to third parties -- can constitute concrete injuries for Article III standing purposes. The Seventh Circuit addressed an analogous question in Miller v. Southwest Airlines Co. In that case, union airline workers alleged that their employers required them to use fingerprint identification without following the procedures laid out in sections 15(a) and 15(b) of BIPA. The union workers further alleged that these violations caused them concrete harms or increased the likelihood that they might suffer such harms. Specifically, the workers alleged that their employers may have shared their fingerprint data with outside administrators, which created a "greater risk of disclosure" to "criminals who hack into a computer system." The workers also alleged that had they not consented to the fingerprint identification, they faced the prospect of a material change in the terms and conditions of their employment. These allegations of material harm stemming from BIPA violations gave their claims the "concrete dimension" necessary to establish Article III standing. The District Court holds that it is the State's policy that an individual need not allege some actual injury or adverse effect, beyond violation of his or her rights under the Act, in order to qualify as an 'aggrieved' person entitled to relief. But it is the policy of the federal courts, by contrast, that a plaintiff must allege an "actual or imminent" injury in order to establish Article III standing. Had the Illinois Supreme Court instead characterized violations of Sections 15(a) and (b) as "actual injuries," then the Court would be obliged to construe the procedural violations alleged in the instant case accordingly. However, the Illinois Supreme Court explicitly indicated that BIPA procedural violations are not themselves actual injuries. Because the authoritative interpreter of Illinois law has dictated that procedural violations of Sections 15(a) and (b) are not "actual injuries," the Plaintiff has not alleged an injury with a "concrete dimension" as required by Miller. The Plaintiff -- like several plaintiffs who have alleged similar claims before other courts in the district -- thus lacks standing to pursue her claims in the Court. For these reasons, Judge Kendall concludes that the Defendant has failed to establish that the Plaintiff has Article III standing. The Judge therefore granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand to the Circuit Court of Cook County. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County forthwith. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Memorandum Order & Opinion is available at https://is.gd/71kssS from Leagle.com. Christine Bryant, on behalf of herself and all other persons, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas M. Werman -- dwerman@flsalaw.com -- Werman Salas P.C., Maureen Ann Salas -- msalas@flsalaw.com -- Werman Salas P.C. & Zachary Cole Flowerree -- zflowerree@flsalaw.com -- Werman Salas P.C. Compass Group USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph Clark Wylie, II -- joseph.wylie@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, Kenn Brotman -- kenn.brotman@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, Molly K. McGinley -- molly.mcginley@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Paul W. Sweeney, Jr. -- paul.sweeney@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, LLP, pro hac vice. CORECIVIC INC: Kansas Dist. Denies Bids to Intervene in Huff Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CoreCivic, Inc., f/k/a Corrections Corporation of America, and Securus Technologies, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO (D. Kan.), Judge Julie A. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied the requests filed by pro se Movants Tywan A. Poole, Montgomery Carl Akers, and Tyreece Gray to intervene in the class action case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. The litigation arises out of a lawsuit alleging state and federal wiretap claims against CoreCivic, Inc. ("CCA") and Securus Technologies, Inc. Named Plaintiffs Huff and Rapp are individuals who were held by the United States Marshal Service at CCA beginning on Oct. 6, 2015 and Aug. 14, 2014, respectively. They allege that they had numerous phone conversations with their attorneys while housed at CCA with the understanding that their conversations were private. The Plaintiffs allege that CCA and Securus recorded communications between detainees and their attorneys. They allege that after entry of the Court's 2016 cease and desist order in United States v. Black, No. 16-20032-JAR (D. Kan.), the Defendants continued to record attorney-client telephone calls for no legitimate reason related to the facility's security or public safety. On Sept. 26, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement between the parties, whereby the Defendants agreed to establish a common settlement fund in the amount of $1.45 million to be paid to the Settlement Class Members consisting of detainees or former detainees at CCA as damages related to recording phone calls between detainees and their attorneys. The proposed Settlement Class consists of approximately 540 persons, many of whom remain incarcerated: All detainees at Leavenworth Detention Center who, during the period of June 1, 2014 through June 19, 2017, had their attorney-client telephone calls recorded by the Defendants: (a) after the detainee requested privatization of his or her attorney's phone number (subclass A); (b) after his or her attorney requested privatization of the attorney's phone number (subclass B); (c) after Judge Robinson's cease and desist order on August 10, 2016, in the case styled U.S. v. Black, Case No. 2:16-CR-20032 (subclass C); or (d) after the detainee or his or her attorney otherwise notified one or more Defendants in writing of their attorney-client relationship and provided written notification of the attorney's phone number at issue (subclass D). The Class Counsel developed the Settlement Class member list by reviewing voluminous call record information and cross-referencing with privatization data produced by Defendants. The Class Counsel worked with CCA and the United States Probation Office to determine current addresses. Notice of the Settlement was provided and the Court conducted a Fairness Hearing on Jan. 28, 2020. The Class Counsel did not identify Poole, Akers, nor Gray as members of the Settlement Class. The matter is before the Court on the motions of three pro se movants to intervene in the class action case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 contemplates two grounds for intervention: intervention of right under Rule 24(a), and permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). The movant bears the burden of demonstrating that he has satisfied the conditions necessary for either grounds for intervention. Judge Robinson finds that the Movants have not met their burden under either rule. First, the Movants have not identified any federal statute giving them an unconditional right to intervene in the case under Rule 24(a)(1) and cannot satisfy the third and fourth factors established by Rule 24(a)(2). The Defendants represent that after extensive review, their records do not indicate that any Movant is a member of the Settlement Class or any of the sub-classes certified by the Court in the case, nor has any Movant provided any evidence to establish class membership. Because the Movants have not established class membership, they effectively maintain no interest in the disposition of the cause and fail to show how their respective interests would be impaired or impeded by the denial of intervention. In fact, adding the Movants to the case would prejudice their interests because they would not benefit from the Settlement. Should the Court approve the Settlement, this case will be dismissed with prejudice; if the Movants are added as parties, they will receive no compensation under the Settlement and their claims will be dismissed with prejudice. Further, any interest Movants do maintain, though not described in their respective motions, can be pursued through separate litigation. Second, Judge Robinson agrees with the parties that the Movants' addition to the class action litigation as pro se litigants, at this late stage of the case, would not aid in the disposition of the case. Instead, intervention would only serve to unnecessarily clutter and delay adjudication of the current proceedings. For these reasons, Judge Robinson denied the pro se Movants' Motions to Intervene. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/kort7Z from Leagle.com. Ashley Huff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Gregory L. Rapp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian C. McCart -- bmccart@btm-law.com -- Law Offices of Brian Timothy Meyers, Brian Timothy Meyers -- btmeyers@btm-law.com -- The Law Offices of Brian Timothy Meyers, Joseph A. Kronawitter -- jkronawitter@hab-law.com -- Horn, Aylward & Bandy LLC & Robert A. Horn -- rhorn@hab-law.com -- Horn, Aylward & Bandy LLC. CoreCivic, Inc., formerly known as Corrections Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Amy D. Fitts -- afitts@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Lauren E. Tucker McCubbin -- ltucker@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Michael P. Cutler -- mcutler@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC & Thomas G. Kokoruda-- tkokoruda@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC. Securus Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua P. Martin, Securus Technologies, Inc., pro hac vice, Robert Ryan Harding, Husch Blackwell LLP, pro hac vice & Tessa K. Jacob, Husch Blackwell LLP. Montgomery Carl Akers, Movant, pro se. Tyreece Gray, Movant, pro se. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Taylor Sues Over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; Case No. 2:20-cv-00655-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal., March 27, 2020), is brought to redress the alleged unfair business practices employed by Costco in connection with its sale of the herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate. The Defendant's retail stores and Web site sold various formulations of Roundup directly to consumers despite knowledge that Roundup may cause cancer. For example, California has classified the active ingredient, glyphosate, as a chemical known to cause cancer, such as Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Additionally, glyphosate is a Class 2A herbicide, meaning the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer ("IARC") has determined it is probably carcinogenic to humans. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant sold Roundup despite California's classification and the IARC's findings. The Defendant has also known Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides have been banned by many countries, regions, and municipalities throughout the world because it is dangerous to human health. Though the Defendant has no control over the information contained on the labels of Roundup products, it chose to sell the products without providing consumers with any additional information on its Web site, store shelves or at the point of sale about the products' potential health risks, the Plaintiff asserts. The Defendant's conduct--continuing to sell a line of weed killer products despite knowing they may be carcinogenic and without informing consumers about the potential health risks--constitutes an unfair business practice under the Unfair Competition Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a Roundup Weed & Grass Killer product during the Class Period twice. The Defendant is the second largest retailer in the United States and engaged in the marketing, sale, and distribution of a product line of herbicide Roundup.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara D. Avila, Esq. Marc A. Castaneda, Esq. MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 396-9600 Fax: (310) 396-9635 Email: gwade@mjfwlaw.com savila@mjfwlaw.com mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com CR ENGLAND: Clarke Suit Transferred to Utah ------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Clarke, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.R. England, a Utah Corporation, Defendant, was transferred from the California Central with the assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01411 to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (Central) on April 1, 2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00221-DB. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Other. C.R. England is one of the largest temperature-controlled carriers in the nation dedicated to providing a comprehensive range of transportation solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CREDIT CONTROL: Humphreys Files Suit in Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC. The case is styled as Shane Humphreys, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Control, LLC and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00542-MWB (M.D. Penn., April 1, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Restrictions of Telecommunications Act. Credit Control, LLC provides financial services. The Company provides early out solutions, collections, and debt settlement services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cynthia Levin, Esq. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, PC. 1150 First Avenue, Suite 501 King of Prussia, PA 19046 Tel: (888) 529-9111 ext 818 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: clevin@attorneysforconsumers.com CREDIT CONTROL: Teage Sues in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Meitta Teage, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Control, LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-00312 (M.D. Fla., March 26, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Control, LLC, provides financial services. The Company provides early out solutions, collections, and debt settlement services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33024 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com D & A SERVICES: Faces Friedman FDCPA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & A Services, LLC of IL. The case is styled as Joshua Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. D & A Services, LLC of IL, Case No. 1:20-cv-02009 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. D & A Services is a collection agency that services to the consumer bankcard/retail industry, auto deficiency, business to business, and financial services industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com DEBT RECOVERY: Ruffin Sues in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Gusie Ruffin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC, Pendrick Capital Partners II, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 5:20-cv-00120-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., March 26, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt Recovery Solutions is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33024 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com DEVA CONCEPTS: Faces Bolash Product Liability Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deva Concepts, LLC. The case is captioned as Kelliann Bolash, Jules Purnell, Ingrid Nin, Deborah Johnson, and Geneva Goldstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Deva Concepts, LLC, doing business as DevaCurl, Case No. 1:20-cv-02045-GHW (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2020). The suit demands $9.999 million in damages asserting product liability tort claim. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods. Deva manufactures hair care products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Koenig, Esq. HECHT, KLEEGER, PINTEL, & DAMASHEK 19 West 44th Street No. 1500 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 490-5700 Facsimile: (212) 490-4800 E-mail: koenig@lawyer1.com DOUBLE DOWN: 9th Cir. Upholds Arbitration Bid Denial in Benson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ADRIENNE BENSON; MARY SIMONSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DOUBLE DOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada corporation, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 18-36015 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying Double Down and International Game's motion to compel arbitration. Double Down failed to carry its burden to prove, under Washington law, that either Plaintiff assented to the arbitration clause in its terms of use, the Ninth Circuit finds. The existence of mutual assent in the online context turns on whether the consumer had reasonable notice of the governing terms. In the absence of actual notice, a browsewrap agreement like the Terms of Use at issue, is enforceable only if a reasonably prudent user would have constructive notice of those terms. Constructive notice, in turn, depends on the conspicuousness and placement of the terms and conditions, as well as the content and overall design of the website or mobile application. Simonson never received constructive notice of the Terms of Use. As in Wilson v. Huuuge, Inc., a user would have to closely scrutinize Double Down's page on the Apple App Store in order to find the Terms of Use during the downloading process. There is no reference to them on the opening screen of Double Down's page; instead, they are buried at the bottom of the page and accessible only after scrolling past multiple screens and images that a user need not view to download the platform. And during gameplay on Double Down's mobile platform, finding the Terms of Use is just as much of a "hide-the-ball exercise" as it was in Wilson: A user must first locate a small settings menu in a corner of the screen that is obscured amongst the brightly colored casino games, and then find the "Terms of Use" heading in the pop-up settings menu, which is not bolded, highlighted, or otherwise set apart from the four other headings in that menu. Benson also never received constructive notice of Double Down's Terms of Use. When a user first connects to the Facebook platform, the Terms of Use are accessible through a gray "App Terms" hyperlink on a pop-up screen that is below and smaller than all other text on the screen. The pop-up screen also does not inform users that they are bound by the Terms of Use. The "Terms of Use" hyperlink and accompanying notification that are accessible during gameplay on the Facebook platform do not cure the notice problem. Significantly, the hyperlink and notification become visible only after a user scrolls to the bottom of the platform. Moreover, like the settings menu on the mobile platform, the hyperlink and notification are obscured amongst the brightly colored icons on the Facebook platform, id., and they are set out in typeface that is substantially smaller than all other text on the screen. Double Down's remaining arguments are not persuasive. Repeated use of a website or mobile application does not contribute to constructive notice because users are no more likely to stumble upon inconspicuous hyperlinks on their hundredth or thousandth visit than they are on their first. Nor do the terms and conditions that govern all transactions on the Apple App Store place a reasonably prudent user of the mobile platform on constructive notice of Double Down's Terms of Use. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling on the motion to compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Jan. 29, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/OeqrXA from Leagle.com. EARNHARDT'S GILBERT: Winters Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. d/b/a Earnhardt Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, Case No. 2:20-cv-00615-SMB (D. Ariz., March 27, 2020), seeks damages and other remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations. According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system on his cellular telephone. While the Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant's, the Defendant did not secure proper written consent, as is required under the 2013 telemarketing regulations. The Plaintiff did not sign a compliant written consent form. Instead, the Defendant simply robot-dialed all of its customers for marketing purposes in the same or similar manner as the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Mesa, Arizona. The Defendant operates an automobile dealership business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 800-400-6808 Fax: 800-520-5523 Email: david@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com EISAI INC: Sued by Zottola for Selling Defective Belviq Drug ------------------------------------------------------------ Barbara Zottola, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EISAI INC., ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and CVS HEALTH CO., Case No. 7:20-cv-02600 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020), is a brought to recover damages and restitution for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violation of New York General Business Law, violation of New York General Business Law, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, fraud, and conversion. The case is a class action lawsuit regarding Defendants Eisai and Arena's manufacturing and distribution of the weight loss medications Belviq and Belviq XR that exposed unknowing users to a significantly elevated risk of cancer. Worse is that Defendants Eisai and Arena knew, from the early stages of research and development of these medications that they exposed users to high rates of cancer. Eisai and Arena nevertheless pushed the product to market and sold tens of millions of dollars, or more, of these defective medications to the Plaintiff and Class members, according to the complaint. Patients like Ms. Zottola and Class members, who had previously paid substantial sums of money to purchase and use these medications, which, incidentally, were not covered by most, if not all, insurance companies, suffered injury as a result of using the products, the Plaintiff contends. Without insurance coverage, a one-month supply of Belviq Medications costs approximately $300. The Plaintiff alleges that the dangerous nature of these medications was known to their manufacturers, who knew about the cancer risk from the early stages of research and development of the medications, well before the products were brought to market. Nevertheless, she argues, Defendants Eisai and Arena pushed the products to market, minimizing and downplaying, and at times obfuscating the cancer risk. The Plaintiff asserts that she and the Class were injured by the full purchase price of their Belviq medications because the risks of the medications outweighed their benefits and the medications should never have been sold in. Had Defendants Eisai and Arena been forthright with the FDA regarding the animal studies conducted beginning in 2007, and the true cancer risk of the medications, the medications would never have made it to market, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was prescribed and purchased and used Belviq, manufactured by Eisai and Arena, on several occasions over a period of two years. The Defendants have been engaged in the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of defective Belviq and Belviq XR in the United States, including in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: aobergfell@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com - and - Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220 Miami, FL 33133-5402 Phone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: sweetcot@bursor.com ENSIGN UNITED: Filing of Third Amended Newell Complaint Allowed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LOUIS NEWELL, an individual, for himself and those similarly situated; MIGUEL CALDERON, an individual, for himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING (CALIFORNIA) INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-01314-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, granted the Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint with the Court without delay. The Defendant may file its responsive pleading no later than 30 from the filing of the third amended complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/MG9FZO from Leagle.com. Louis Newell, an individual, for himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Hefelfinger -- info@calemploymentcounsel.com -- Palay Hefelfinger APC & Michael A. Strauss -- mike@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss & Strauss, APC. Ensign United States Drilling (California) Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by David J. Cooper -- dcooper@kleinlaw.com -- Klein, Denatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball, LLP, Mayra G. Estrada -- mestrada@kleinlaw.com -- Klein DeNatale Goldner & Olivia Vanessa Franco Chavez -- vchavez@kleinlaw.com -- Klein DeNatale Goldner. EURO HOMECARE: Bid for Conditional Class Certification Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MARIA GORZKOWSKA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EURO HOMECARE LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01773-VAB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an Order: 1. granting their motion for conditional certification and notice to potential Plaintiffs; 2. directing the Defendants to provide Plaintiffs, within 10 days from the date of this Court's Order granting this Motion, the names, dates of employment, last known home addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and the last four digits of social security numbers of all individuals who worked for Defendants as live-in caregivers or companions at any time between November 7, 2016 and the present; 3. authorizing the Notice included with the Plaintiffs' Motion to be immediately issued by first class mail and electronic mail to those individuals whose names are provided, and posted at Defendants' offices; 4. authorizing the consent to join lawsuit form included with Plaintiffs' Motion to be enclosed and posted with the Notice to Potential Plaintiffs, along with a self- addressed, stamped envelope; and 5. providing the potential class members of up to 120 days after the mailing and/or e-mailings of the Notice to file a Notice of Consent to opt in to this litigation as plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to compensate their live-in homecare employees in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. Consequently, these current and former employees are entitled to unpaid hourly and overtime wages, statutory damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint. Euro Homecare is non medical in-home care agency that specializes in elderly care.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the putative collective are: Mariusz Kurzyna, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301-587-9373 Facsimile: 240-839-9142 E-mail: mkurzyna@zagfirm.com FCA US LLC: Melson Files Product Liability Suit in D. Montana ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case is styled as Eric Melson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 9:20-cv-00042-DLC (D. Mont., March 27, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as motor vehicle product liability. FCA US LLC is a North American automaker based in Auburn Hills, Michigan. FCA designs, manufactures, and sells or distributes vehicles under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, FIAT and Alfa Romeo brands, as well as the SRT performance designation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Phone: (406) 839-9091 Fax: (406) 839-9092 Email: john@lawmontana.com - and - Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq. BECHTOLD LAW FIRM PO Box 7051 Missoula, MT 59807-7051 Phone: (406) 721-1435 Email: tim@bechtoldlaw.net FCA US: Faces Galloway Suit in Utah Over Unsolicited Phone Sales ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US. The case is captioned as Greg Galloway individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. FCA US, Case No. 2:20-cv-00149-DBB (D. Utah, March 6, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David Barlow. The lawsuit asserts claim against the Defendant for unsolicited telephone sales. FCA US is a North American automaker based in Auburn Hills, Michigan. FCA designs, manufactures, and sells or distributes vehicles under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep (TM), Ram, FIAT and Alfa Romeo brands, as well as the SRT performance designation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nancy A. Mismash, Esq. ROBERT J. DEBRY & ASSOCIATES 4252 S 700 E Salt Lake City, UT 84107 Telephone: (801) 262-8915 E-mail: nmismash@robertdebry.com FERNANDES BROTHERS: Faces Gutierrez Employment Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fernandes Brothers, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Vicente S. Gutierrez, On Behalf Of All others similarly situated v. Fernandes Brothers, Inc. doing Business As Legacy Ranches and Fern Oak Farms; Joshua S. Fernandes; and Jared R. Fernandes, Case No.VCU282364 (Cal. Super., Tulare Cty., March 6, 2020). The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws. A case management conference will be held on July 21, 2020, the Court says. Fernandes Brothers is an exporter of cashews.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Enrique Martinez, Esq. 333 Hegenberger Rd., Ste. 500 Oakland, CA 94621-1462 Telephone: (510) 588-1000 FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Parish Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Marketing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Parish, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC D/B/A LA FITNESS, a California Limited Liability Company, Case No. 8:20-cv-00613 (C.D. Cal., March 27, 2020), seeks to secure redress for the Defendants' violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in aggressive unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Defendant is an American gym chain with more than 700 clubs across the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Andrea Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com - and – Annick M. Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 254-6807 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com GLASS MOUNTAIN: Faces Kennedy Suit over Recording of Phone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDGAR KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLASS MOUNTAIN CAPITAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00554-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal., March 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's representative or agent called his cellular phone number on January 26, 2019, and they discussed his personal information including financial information related to his impending bankruptcy. During the conversation, he was not informed that the call was being recorded which violated his rights of privacy pursuant to the CIPA. Glass Mountain Capital, LLC is a debt collection agency headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: yana@kazlg.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Facsimile: (866) 431-3292 E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com GREAT DESTINATIONS: Threde Files TCPA Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Great Destinations, Inc. The case is styled as Johnathan Threde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Great Destinations, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02231-TSH (N.D. Cal., April 1, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed over the Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Great Destinations, Inc. offers sales services of resort timeshares.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon Bernhard Fougner, Esq. 600 California Street, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel: (415) 577-5829 Fax: (206) 338-0783 Email: Jon@FougnerLaw.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. Paronich Law, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Tel: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (617) 830-0327 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com HANNA LAW: 6th Cir. Affirms Amended Judgment in McClain Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, THEODORE McCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DALEN PATRICK HANNA, I; HANNA LAW PLLC; HANNA LLP, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-1726 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's amended judgment for McClain as to all counts in his complaint. Ordinarily, a plaintiff can't have his case and settle it too. McClain thinks otherwise. McClain settled his case -- without reservation. Yet now he wants to represent a putative class action in the same case. Less than a year ago, McClain sued Dalen Hanna and Hanna's two law firms under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and an analogous Michigan statute. McClain brought both individual and class claims. Within a week, Hanna offered McClain a settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. That settlement allowed judgment to be entered in McClain's favor "as to all counts" of his complaint. It also gave McClain his full damages (both actual and statutory) as well as his litigation costs and reasonable attorney's fees. Four days later, McClain accepted the settlement offer but simultaneously filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification -- apparently to preempt a mootness ruling. Even so, the district court found the class claims to be moot and entered a judgment dismissing both the individual and class claims. Yet McClain then pointed out that the court should have entered judgment in his favor since that's what the settlement said. So the district court entered an amended judgment for McClain as to all counts in his complaint. The appeal followed. According to McClain, the question is whether his settlement mooted his class claims. But there's an initial problem with that question: the district court didn't dismiss any of McClain's claims as moot. In the end, it entered judgment in his favor as to all counts. And it did so based on a settlement agreement in which McClain failed to reserve any right to pursue his class claims on appeal. As a result, the Court now need not reach the mootness question. For over a century, federal courts have followed a simple rule: parties may not challenge a judgment to which they have consented. Although people sometimes describe this rule as "jurisdictional" or related to "standing," in reality the consent waives any challenge on the merits. Of course, parties may preserve their right to challenge the judgment if they "reserve that right unequivocally. But if they fail to do so, they may not challenge issues within the scope of the judgment. As applied in the instant case, that rule leads to a straightforward result. In their settlement agreement, the parties agreed to have judgment entered for McClain as to all counts in his complaint. The settlement doesn't except any claims or interests from the judgment. Nor would it make much sense to read the settlement that way since the first three "counts" of the complaint are "class claims." So when McClain agreed to judgment on "all counts," that judgment unambiguously includes his class claims. Indeed, other courts have reached the same conclusion based on similar language in settlement agreements. Thus, McClain has waived any further interest in his class claims and may not pursue those claims on appeal. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling on McClain's complaint. A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's Feb. 5, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/xDsUqa from Leagle.com. ARGUED: Curtis Warner -- cwarner@warner.legal -- WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC, Corning, New York, for Appellant. Dalen P. Hanna -- contact@hannallp.com -- HANNA LAW, PLLC, Birmingham, Michigan, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Curtis Warner, WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC, Corning, New York, for Appellant. Dalen P. Hanna, HANNA LAW, PLLC, Birmingham, Michigan, for Appellees. HF FOODS GROUP: Faces Mendoza Securities Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Mendoza, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HF FOODS GROUP INC., ZHOU MIN NI, XIAO MOU ZHANG, CAIXUAN XU, and JIAN MING NI, Case No. 2:20-cv-02929 (C.D. Cal., March 29, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded HF Foods securities between August 23, 2018, and March 23, 2020, inclusive. On August 23, 2018, HF Foods issued a press release announcing Atlantic Acquisition Corp. (then the Company's name) recent "consummation of its business combination with privately-held HF Group Holding Corporation; its name change to "HF Foods Group Inc."; and the change in ticker symbol from "ATACU", "ATAC", and "ATACR" to "HFFG". Further, the press release announced the following: "As a result of the completion of the business combination, the former shareholders of HF Group will be issued 19.97 million shares of stock (representing approximately 88.5% of the outstanding common stock) at a value of $10.00 each, based on a $199.7M valuation of the combined company." On August 27, 2018, HF Foods filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Form 8-K, signed by Defendant Jonathan Ni, which described the merger of HF Group and Atlantic. On November 11, 2018, HF Foods filed with the SEC its quarterly report for the period ended September 30, 2018, signed by Defendants Zhou Min Ni and Jonathan Ni. Attached to the 3Q 2018 Report were certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 signed by Defendants Zhou Min Ni and Jonathan Ni attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud. The 3Q 2018 Report also purported to provide all related party transactions. According to the complaint, the statements were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial results, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) HF Foods engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (2) HF Foods insiders and related parties were enriching themselves by misusing shareholder funds; (3) HF Foods was "gaming" the FTSE/Russell Index by masking the true number of shares free floating; and (4) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On March 23, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report explaining that HF Foods had, among other issues, failed to disclose: (i) transactions with related-parties; (ii) its flagrant misuse of shareholder funds; and (iii) its gaming of the FTSE/Russell Index criteria. On this news, shares of HF Foods' fell $2.52 per share, or over 20%, to close at $9.80 per share on March 23, 2020, damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. HF Foods, through its subsidiaries, purports to market and distribute fresh produce, frozen and dry food products, and non-food products to Asian restaurants, primarily Chinese restaurants, and other foodservice customers throughout the Southeast, Pacific, and Mountain West regions in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com HIRSCH PIPE: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Loera Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SAUL LOERA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. HIRSCH PIPE & SUPPLY CO., INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01136571-CU-OE-CXC-ROA (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Mar. 5, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime wages, meal period and rest period premiums, and minimum wages. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, from October 2008 to April 2019. The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with the Defendants. Founded in 1933, Hirsch is a wholesale distributor of plumbing supplies in Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Pacheco Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. The case is styled as Sakiyna Pacheco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-02607 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Immediate Credit Recovery is a private debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Michael Barshay, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com INTERSECT ENT: Continues to Defend Yaron Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Intersect ENT, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02647. In May 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company, Avi Yaron, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02647, against the Company and certain individual officers and directors alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual officers made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's business and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The Court has appointed the lead plaintiff and has set a schedule for initial motions and pleadings. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Intersect ENT, Inc., incorporated on October 6, 2003, is a commercial-stage drug-device company. The Company develops drugs for patients with ear, nose and throat (ENT) conditions. The company is based in Menlo Park, California. JACOBY & MEYERS: Summary Judgment Bid in Harding Suit Partly Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned NANCY HARDING & JEFF HARDING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, et al., Defendants. BARBARA J. SMALLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, et al., Defendants, Civil Action Nos. 14-5419, 15-6559 (D. N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and (ii) denied their motion to strike the Plaintiffs' expert without prejudice. The matter arises from a dispute between Nancy and Jeffrey Harding and their former lawyers, Finkelstein & Partners, LLP ("F&P"), and a dispute between Barbara J. Smalls and her former lawyers, Jacoby & Myers, LLP ("J&M"). The Hardings and Smalls retained F&P and J&M, respectively, to represent them in their personal injury cases for a contingency fee. Plaintiffs allege that the Law Firm Defendants improperly charged them for work performed by Total Trial Solutions, LLC. Total Trial is a litigation support company that is partially owned by Andrew Finkelstein, the managing partner of F&P and J&M. The Plaintiffs claim that Total Trial's work should have been included in the Law Firm Defendants' contingency fee rather than billed as separate non-legal expenses. They also allege that the Law Firm Defendants improperly marked-up the cost of Total Trial's work in order to make a profit. On Dec. 7, 2017, the Harding Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to consolidate the Harding and Smalls matters, arguing that the cases share factual allegations, legal claims, and parties, including the proposed classes. The motion was granted on June 29, 2018 and the cases were consolidated. The Harding Plaintiffs also filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint on Dec. 21, 2017. They sought to amend the complaint to add allegations demonstrating that Total Trial is the alter-ego of F&P and Finkelstein. Their motion was granted on July 11, 2018, and the Amended Complaint was filed on July 12, 2018. Smalls was granted leave to file an amended complaint with virtually identical alter-ego allegations as to J&M, Finkelstein, and Total Trial on Nov. 16, 2017, and her Second Amended Complaint was filed on Nov. 27, 2017. On Dec. 31, 2018, the Defendants sought leave to file a motion for summary judgment in the consolidated matter. In their letter request, they discuss the Plaintiffs' claim together but explained that they sought to dismiss the Hardings' claims on the merits and Smalls' claims as moot. They were granted leave to file the instant motion for summary judgment on March 22, 2019. The Order granting leave stated that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is limited to the issues raised in their letter and that if they raise additional issues, they will be disregarded by the Court. The Defendants filed the motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2019. They seek summary judgment dismissing all claims asserted by the Plaintiffs on the merits, and also dismissing Smalls as a Plaintiff in the matter for lack of standing. With respect to the Defendants' arguments as to Smalls, because the Defendants were explicitly informed that their motion for summary judgment must be limited to the issues raised in their letter seeking leave to file, the Court will only consider whether Smalls has standing in the matter. The Court does not consider the Defendants' arguments that seek to dismiss any claim against Smalls on the merits. The Defendants seek to dismiss Smalls' claims for lack of standing. Judge Vazquez finds that Smalls' personal injury case has not yet been resolved, and liens are negotiable and may even be waived. As a result, while it seems highly unlikely that Smalls will personally recover any proceeds if her personally injury case is ultimately resolved in her favor, the Judge cannot conclude with absolute certainty that it will be impossible to grant any relief to Smalls through the litigation. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is therefore denied as to Smalls for lack of standing. The Defendants argue that the wrongful or inequitable conduct must be separate and apart from the wrongdoing alleged in the complaint. Their argument, however, is not supported by New York law. Under the alter-ego theory of veil-piercing, the corporate veil may be pierced when multiple corporate entities disregard the corporate form and conduct business as a single entity, and that doing so caused the alleged harm. That is precisely what the Harding Plaintiffs allege. The Harding Plaintiffs contend that Finkelstein used Total Trial to increase F&P's profits, and that doing so was, among other things, a breach of Finkelstein and F&P's fiduciary duties. There is a material issue of fact as to whether Finkelstein and F&P breached their fiduciary duties, the Hardings' retainer agreements, and violated GBL Section 349. Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the alter ego allegations. The Defendants seek summary judgment dismissing the Harding Plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claims, which are premised on violations of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct ("RPCs"). The Court finds that the Plaintiffs do not dispute that F&P is entitled to its 33 1/3% recovery fee and that expenses were deducted from their total recovery. Thus, on its face, there does not appear to be a violation of RPC. There is also sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to determine that Total Trial participated in F&P and Finkelstein's breach of their fiduciary duties as Total Trial provided F&P with invoices that included the purportedly unreasonable fees and expenses that were ultimately paid by the Hardings. Finally, professionals who owe fiduciary duties to their client may be subject to tort liability independent from their contractual obligations as "it is policy, not the parties' contract, that gives rise to a duty of due care." In such a situation, even if the underlying wrongful conduct is the same, a breach of fiduciary duty claim is not duplicative of a breach of contract claim. Thus, the Harding Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim are not be dismissed as duplicative. Next, the Defendants seek to dismiss the Harding Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims, arguing that the Defendants fully performed under the retainer agreements. The Court already concluded that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Defendants unreasonably marked-up the cost of services provided by Total Trial, which is turn reduced the amount that the Harding Plaintiffs ultimately recovered from their personal injury cases. A jury may, alternatively, determine that the complained of counduct amounts to a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As a result, the Defendants' motion is denied with respect the breach of contract claims. In Count Three, the Harding Plaintiffs assert a claim against F&P and Finkelstein for "deceptive business practices" under GBL Section 349(a). The Defendants also seek summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs' Section 349 claim. Again, the Judge holds that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Finkelstein and F&P unreasonably marked-up non-legal fees from Total Trial. Accordingly, a reasonable jury may conclude that it constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of GBL Section 349. The Defendants also seek summary judgment dismissing the Harding Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims because the dispute is covered by the parties' retainer agreements. In their unjust enrichment claim, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants received a benefit through the Total Trial fees for which they were ultimately responsible. The parties, however, do not dispute that the retainer agreements were valid, enforceable contracts. Further, the Court already concluded that the alleged wrongful conduct is encompassed in the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. Therefore, their unjust enrichment claim is duplicative as it is premised on the same rights and obligations as the breach of contract claim. Summary judgment, therefore, is granted to the Defendants as to Count Four. In a separate motion, the Defendants seek to strike the Plaintiffs' expert, Andrew Bluestone, because his report contains inadmissible net opinions and legal opinions, and is not based upon the evidence. Because the Court did not rely on Bluestone's expert report to decide the motion for summary judgment, the motion to strike is denied without prejudice. The Defendants may refile the motion to strike as a motion in limine before trial. For the reasons stated, Judge Vazquez granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Judge denied without prejudice their motion to strike. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/lPIgSx from Leagle.com. NANCY HARDING & JEFFREY HARDING, Plaintiffs, represented by JOSEPH R. SANTOLI & OLIMPIO LEE SQUITIERI, SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP. BARBARA J. SMALLS, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by JOSEPH R. SANTOLI. JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, FINKELSTEIN & PARTNERS, LLP, TOTAL TRIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, ANDREW FINKELSTEIN & KENNETH OLIVER, Defendants, represented by A. RICHARD ROSS, CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, JAMES E. CECCHI -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. & LINDSEY H. TAYLOR -- LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO. JOHN B. STETSON COMPANY: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ John B. Stetson Company, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. John B. Stetson Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01637 (E.D. N.Y., March 31, 2020). John B. Stetson Company is located in Hoboken, NJ, United States and is part of the Clothing Stores Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com JOHNS HOPKINS: $4.7MM Attorneys Fees Awarded in Kelly Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARGARET E. KELLY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-2835-GLR (D. Md.), Judge George Levi Russell, III of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, granted the Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of reasonable expenses, and compensation for the class representatives from a common fund created from the class action settlement. The Plaintiffs commenced the class action against the Defendant, asserting seven counts, in August 2016. In Counts I and II, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendant breached its duty of loyalty and prudence under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1)(A)-(B) and committed prohibited transactions under Section 1106(a)(1) by locking the Johns Hopkins University 403(b) Plan into providing the CREF Stock Account, regardless of its performance or fees, and locking the Plan into TIAA's recordkeeping services. In Counts III and IV, they allege that the Defendant breached its duties of loyalty and prudence under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1)(A)-(B) and committed prohibited transactions under Section 1106(a)(1) by using five vendors instead of a single recordkeeper, allowing those recordkeepers to receive unreasonable compensation, failing to prudently monitor and control recordkeeping expenses, and failing to solicit bids from other recordkeepers. Under Counts V and VI, Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant breached its duties of loyalty and prudence under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1)(A)-(B) and committed prohibited transactions under Section 1106(a)(1) by failing to prudently monitor Plan investment options, resulting in the use of high-cost and underperforming funds compared to alternatives available to the Plan. Under Count VII, to the extent the Defendant delegated any of its fiduciary duties, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to prudently monitor the actions of those individuals. The Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint in January 2017. On Sept. 29, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The motion was granted to the extent the Plaintiffs allege under Counts I, III, and V that "Johns Hopkins acted imprudently by offering too many investment options or higher-cost share classes in the Plan", and for Counts II, IV, and VI, to the extent that they allege that maintaining mutual funds or that revenue sharing from a mutual fund is a prohibited transaction. The motion was denied in all other respects. The parties have engaged in over two years of hard-fought litigation. On Aug. 6, 2019, the Plaintiffs then moved for preliminary approval of a settlement, which was granted on Aug. 16, 2019. On Oct. 23, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the settlement class under Rule 23(b)(1) and appointed Schlichter Bogard & Denton the Class Counsel. The Court appointed Named Plaintiffs Margaret E. Kelly, Katrina Allen, Jeremiah M. Daley, Jr., Treva N. Boney, Tracy L. McCracken, Jerrell Baker, Lourdes Cordero, and Francine Lampros-Klein the class representatives. The Class Counsel has filed the first cases in history claiming excessive fees in 403(b) plans. Prior thereto, no case had ever been brought by a private law firm or the Department of Labor asserting claims of fiduciary breach for excessive fees and imprudent investments involving a 403(b) plan. Schlichter Bogard & Denton pioneered this ground-breaking and novel area of litigation. More than a decade prior, Schlichter Bogard & Denton similarly pioneered excessive fee litigation involving 401(k) plans. As has been repeatedly recognized, Schlichter Bogard & Denton's work on behalf of participants in large 401(k) and 403(b) plans has significantly improved these plans, brought to light fiduciary misconduct that has detrimentally impacted the retirement savings of American workers, and dramatically brought down fees in defined contribution plans. The Class Counsel filed the pending motion for attorneys' fees on Aug. 23, 2019. The Counsel requests $4,666,667 in attorneys' fees (one-third of the monetary recovery), reimbursement of $53,539.78 in litigation-advanced expenses, and case contribution awards of $20,000 each for Named Plaintiffs Margaret E. Kelly, Katrina Allen, Jeremiah M. Daley, Jr., Treva N. Boney, Tracy L. McCracken, Jerrell Baker, Lourdes Cordero, and Francine Lampros-Klein. The Defendant has not opposed the motion. Taking into account the benefit of tax deferral and fee savings, Judge Russell finds that the settlement is valued at $34,766,732. Thus, the Class Counsel's requested fee is less than 7.45% of the total benefit to the class. This is a conservative estimate because it does not take into account additional benefits that are provided through other non-monetary terms. Judge Russell approves the following hourly rates for Schlichter, Bogard & Denton: for attorneys with at least 25 years of experience, $1,060 per hour; for attorneys with 15-24 years of experience, $900 per hour; for attorneys with 5-14 years of experience, $650 per hour; for attorneys with 2-4 years of experience, $490 per hour; and for Paralegals and Law Clerks, $330 per hour. Within the last several months, the Class Counsel's reasonable hourly rates were approved by district courts in similar ERISA class action litigation, including courts in this circuit. Using the approved rates set forth, the lodestar is $1,907,379. The requested fee would result in a lodestar multiplier of 2.45 -- well within the range routinely approved in the Circuit. Given the substantial risks involved in ERISA excessive fee cases, a risk multiplier is appropriate for the case. It demonstrates the reasonableness of the requested fee award. As for reimbursement, the Class Counsel requests reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $53,539.78. The requested expenses are all for legitimate costs associated with prosecuting the case and the amounts are reasonable. Judge Russell finds that the Class Counsel's request is fair and reasonable and will approve it. Finally, Judge Russell finds that the requested case contribution award for the class representatives is reasonable and appropriate given their contributions to the action. The amount is consistent with awards in similar excessive fee settlements. Considering the foregoing, Judge Russell granted the Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and case contribution awards for the named Plaintiffs. The Class Counsel is awarded (i) an attorney's fee of $4,666,667, to be paid from the settlement amount; and (ii) expenses of $53,539.78, which are to be paid from the settlement amount. The Court also awarded a case contribution award of $20,000 each for Class Representatives Margaret E. Kelly, Katrina Allen, Jeremiah M. Daley, Jr., Treva N. Boney, Tracy L. McCracken, Jerrell Baker, Lourdes Cordero, and Francine Lampros-Klein, also to be paid from the settlement amount. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/HWLPdP from Leagle.com. Margaret E. Kelly, Katrina Allen, Jeremiah M Daley, Jr., Treva N Boney, Tracey L McCracken, Jerrell Baker, Lourdes Cordero & Francine Lampros-Klein, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Johns Hopkins University 403(b) Plan, Plaintiffs, represented by Gregory P. Care -- gpc@browngold.com -- Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP, Heather Lea -- hlea@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome J. Schlichter -- jschlichter@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice, Kurt C. Struckhoff -- kstruckhoff@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice, Michael A. Wolff -- mwolff@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice, Scott T. Apking, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice & Troy A. Doles -- tdoles@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice. The Johns Hopkins University, Defendant, represented by Christopher A. Weals -- christopher.weals@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Jeremy P. Blumenfeld -- jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice & Melissa D. Hill -- melissa.hill@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice. JUN WEI INC: Faces Zhang Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA & NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wen Zhang, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUN WEI INC. d/b/a Oriental Foot Reflexology; JUN WEI LIU, and FUSHENG LI, Case No. 7:20-cv-02641 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Masseur and Driver. Jun Wei Inc., doing business as Oriental Foot Reflexology, is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. Leanghour Lim, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 KONG KEE FOOD: Loh Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Keong Loh, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KONG KEE FOOD CORP. d/b/a Kong Kee Food; and KONG KEE HOLDING CORP. d/b/a Kong Kee Food; IP WING KONG, and YUK LAU LEUNG, Case No. 1:20-cv-01597 (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants have committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including the Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a dry foods packer. KONG KEE FOOD CORP., d/b/a Kong Kee Food, is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. Leanghour Lim, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 LANDCORP STAFFING: Wilson-Sewell Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as ISAAC WILSON-SEWELL, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act v. LANDCORP STAFFING, an unknown business entity; LANDCORP STAFFING SERVICES, LLC, an unknown business entity; LANDCORP MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, an unknown business entity; LANDCORP HOSPITALITY an unknown business entity; LANDCORP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00273937-CU-OE-23 GDS (Filed Jan. 22, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 6, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-at-00241 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts class-wide claims against the Defendants for violation of the California Labor Code by failing to pay overtime and minimum wages and failing to pay meal period and rest period premiums. LandCorp is a minority-owned, family business serving the hospitality industry.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allison S. Hyatt, Esq. Timothy B. Nelson, Esq. MEDINA McKELVEY LLP 983 Reserve Drive Roseville, CA 95678 Telephone: (916) 960-2211 Facsimile: (916) 742-5488 E-mail: allison@medinamckelvey.com tim@medinackelvey.com LOUIS LEEMAN: Gonzalez Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Louis Leeman (USA) Inc. The case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Louis Leeman (USA) Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02618 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Louis Leeman is located in New York and is part of the Shoe Stores Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com LOYA INSURANCE: Robledo Sues in Northern District of Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loya Insurance Company. The case is styled as Raul Robledo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Loya Insurance Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-02006 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2020). The lawsuit arises from issues relating to insurance contract. Loya Insurance is a Texas-based Hispanic 500 car insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Andrew DiCello, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 214-7900 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com MANETTA ENTERPRISES: Loper Sues over Unpaid OT, Prevailing Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEREK LOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. MANETTA ENTERPRISES, INC.; ENRICO L. MANETTA; ENRICO R. MANETTA; and NICHOLAS MANETTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01532 (E.D.N.Y., March 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime premium pay and unpaid prevailing wages, daily overtime and supplemental benefits which the Plaintiff and Class members were entitled to receive for work, including weekend work, pursuant to contracts entered by Defendants and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and as mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff is a former laborer and saw cutter who worked for Defendants on New York City roadways, pursuant to contracts with Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., from in or around 2012 through in or around 2014 and again from on or about April 10, 2017 through in or around mid-November 2018. Manetta Enterprises, Inc. is a construction company with a principal place of business located at 44-17 54th Drive, Maspeth, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com graham@peltongraham.com MDL 2047: Court Denies Class Certification in Drywall Products Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, SECTION L (2). THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Elizabeth Bennett, et al. v. Gebr. Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, et al., No. 14-2722, Civil Action MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Defendants' Motion to Deny Class Certification. From 2004 through 2006, the housing boom in Florida and rebuilding efforts necessitated by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina led to a shortage of construction materials, including drywall. As a result, drywall manufactured in China was brought into the United States and used to construct and refurbish homes in coastal areas of the country, notably the Gulf Coast and East Coast. Sometime after the installation of the Chinese drywall, homeowners began to complain of emissions of foul-smelling gas, the corrosion and blackening of metal wiring, surfaces, and objects, and the breaking down of appliances and electrical devices in their homes. Many of these homeowners also began to complain of various physical afflictions believed to be caused by the Chinese drywall. These homeowners began to file suit in various state and federal courts against homebuilders, developers, installers, realtors, brokers, suppliers, importers, exporters, distributors, and manufacturers who were involved with the Chinese drywall. As a result, many homebuilders also filed suit seeking to recoup their damages. Because of the commonality of facts in the various cases, the litigation was designated as a multidistrict litigation. Pursuant to a Transfer Order from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 15, 2009, all federal cases involving Chinese drywall were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in MDL 09-2047 before the Court. Since that date, numerous cases have been consolidated, involving thousands of individual claims; over 20,000 documents have been entered into the record, millions of documents have been exchanged in discovery, depositions have been taken in the United States and in China, and over thirty Pretrial Orders have been issued; the Court has appointed steering committees and liaison counsel for plaintiffs, homebuilders, insurers, installers, and manufacturers, and it has presided over monthly status conferences, hearings, and several bellwether trials. The Chinese drywall at issue was largely manufactured by two groups of Defendants: (1) the Knauf Entities and (2) the Taishan Entities. The litigation has focused upon these two entities and their downstream associates and has proceeded on strikingly different tracks for the claims against each group. The Knauf Entities are German-based, international manufacturers of building products, including drywall, whose Chinese subsidiary, Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. ("KPT"), advertised and sold its Chinese drywall in the United States. They are named Defendants in numerous cases consolidated with the MDL litigation and litigation in state courts. The Knauf Entities first entered their appearance in the MDL litigation on July 2, 2009. Subsequently, the Knauf Entities agreed to institute a pilot remediation program utilizing the remediation protocol formulated by the Court from the evidence in Hernandez. The Knauf pilot remediation program is now completed and has remediated more than 2,200 homes containing KPT Chinese drywall using the same general protocol. On Dec. 20, 2011, the Knauf Entities and the PSC entered into a global, class Settlement Agreement, which was designed to resolve all Knaufrelated, Chinese drywall claims. In addition to the Knauf Settlement Agreement and after a jury trial in a bellwether case, numerous defendants in the chain-of-commerce with the Knauf Entities have entered into class settlement agreements, the effect of which settles almost all of the Knauf Entities' chain-of-commerce litigation. The total amount of the Knauf Settlement is approximately $1.1 billion. The instant matter is a purported class action filed on Nov. 13, 2014 by Elizabeth Bennett in the Northern District of Alabama. Ms. Bennett raises claims on her own behalf and on the behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated homeowners who allegedly suffered damages due to the presence of defective Chinese drywall in their homes. These claimants discovered the presence of Knauf-manufactured Chinese drywall in their homes after the Knauf Class Settlement was executed, so they were not a part of the census of claimants covered by the Settlement. The Bennett Plaintiffs raise claims against the Knauf Entities for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied warranty, redhibition, violations of the Louisiana Products Liability Act, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, unjust enrichment, violations of consumer protection laws, equitable and injunctive relief, and medical monitoring with respect to the alleged manufacture of defective Chinese drywall. In January 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Bennett putative class action to the Eastern District of Louisiana and consolidated it with the In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Liability Litigation, MLD 09-2047, currently pending before the District Court. On May 4, 2018, the Bennett Plaintiffs filed the operative Fifth Amended Complaint. On Oct. 31, 2019, the Court granted the Bennett Plaintiffs' amended complaint, which added several new Plaintiffs to the action. On that date, the Court also extended many of the Case Management Order's deadlines. With discovery well underway, the Knauf Defendants have begun to file dispositive motions targeting the claims of several individual plaintiffs in the Bennett action, as well as the instant Motion to Deny Class Certification. The Defendants have filed the motion to deny class certification, arguing that the Plaintiffs have failed to timely seek certification and that even if certification were sought, the Bennett Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden under Rules 23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3). First, the Defendants argue that although the action has been pending for years, the Plaintiffs have failed to seek class certification in a manner that complies with Rule 23(c)(1)'s requirement that certification be determined "at an early practicable time. Second, they argue that even if certification was timely sought, the proposed class in the Bennett action is not certifiable under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) because the case involves individual issues that predominate over any common ones. Lastly, they argue that an MDL transferee court is authorized to address class certification, and that the Court has in fact done so in the MDL. After hearing oral argument on the matter, the Court holds that the commonality requirement is satisfied. The commonality requirement under 23(a) merely requires that the resolution of one or more issues will affect a significant number of class members. All the proposed class members' claims involve the Defendants' defective drywall. The Court has previously found the commonality requirement under 23(a) satisfied in other aspects of the MDL, citing the JPML's consolidation of drywall claims based on commonality of facts. Satisfying the four requirements of Rule 23(a) is, however, not enough to justify class certification. Rule 23(b) must also be satisfied. Rule 23(b) provides that a class action maintainable under Rule 23(a) must also satisfy one of three distinct, additional, requirements. The Court finds because the Bennett claimants seek primarily monetary relief from Knauf, certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is inappropriate. The case also does not involve a limited fund from which all recoveries must be paid, and there has been no argument made that the disposition of any individual Chinese drywall claim would impact another claimant's ability to recover. Accordingly, certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) is inappropriate. Finally, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs raise a variety of claims, including claims for property damage, personal injuries, negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of warranty, redhibition, Louisiana Products Liability Act, private nuisance, and negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, as well as injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs are domiciled in five different states, and accordingly their claims arise under five different states' laws and are subject to various applicable burdens of proof and defenses. The District Court heeds the Fifth Circuit's warning that in a multi-state class action, variations in state law may swamp any common issues and defeat predominance. Based on the variety in the individual claims and the fact that, were the cases to go to trial, they would involve different theories of liability, different state laws, different applicable defenses, and different damage calculations, the Court is not convinced that the common issues of liability predominate over the individual issues. Considering the foregoing, Judge Fallon granted the Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order & Reasons is available at https://is.gd/Qx4MUh from Leagle.com. Lynn C Greer, Special Master, pro se. Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Russ M. Herman -- rherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Leonard A. Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC. Homebuilders and Installers Steering Committee, Defendant, represented by Phillip A. Wittmann -- pwittmann@stonepigman.com -- Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC. Insurer Steering Committee, Defendant, represented by Judy Y. Barrasso -- JBarrasso@BarrassoUsdin.com -- Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC. Defendant, Defendant, represented by Kerry J. Miller -- kmiller@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Andrew J Brien -- brien@carverdarden.com -- Carver, Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux. Defendant, Liaison Counsel for Taishan, BNMB entities, and CNBM entities, Defendant, represented by Harry Rosenberg -- harry.rosenberg@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP. MERCK & CO: Faces Seals Suit Over Sale of Defective Zostavax ------------------------------------------------------------ INEZ JEAN SEALS v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-01292-HB (E.D. Pa., Mar. 5, 2020), alleges that Merck failed to warn the Plaintiff and other consumers of the defective condition of Zostavax, which carry the risk of serious side effects, such as those suffered by her and other similarly situated patients. Zostavax was designed, developed, marketed, and sold with the intended purpose of preventing shingles, which is caused by the varicella zoster virus (VZV). Varicella zoster is a virus that causes chickenpox. Once the varicella zoster virus causes chickenpox, the virus remains inactive (dormant) in the nervous system for many years. VZV can be reactivated due to factors such as disease, stress, aging, and immune modulation caused by vaccination. When reactivated, varicella zoster replicates in nerve cells and is carried down the nerve fibers to the area of skin served by the ganglion that harbored the dormant virus. In May 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the Zostavax vaccine to be marketed and sold in the United States by Merck. Zostavax was initially indicated for "the prevention of herpes zoster (shingles) in individuals 60 years of age and older when administered as a single-dose." FDA approval was based in large part on the results of the Shingles Prevention Study (SPS) supported by Merck. The results of the SPS were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on June 2, 2005. The paper was titled "A Vaccine to Prevent Herpes Zoster and Postherpetic Neuralgia in Older Adults". N. Engl. J. Med. 2005; 352(22):2271-84. According to the complaint, Merck failed to exercise ordinary care in making representations concerning its product and its manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control, and distribution in interstate commerce. Merck negligently and/or carelessly misrepresented and intentionally concealed the truth regarding the high risk of the product's unreasonable, dangerous and adverse side effects associated with the administration, use, and injection of the product. Merck breached its duty in representing to her, her physicians and healthcare providers, and the medical community that Merck's product did not carry the risk of serious side effects, the Plaintiff contends. On March 2, 2016, Mrs. Seals was inoculated with the Defendants' Zostavax vaccine for routine health maintenance and for its intended purpose: the prevention of shingles. Shortly after receiving Defendants' Zostavax vaccine, Ms. Seals suffered sudden pain in right flank and abrupt onset of a skin rash. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with herpes zoster with postherpetic polyneuropathy, says the complaint. As a direct and proximate result of Merck's defective Zostavax vaccine, Mrs. Seals' symptoms have resulted in physical limitations not present prior to using Merck's product, according to the complaint. Mrs. Seals also experiences mental and emotional distress due to resulting physical limitations and seriousness of her condition. As a result of the manufacture, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution and/or sale of Zostavax, Mrs. Seals also alleges that she sustained severe and permanent personal injuries. She adds that as a tragic consequence of Merck's wrongful conduct, she suffered serious, progressive, permanent, and incurable injuries, as well as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment and injury. The Seals case is being consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled in RE: ZOSTAVAX (ZOSTER VACCINE LIVE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY, MDL No. 2848. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle, III. Merck & Co. developed, tested, designed, set specifications for, licensed, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled, packaged, processed, labeled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold the Zostavax vaccine to be administered to patients throughout the United States. Merck Sharp is a wholly owned subsidiary of Merck & Co.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole Love, Esq. Michael Goetz, Esq. T. Michael Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 North Franklin Street, 7th floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-4737 E-mail: NLovettn@ForThePeople.com MGoetzn@ForThePeople.com Mmorgan@ForThepeople.com MIKE KELLY: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Rommel A. Ramirez, and other similarly-situated individuals v. MIKE KELLY CONSTRUCTION, INC., AEG INSTALLATION CORP. MICHAEL KELLY, and ADA D. ORTIZ, individually, Case No. 6:20-cv-00538 (M.D. Fla., March 27, 2020), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and retaliatory damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after November 2019, without being properly compensated. The Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages and overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that they worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a construction/remodeling worker. MIKE KELLY CONSTRUCTION, INC. and AEG INSTALLATION CORP. are respectively a construction/remodeling company, and installation company specialized in the installation of commercial appliances and furniture for the hotel industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MOLLY MAID: Underpays Maids-Team Leads, Leyva-Ugalde et al. Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- CAMELIA LEYVA-UGALDE, MARISOL ROMERO, JAZMIN DIAZ, and LUZ MARIA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEN TWENTYEIGHT, INC., d/b/a MOLLY MAID OF GOLD COAST AND NEAR NORTH; and ARNOLD MAYSTER, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01957 (N.D. Ill., March 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for improperly paying the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated workers less than the required minimum wage, failing to pay them for all compensable work time, and failing to pay them for earned overtime in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiffs Camelia Leyva-Ugalde, Marisol Romero, Jasmin Diaz, and Luz Maria Diaz were employed by Defendants as maids and later as team leads in Chicago, Illinois from January 2016 through January 2020, July 2019 through December 2019, August 2017 through January 2020, and early 2016 through the present, respectively. Ten Twentyeight Inc. is a Chicago, Illinois-based operator of a residential home cleaning service. It is also doing business as Molly Maid of Gold Coast and Near North. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Max Barack, Esq. Haskell Garfinkel, Esq. THE GARFINKEL GROUP LLC 1640 W. Julian Chicago, IL 60622 Telephone: (847) 767-0362 (312) 404-3792 E-mail: max@garfinkelgroup.com haskell@garfinkelgroup.com MYLAN INC: Faces Rochester Drug Suit Over EpiPen Overcharges ------------------------------------------------------------ Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. MYLAN INC., MYLAN SPECIALTY L.P., (collectively, "Mylan") CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, CAREMARKPCS HEALTH LLC, CAREMARK LLC, CAREMARK RX LLC, collectively, "CVS Caremark"), EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY, EXPRESS SCRIPTS INC., MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., (collectively "Express Scripts"), UNITED HEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC., OPTUM INC., OPTUMRX HOLDINGS, LLC, and OPTUMRX INC., (collectively, "the PBMs" or "the Defendant PBMs"), Case No. 0:20-cv-00827-ECT-TNL (D. Minn., March 29, 2020), seeks to recover overcharges due to Mylan's and the PBMs' alleged illegal anticompetitive conduct, which led to the artificial inflation of the list prices for EpiPen and Mylan-sold generic EpiPen in the United States. The lawsuit is brought on behalf a proposed class of direct purchasers of EpiPen, EpiPen Jr., EpiPen 2-Pak, and EpiPen Jr. 2-Pak, and generic versions of those products (collectively or individually, "EpiPen" or "EpiPens"), seeks to recover damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Epinephrine auto-injectors ("EAIs") are devices that allow a patient to quickly self-administer a prescribed amount of the drug epinephrine through a spring loaded needle as an emergency treatment for severe allergic reactions (including anaphylaxis). EpiPens (which are marketed and distributed by Mylan) are the best-selling EAI in the United States during the relevant events in this case. The action arises out of an alleged scheme by Mylan to maintain and/or increase the volume and dollar amount of its EpiPen sales by paying bribes and kickbacks to the Defendant PBMs (pharmacy benefit managers), namely Defendants Express Scripts, CVS Caremark, and OptumRx (and other, unnamed PBMs) in exchange for: (a) favorable placement of Mylan's EpiPens on the PBMs' formularies (and the exclusion or restriction of competing EAI's on the PBM's formularies); and (b) the elimination of price constraints that enabled Mylan to dramatically raise its prices without fear of PBM penalties. According to the complaint, it was improper and illegal under one or more state and federal laws for Mylan to pay bribes and kickbacks to the Defendant PBMs to act contrary to the interests of their health plan/insurer clients and to conceal same. Because Mylan's bribes and kickbacks (and accompanying fraud in concealing that its list price increases were part and parcel of the bribes and kickbacks) enabled and caused tremendous EpiPen list price increases that would not have happened absent the misconduct alleged herein, Mylan's illegal conduct allowed it to improperly maintain and extend its monopoly pricing power in the EAI market. The Plaintiff (and the other class members) are direct purchasers of Mylan's branded and generic EpiPens. They buy directly from Mylan at the list price. They were overcharged by Mylan's and the Defendant PBMs' scheme because absent the scheme they would have paid lower list prices for the EpiPens they purchased, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased branded and generic EpiPens directly from Mylan. Mylan Inc. is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Phone: (612) 594-5933 Fax: (612) 584-4470 Email: rpaul@bm.net - and - Peter Kohn, Esq. Joseph T. Lukens, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP One Penn Center, Suite 1550 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 277-5770 Email: pkohn@faruqilaw.com jlukens@faruqilaw.com - and - Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq. Noah Silverman, Esq. GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 88 Pine Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 398-0055 Email: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com nsilverman@garwingerstein.com - and - David F. Sorensen, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Email: dsorensen@bm.net - and - Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq. ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 522-0077 Email: stuart@odrlaw.com - and - David Golub, Esq. Steven Bloch, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP 184 Atlantic Street Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: (203) 325-4491 Email: dgolub@sgtlaw.com sbloch@sgtlaw.com - and - Susan Segura, Esq. David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq. SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER, LLP 221 Ansley Blvd. Alexandria, LA 71303 Phone: (318) 445-4480 Email: ssegura@ssrllp.com draphael@ssrllp.com NATIONAL COURT: Curran Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert M. Curran, on his own behalf and for all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL COURT REPORTERS, INC., Case No. CV 20 931505 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahiga, Cty., March 27, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for unlawful collection of fees. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's agents improperly collected an Administration Fee from the Plaintiff and other consumers, without disclosing that these charges would be added to the final invoice. Because the Defendant's contract with the Plaintiff and the class did not provide for the subject fee, the Defendant breached its contract in collecting the fee, the Plaintiff asserts. Alternatively, he adds, because the Defendant and its agents failed to disclose the Administration Fee when the Plaintiff hired the Defendant, the Defendant was unjustly enriched. On January 13, 2020, the Defendant offered services to the Plaintiff in a contract quote for rates for the Defendant's services whereby it would find and coordinate court reporting services for transcription of depositions. The Plaintiff accepted the contract on the terms set forth in the quote and retained the Defendant for its services based thereon. After those services were performed, and the deposition took place, the Defendant added to the bill an Administration Fee in the amount of $79 in the invoice it sent to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserts that that fee was not in the contract, and he paid it under protest solely to avoid collection attempts by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of this undisclosed Administration Fee, says the complaint. Plaintiff Robert M. Curran is a resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. National Court Reporters, Inc., is a for-profit corporation conducting business activities in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. Frank A. Bartela, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Phone: (440) 352-3391 Fax: (440) 352-3469 Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com fbartela@dworkenlaw.com NATIONAL DEBT: Thompson Sues Over Abusive Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Karestin Thompson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02868 (C.D. Cal., March 27, 2020), seeks to enforce the consumer privacy provisions afforded by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal law that was designed to curtail abusive telemarketing practices. The Defendant placed unsolicited calls to her cellular telephone in violation of the TCPA, the Plaintiff alleges. She contends that the Defendant has violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system to bombard consumers' mobile phones with non-emergency advertising and marketing calls without prior express written consent. The Plaintiff is an individual, who resided in Ventura, California. National Debt Relief is a debt settlement company that negotiates settlements with creditors on behalf of individuals and families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 800.400.6808 Facsimile: 800.520.5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com - and - Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Email: yana@kazlg.com NATIONAL TIRE: Florida Southern Dist. Narrows Claims in Exum Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Bruce Exum, Jr., and Emilie Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Tire and Battery, and TBC Corp., Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80121-Matthewman (S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge William Matthewman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. The case revolves around a federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. Section 574.8, enacted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"). Under the Regulation, independent tire dealers are required to register with the manufacturer new tires they sell to consumers in one of three ways. The Regulation does not provide for a private right of action to enforce it. Moreover, the statute that authorizes the promulgation of the Regulation, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, likewise does not provide for a private right of action. Nonetheless, undeterred by the lack of a private right of action to enforce the Regulation, the Plaintiffs allege that they purchased tires in Virginia from Defendant NTB and that NTB -- and its parent company, Defendant TBC -- failed to comply with the Regulation's tire registration requirements, thereby depriving them of the benefit of their bargains, subjecting them to a materially increased risk of harm, and unjustly enriching the Defendants. Because of the Defendants' alleged noncompliance with the Regulation, the Plaintiffs seek relief in the putative class action under various legal theories. In essence, the Plaintiffs claim that even though the Regulation does not provide for a private right of action, it does establish a duty on independent tire dealers to comply with the Regulation's tire registration requirements. Because the Defendants allegedly violated this duty, the Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Virginia state law (Count I); violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count II); violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count III); unjust enrichment (Count IV); common law negligence (Count V); negligence per se (Count VI); and injunctive relief (Count VII). The Defendants seek to dismiss the putative class action with prejudice on four primary bases. First, they assert that the Plaintiffs cannot establish Article III standing because they have failed to adequately allege that they suffered an injury in fact resulting from the Defendants' alleged noncompliance with the Regulation. Second, the Defendants argue that neither Congress nor any agency created a private right of action to enforce the Regulation and accordingly it creates no duty on the part of independent tire dealers that the Plaintiffs can enforce. Third, the Defendants assert that the Complaint contains mere conclusory allegations that they've not complied with the Regulation. And fourth, they assert that each separate cause of action is deficient. The threshold issue for the Court to resolve is whether the Plaintiffs have standing under Article III to even bring the suit at all. Resolution of the issue requires the Court to analyze the lawsuit under the Supreme Court's opinion in Spokeo v. Robins, the Eleventh Circuit's opinions in Nicklaw v. Citimortgage, Inc., and Ayres and other applicable law. Complicating the resolution of the standing issue is the fact that one of the primary Eleventh Circuit opinions that the Plaintiffs rely on, Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., -- which found Article III standing in a case brought under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act -- was recently vacated and is currently pending en banc review by the Eleventh Circuit. Further complicating resolution of the Article III standing issue is the dearth of case law specifically addressing the Regulation at issue. The parties' research, and the Court's own independent research, found only one case, Thorne v. Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack Inc., which addresses Article III standing in relation to the Regulation. In Thorne, the court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, finding that, under the allegations of the complaint filed in that case, Article III standing was lacking. Clearly, the Article III standing inquiry in the case raises difficult and complex issues. The Court must also determine whether the lack of a private cause of action in both the Safety Act and the Regulation necessarily precludes the Plaintiffs' claims. And then finally, the Court must address whether the Plaintiffs' Complaint is adequately pleaded both as a pleading matter under the Iqbal-Twombly pleading standard and as a matter of law as to the legal sufficiency of each of the asserted claims. After very carefully reviewing the applicable case law and the facts alleged in the Complaint, Magistrate Judge Matthewman finds that (1) the Plaintiffs have standing under Article III to bring the suit; (2) the lack of a private right of action in the Safety Act and the Regulation does not necessarily preclude the Plaintiffs' claims; (3) the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support their claims; and (4) the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded Counts I, II, IV, V, and VI. Counts III and VII, however, must be dismissed. As for Count III, the Court finds that the Complaint is devoid of any allegations that the Defendants engaged in unfair or deceptive practices against the Plaintiffs within the State of Florida. The Plaintiffs' FDUPTA claim must be dismissed. Such dismissal is without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' ability to amend its FDUPTA cause of action to address any defects in Count III. Count VII, asserts a claim for "injunctive relief." Injunctive relief, however, is a remedy, not a separate cause of action. Thus, Count VII must be dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' ability to seek injunctive relief based upon a properly pleaded cause of action. In light of the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Matthewman granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: Counts III and VII of the Plaintiffs' Complaint are dismissed without prejudice. These dismissals are without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' ability to file an Amended Complaint. The remainder of the motion is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/wBi7qS from Leagle.com. Bruce Exum, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Emilie Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brendan Thompson -- brendant@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher C. Kessler -- cck@kesslerlawfirmpllc.com -- The Kessler Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Eric N. Linsk -- rnlinsk@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, J. Olin McDougall, II -- lin@mlf.law -- McDougall Law Firm LLC, pro hac vice, Robert K. Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, pro hac vice, Yifei Li -- evelyn@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Jordan Lucas Chaikin -- jordan@chaikinlawfirm.com -- Chaikin Law Firm PLLC. National Tire and Battery & TBC Corporation, Defendants, represented by Alexandre S. Drummond -- adrummond@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Daniel M. Blouin -- dblouin@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, pro ac vice. NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Jenkins Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Recovery Systems, LTD, et al. The case is styled as Marilyn Jenkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Recovery Systems, LTD, Pendrick Capital Partners II, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-00321 (M.D. Fla., March 27, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Nationwide Recovery Systems (NRS) provides debt recovery, collections and EBO services for the healthcare and commercial markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33024 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com NCU: Falsely Markets Doctoral Program, Katzakian Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN KATZAKIAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY, and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 20CECG00808 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., March 4, 2020), is brought under the California False Advertising Act, Unfair Competition Law, and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act seeking to stop the Defendants' practice of falsely advertising their doctoral program. The Plaintiff contends that the University represents the program she signed up for would cost around $20,000, when this is, in fact, false. She later found out that, although the University promised that the program would cost about $20,000 to complete, the actual cost of the program was approx. $60,000. She adds that the University intentionally misrepresented the length of time needed to complete its doctoral programs and misrepresented the tuition she was supposed to incur when completing the program. The University's misrepresentations to the Plaintiff and others similarly situated caused them to purchase the University's services, which they would not have purchased absent these misrepresentations by the University, says the complaint. On December 20, 2017, the Plaintiff registered with the University to complete her Doctorate Degree in Marriage and Family Counseling. The Plaintiff was enrolled in a doctoral program through the University from 2017 to 2018. The Plaintiff seeks to obtain redress for a California class of consumers who changed position, within the applicable statute of limitations period, as a result of Defendant's false and misleading advertisements. NCU is engaged in the marketing, supplying, and providing education services that are accompanied by alleged deceptive billing practices that are not disclosed at the time consumers sign up for the services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, 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 mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Rosenfeld FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location Services, LLC. The case is styled as Elisheva Rosenfeld, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00370 (W.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Michael Barshay, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com OUTLAW LAB: Stores' Bid to File 3rd Amended Counterclaims Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP LITIGATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-840-GPC-BGS, consolidated with No. 3:18-cv-1882-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied Counterclaimant Roma Mikha, Inc., and third-party Plaintiffs NMRM, Inc., and Skyline Market ("Stores")'s motion for leave to file third amended counterclaims and a third-party complaint which seeks to add a counterclaim/third-party Defendant, Boss Law PLLC, and a third-party Plaintiff, Eureka and Inkster Shell. As a threshold matter, the Court must consider whether it is appropriate under Rule 19 or 20(a)(1) to join Shell as a third-party plaintiff. The Court concludes that it is not and denies Shell's joinder. Shell is not a "required party" to the litigation, and thus need not be joined under Rule 19(a). Likewise, Shell's participation in the instant litigation is not necessary to protect its interests. The Court also finds that Shell should not be permissively joined under Rule 20. Also, the fact that Shell is an additional victim of the alleged Enterprise's scheme as a third-party plaintiff is not dispositive. Consequently, the first prong of Rule 20 fails because Shell does not assert a "right to relief arising out of the same transactions or occurrences" as the extant counterclaims. Similarly, the Court must consider whether it is appropriate under Rule 19 or 20(a)(1) to join Boss as a third-party Defendant. The Court concludes that it is not and denies Boss' joinder for the following reasons. Boss is not a "required party" to the litigation, and thus need not be joined under Rule 19(a). While there are some alleged common questions of law and fact, it is not clear that Boss' conduct arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the conduct animating the counterclaims or the underlying suit. Consequently, the Court finds that Boss may not be permissively joined as a third-party Defendant under Rule 20(a)(2). Even if there were some doubt as to Boss or Shell's joinder under Rules 19 or 20, the proposed countercomplaint would also not pass muster under Rule 15 as the factors identified by the Supreme Court in Foman weigh in favor of denying the instant motion. At first blush, the Stores' motion does not suffer from undue delay, bad faith, or repeated failures to cure pleading deficiencies. Nonetheless, the addition of two parties from distant jurisdictions may unfairly prejudice the Counterclaim Defendants, which now include a law firm accused of engaging in racketeering, by threatening to complicate an already lengthy discovery process. Moreover, given the skimpy details as to the "who, what, when and where" of Boss's alleged actions, it is a foregone conclusion that a motion to dismiss the RICO cause of action will further delay these proceedings. Considering these various factors together, the Court denies the motion to amend the counterclaims because introduction of the new parties would unfairly prejudice the Plaintiff Outlaw and the Third-Party Defendants by further delaying a nearly two-year-old case with inevitable motions to dismiss and new discovery, and where the Parties have proven to be litigious, have been unwilling to cooperate in resolving discovery issues, and have engaged in scorched earth practices. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Curiel denied the Stores' motion to file third amended counterclaims and third-party complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/fhrRhk from Leagle.com. In Re OUTLAW LABORATORIES, LP LITIGATION, Plaintiff, represented by Sean Reagan, Leyh Payne & Mallia, PLLC. Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J. Smith -- matt.smith@taulersmith.com -- & Robert Tauler -- rtauler@taulersmith.com -- Tauler Smith LLP. Kachi Enterprises Inc., a California Corporation, Main Calif, Inc., a California Corporation, R&M Palm, Inc., a California Corporation, Zaya Enterprises Inc., a California Corporation & Fountain Trading Corp., a California Corporation, Defendants, represented by Mark Poe -- mpoe@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw -- rgaw@gawpoe.com -- Gaw Poe LLP, Samuel Song -- ssong@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP & Victor Meng -vmeng@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP. Pacific Beach Gas, Inc, a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert K. Butterfield -- rbutterfield@bsllp.com -- Butterfield Schechter LLP. Eashou, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP. Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP, Samuel Song, Gaw & Poe LLP, Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP & Flora Vigo, Gaw Poe LLP. Midway M3, Inc., a California Corporation, Kalyana Inc., a California Corporation, Big City Liquor, a California Entity Form Unknown, HH Eagles Market, a California Corporation, Little Brown Jug Liquor, a California Entity Form Unknown, Blaze Smoke Shop, a California Entity Form Unknown, Midway Cigars & Smoke Shop, a California Entity Form Unknown, Point Loma Liquor, Inc., a California Corporation, Sunset Mini Mart, a California Corporation, Servall Market, Inc., a California Corporation, Hillcrest Smoke Shop, a California Entity Form Unknown, Magic Market, a California Entity Form Unknown, Criscola's Liquor Store, a California Entity Form Unknown, F&F Food Bargain, Inc., a California Corporation, Greene Cat Liquors, a California Entity Form Unknown, Bel Air Market, a California Entity Form Unknown & Cardiff Gas, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendants, represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP &Flora Vigo -- fvigo@gawpoe.com -- Gaw Poe LLP. EBM Jr Market, a California Entity Form Unknown & Ideal Market, a California Entity Form Unknown, Defendants, represented by Flora Vigo, Gaw Poe LLP. NMRM, Inc. & Skyline Market, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiffs, represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP, Samuel Song, Gaw & Poe LLP, Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP & Flora Vigo, Gaw Poe LLP. Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP, Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP & Flora Vigo, Gaw Poe LLP. Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, ThirdParty Defendant, represented byMatthew J. Smith. Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP, Samuel Song, Gaw & Poe LLP, Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP & Flora Vigo, Gaw Poe LLP. Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, Counter Defendant, represented byMatthew J. Smith & Robert Tauler, Tauler Smith LLP. PAM TRANSPORT: Browne Partial Summary Judgment Bid Partly Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAVID BROWNE, ANTONIO CALDWELL, and LUCRETIA HALL, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC., et al. Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-5366 (W.D. Ark.), Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, granted in part and denied in part both (i) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Declaration of Dustin Mixon. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike the Declaration of Dustin Mixon, a risk supervisor at PAM. The initial Declaration was filed by the Defendants in support of their Motion to Decertify and their Response in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Mr. Mixon's Declaration offers testimony on three main topics: the findings of an audit he conducted after the commencement of the litigation ("expanded audit"), the PAM Passenger Program, and PAM's yards and facilities. The Plaintiffs moved to strike the Mixon Declaration, arguing that because it did not lay a foundation for Mr. Mixon's personal knowledge of these topics, it constituted untimely and impermissible expert testimony. In their Response to the Motion to Strike, the Defendants included a Supplemental Declaration offering the same factual testimony but intended to cure the foundational issues raised by the Plaintiffs by expounding the basis for Mr. Mixon's lay opinions. The Plaintiffs' Reply argues that the Court should still strike Mr. Mixon's Supplemental Declaration because Defendants failed to timely produce the documents that Mr. Mixon claims to have reviewed as the basis for his testimony, in violation of Rule 26(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that his testimony contradicts the Defendants' other discovery responses, disclosures, and designee testimony. The paragraphs of Mr. Mixon's Supplemental Declaration addressing the number and nature of PAM's yards and facilities across the country and the headquarters in Tontitown specifically will not be stricken, the Court opines. The Supplemental Declaration asserts that these opinions are based on Mr. Mixon's "personal knowledge and a review of information and documents maintained in the normal course and scope of PAM's business operations." The Court concludes that the opinions offered in these paragraphs are "rationally based on [Mr. Mixon's] perception" from his physical presence at the headquarters in Tontitown and his review of information and documents produced in the normal course of business. The paragraphs of Mr. Mixon's Supplemental Declaration regarding the expanded audit, however, will be stricken, the Court opines. His testimony on this topic cannot be considered lay testimony even with the additional foundation provided in the Supplemental Declaration. The conclusions offered in paragraphs 15 through 19 of the Supplemental Declaration cannot be reached by a simple review of records created in the ordinary course of business or "mere tabulation" of data in such records. For the same reason, the paragraph and spreadsheet addressing PAM's Passenger Program will also be stricken, the Court adds. To the extent that PAM now wishes to offer these documents to support their contention that drivers are not on duty the entire time they are on a tour or that drivers engage in personal activities while logged "on duty," the data had to be disclosed in compliance with Rule 26(a)(1)(ii). PAM offers nothing to suggest its failure to disclose was substantially justified, and allowing Defendants to introduce new evidence in support of a defense regarding a central dispute of the case after the close of discovery and only two months before trial cannot be considered harmless. Therefore, any reference to PAM's Passenger Program is also stricken. In summary, Mr. Mixon's initial declaration, appearing at Doc. 157-3 and Doc. 167-12, is stricken, the Court rules. The Court also strikes paragraphs 11 through 20 of Mr. Mixon's Supplemental Declaration, Doc. 205-1. The Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on some of their claims for minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), as well as claims under the Arkansas Wage Payment Collection Law. The Court finds that PAM has made a sufficient showing of specific facts establishing a genuine dispute for trial regarding its driver policies. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are denied summary judgment on their claim that drivers must be paid minimum wage for 16 hours of every day they are on tour, the Court notes. The Court also finds that the evidence creates, perhaps, some question of accuracy, but does not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether drivers' logs allow for a "just and reasonable inference" regarding the measure of their damages for time logged as "driving" and "on duty not driving." In addition, the Court finds that there is no genuine dispute as to the compensability of breaks of twenty minutes or less logged as "off duty" or "sleeper berth," and the Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on this claim. And while the Plaintiffs have offered evidence indicating that PAM's violation of minimum wage law was willful and the Defendants have failed to address the issue in their briefing, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law based on the record before it that PAM's violation of the FLSA was willful and not the result of good-faith error. The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on this claim is therefore denied, the Court rules. As it finds no indication that a different interpretation is required by the language of the AMWA, the Court concludes that violations of the AMWA accrue the pay day for the period, as they do under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs also seek summary judgment on their claims under the Wage Payment Collection Law. First, the Plaintiffs claim that PAM's practice of charging a $10 fee for a $75 wage advance violates Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 11-4-402(a). Second, they allege that PAM's practice of holding monies deducted from wages in an escrow account for 90 days after a driver is discharged is a violation of Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-4-405(b). The Court concludes that while Section 11-4-402(c) also establishes criminal fines for violations of the statute, the reference to usury demonstrates the legislature's intent to invoke and make available the remedies for usury available under the state Constitution as well. PAM's practice of charging a $10 fee for a wage advance up to $75 violates Section 11-4-402 and constitutes usury. Therefore, any agreement between PAM and any Plaintiff to that effect is "void as to principal and interest" and the Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of the advance and the $10 fee. The Court also concludes that the Plaintiffs have not provided any facts to establish that there are class members who: (1) were discharged by PAM before July 24, 2019; (2) made a valid demand for their wages within seven days of termination; and (3) did not receive those wages with seven days of their demand. These are the necessary elements of a claim under the prior version of the statute. The Plaintiffs also have not provided any facts to establish that there are class members who: (1) were discharged by PAM on or after July 24, 2019, and (2) did not receive the wages owed them within seven days of the next regular payday, which are the necessary elements for a claim under the current version of the statute. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to summary judgment on their claim under either version of Section 11-4-405, the Court finds. In sum, the Court granted in part and denied in part (i) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Declaration of Dustin Mixon, and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to strike Doc, 157-3 and Doc. 167-12, along with paragraphs 11 through 20 of the Supplemental Declaration appearing at Doc. 205-1. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/E8Zoai from Leagle.com. David Browne, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, Antonio Caldwell, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated & Lucretia Hall, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua S. Boyette -- jboyette@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swudler LLC, pro hac vice, Justin L. Swidler -- jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swidler LLC, pro hac vice, Richard Swartz -- rswartz@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swidler LLC, pro hac vice & Travis Martindale-Jarvis -- tmartindale@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swudler LLC, pro hac vice. PAM Transport Inc, Defendant, represented by Amber Prince -- aprince@cwlaw.com -- Conner & Winters, Martin D. Holmes -- mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Morris Reid Estes, Jr. -- restes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Peter Fredrick Klett -- pklett@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Robert L. Jones, III -- bjones@cwlaw.com -- Conner & Winters, K. Scott Hamilton -- khamilton@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC & Kerri E. Kobbeman -- kkobbeman@cwlaw.com -- Conner & Winters, LLP. John Does, Defendant, represented by Martin D. Holmes, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Morris Reid Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright PLLC, Peter Fredrick Klett, Dickinson Wright PLLC & K. Scott Hamilton, Dickinson Wright PLLC. PELICAN WASTE: Verrett Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Brandon Verrett, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PELICAN WASTE AND DEBRIS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01035 (E.D. La., March 27, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant has knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for all hours worked in excess of forty each week on a routine and regular basis. Specifically, the Defendant's regular practice--including during weeks when the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours (not counting hours worked "off-the-clock")--was (and is) to automatically deduct a 30-minute meal-period from the Plaintiff's daily time even though they regularly worked (and continue to work) "off-the-clock" through their respective meal-period breaks. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt Waste Disposal Driver. Pelican is a full-service solid waste company providing waste collection, recycling and disposal services to commercial, industrial and residential customers across the state of Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Phone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com - and – Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: cliff@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com POLK COUNTY, FL: Court Denies Class Certification in Case Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CONRAD CASE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GRADY JUDD, in his official capacity as Polk County Sheriff, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-607-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla.), Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denied Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Conrad Case initiated the putative class action on March 11, 2019. Before Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd responded, Case filed an amended complaint, which Judd moved to dismiss. With leave of court, Case filed a second amended complaint on May 15, 2019, alleging claims due to Judd's violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act ("USERRA"). Case seeks relief on behalf of himself and a proposed class that includes current and former employees of the Polk County Sheriff's Office with military backgrounds who were passed over for promotions due to their membership in the uniformed services. In Count I, Case alleges Judd violated the USERRA by (1) denying him and other class members promotions due to their military service, and (2) denying veteran preferences under Florida Statutes, Chapter 295. In Count II, Case alleges Judd discriminated against him in violation of 38 U.S.C. Section 4316 by not counting periods of military leave toward continuous service with the Sheriff's Office. Judd filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings directed to Count I, arguing no private cause of action exists for a purported failure to give veteran preferences under Florida law or the USERRA. On Oct. 23, 2019, the Court granted Judd's motion in part, finding that veteran's preference policies set forth in Florida Statute Section 295.09(1)(a) are not "benefits of employment" under USERRA. In so ruling, the Court entered judgment in Judd's favor on Count I to the extent that the claims in Count I are predicated on Judd's alleged failure to apply Florida's veteran's preference in promotional decisions. Case filed the instant Motion on Nov. 4, 2019, and Judd has responded. With leave of court, both sides filed documents under seal containing personal identifying information of individuals not party to the suit. Case seeks certification of a class of individuals of veterans and active military members who were passed over for promotions in violation of the USERRA while employed with the Polk County Sheriff's Office. Case proposes the following class definition for certification: Any current or former employee of the Defendant, Polk County Sheriff, who is/was (1) a member of the uniformed services as defined by USERRA; and (2) who was denied a promotion(s) to the position of Sergeant and/or Lieutenant due to their membership in the uniformed services. The Court concludes that Case fails to satisfy the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b). Case seeks to demonstrate commonality by pointing to other alleged common issues, such as Judd's failure to treat military-related absences as continuous employment. The issue is the subject of Count II, which is not asserted on behalf of the class, nor does it form the basis for the proposed class definition. Accordingly, Case fails to satisfy the commonality requirement, the Court opines. Moreover, no amendment to his class definition would resurrect his bid for certification because, as the Class Plaintiff, Case fails the typicality requirement. Typicality is lacking because Case's absences may give rise to a non-discriminatory explanation that would be inapplicable to the remainder of the proposed class and therefore potentially jeopardize the class's claims. Because his situation markedly differs from that of other members of the putative class, Case fails to satisfy the typicality requirement. In sum, the Court denies Case's Rule 23 Motion for Class Certification. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/nVaDJd from Leagle.com. Conrad Case, on behalf of himself and all others similary situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D. Gray, Florin Gray Bouzas Owens, LLC, Wolfgang M. Florin, Florin Gray Bouzas Owens, LLC & Gregory A. Owens, Florin Gray Bouzas Owens, LLC. Grady Judd, in his official capacity as Polk County Sheriff, Defendant, represented by Phillip J. Harris -- pharris@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP, Robert J. Aranda, Campbell Trohn Tamayo & Aranda PA & Jonathan Barnet Trohn -- j.trohn@cttalaw.com -- Campbell Trohn Tamayo & Aranda PA. POTBELLY CORP: Settlement in Asst. Managers' Suit Finally Approved ------------------------------------------------------------------ Potbelly Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the settlement in the Assistant managers' class action suit has been finally approved. In October 2017, plaintiffs filed a purported collective and class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The plaintiffs allege that the Company violated the FLSA and NYLL by not paying overtime compensation to the company's assistant managers and violated NYLL by not paying spread-of-hours pay. The Complaint was brought as a nationwide "collective action" under the FLSA and as a "class action" under NYLL. Since the filing of the Complaint, the plaintiffs filed a proposed amended complaint removing the NYLL class claim, but adding a proposed Illinois state law class action. In May 2019, the parties participated in a mediation and resolved the claims, which received final court approval on February 4, 2020. All charges related to the claims are reflected in the statement of operations. Potbelly Corporation, through its subsidiaries, owns, operates, and franchises Potbelly Sandwich Works sandwich shops in the United States. The company was formerly known as Potbelly Sandwich Works, Inc. and changed its name to Potbelly Corporation in 2002. Potbelly Corporation was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Faces Gonzalez ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Proctor & Gamble Company. The case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Proctor & Gamble Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-02616 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Case v LogistiCare Certified as Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court granted conditional certification in the class action suit involving LogistiCare Solutions, LLC. On April 1, 2019, a purported class action was filed against LogistiCare in Texas alleging that the Company's policy with respect to timekeeping for hourly employees constituted violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as wage and hour laws in South Carolina and Texas. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification on a nationwide basis, which LogistiCare contested. The court granted the conditional certification motion on January 22, 2020. The Company filed an appeal of the conditional certification order. The Company also plans to vigorously contest the allegations on the merits as the plaintiffs have mischaracterized the method by which employees clock in to work. Providence Service said, "At this early stage in the litigation, it is impossible to predict with any certainty whether plaintiffs will prevail on their claims, or what they might recover." The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Continues to Defend Patel Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Meher Patel. On March 1, 2019, Meher Patel filed suit against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California, Tuolumne County, on behalf of herself and as a class action on behalf of others similarly situated, asserting violations under the California Labor Code relating to the alleged failure by LogistiCare to comply with certain applicable state wage and related employment requirements, as well as claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified amount of damages and penalties, as well as certification as a class action. On September 6, 2019, Ms. Patel amended her complaint to add Provado Mobile Health, a Company subsidiary, as a party to the suit. The Company and Provado Mobile Health have removed the case to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California. No amounts have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as management cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential losses. The Company and its subsidiary intend to defend the litigation vigorously. Providence Service said, "Although the outcome of such matter is inherently uncertain and may be materially adverse, based on current information, we do not expect the case to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Lynch Suit Against Ride Plus in Calif. Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Ride Plus is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Lynch v. Ride Plus et al. In Lynch v. Ride Plus et al., a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, California, a former Ride Plus driver (trade name for Provado Mobile Health) has sought to represent all Ride Plus drivers in California on claims identical to the Patel action. Provado Mobile Health has only recently been served on this matter, and it plans to remove the case to federal court and combine it with the Patel action or move to stay the case while the Patel action is pending, as the two actions cover the same subject matter. Providence Service said, "At this early stage in the litigation, it is impossible to predict with any certainty whether plaintiff will succeed in getting the court to certify a class, whether she and the class will prevail in their claims, or what they might recover." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Talarico Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RALPH TALARICO, individually and on behalf Of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, LLC, d/b/a PCG, PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-2165 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted PPL's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the action in its entirety. The Plaintiff filed the Collective Action and Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("MWA") and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL"). Specifically, Talarico alleges that PPL failed to pay him and thousands of other similarly situated employees overtime wages to which they are entitled for work performed as direct care workers in the Federal Medicaid program. PPL contends that it is not the Plaintiff's employer, thus, is not in violation of any of the referenced statutes. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals are thousands of workers who performed services under PPL's contract with Pennsylvania relating to a federal Medicaid program called the Home and Community-Based Services ("HCBS") waiver program. The HCBS waiver program is a Medicaid program administered at the federal level by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") under Section 1915(c) of the Social Security Act, and in Pennsylvania by the Department of Human Services Office of Long Term Living ("OLTL"). OLTL applied to CMS for a waiver to provide an array of options under the HCBS waiver program umbrella. CMS approved the application and OLTL now administers the options in the Commonwealth. One specific waiver program administered by OLTL, the Independence Waiver Program, authorizes "Self-Directed Personal Assistance Services" to Participant-Employers ("PEs") who are between the ages of 18 and 60 with physical disabilities. OLTL's Application for a Section 1915(c) Home and Community-Based Services Waiver describes its administration of the HCBS waiver program in detail. When a Direct Care Worker ("DCW") goes to work for a PE under the program, PPL provides the DCW with an application that must be completed, as well as the DCW Agreement that must be signed; PPL also provides an instruction manual and a customer service helpline for questions associated with the application and agreement. CMS regulations authorize states to provide financial management services on behalf of PEs who elect the Self-Directed Services option. PPL pays DCWs directly and is later reimbursed by the state for those wages. DCWs report their time to PPL using timesheets or an online portal. PPL handles all payroll functions and unemployment and tax withholdings. PPL plays no role in disciplining any DCW and uses standardized paperwork to enroll PEs, who must complete the paperwork before PPL will pay their DCWs. All PEs signed a Direct Care Worker Agreement with their DCWs that acknowledged that the DCW was employed by the PE and not by PPL. PPL completes a criminal history background check on all DCWs that are hired. Further, the DCW Agreement states that the results of the criminal background check are provided to the PE, at which time the PE can still move forward and choose to hire the DCW. PPL moves for summary judgment on all claims brought by the Plaintiff, arguing that Plaintiff's claims must fail because PPL is not and has never been his joint employer. In order to determine whether a defendant is a joint employer under the FLSA, courts apply the In re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Emp't Practices Litig. test. The Enterprise test examines: (1) the alleged employer's authority to hire and fire the relevant employees; (2) the alleged employer's authority to promulgate work rules and assignments and to set the employees' conditions of employment; compensation, benefits, and work schedules, including the rate and method of payment; (3) the alleged employer's involvement in day-to-day employee supervision, including employee discipline; and (4) the alleged employer's actual control of employee records, such as payroll, insurance or taxes. At summary judgment, if no reasonable juror could conclude a joint employer relationship existed, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment, even if some of the factors do not favor that defendant. Judge Schmehl holds that review of the case shows that PPL clearly has no control over hiring and firing DCWs. Accordingly, the Enterprise factor weighs against a finding of joint employment in the matter. First, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's argument that DCWs are required by PPL to complete certain documentation before a PE can begin working to be evidence of PPL's control over the hiring process to be unpersuasive. PPL has a contract with Pennsylvania to administer the Self-Directed Services Option and that contract requires PPL to use certain paperwork. PPL does not independently decide what forms need to be completed, nor does it develop those forms. Rather, the state directs PPL in that regard. Next, as to the fact that PPL performs a criminal background check on all DCWs before they can begin work, the fact that PEs can still opt to hire a DCW following a positive criminal background check is fatal to the Plaintiff's argument. Further, the Court finds the Plaintiff's argument that PPL has control over hiring because a DCW cannot work or be paid until they get PPL's "good to go" to be misleading. Nothing prevents a DCW from working and being paid by the PE personally prior to receiving the "good to go" from PPL. DCWs simply cannot be paid with Medicaid funds from this program until PPL gives the go ahead. The second prong of the Enterprise test examines whether the purported employer sets work rules, makes assignments and sets conditions of employment such as compensation, benefits or work schedules. The Court finds that all the evidence presented by the Plaintiff fails to satisfy the second factor of the Enterprise test as to PPL's alleged joint employer status. PPL does not tell PEs the amount that they should pay DCWs, does not tell PEs how many hours a DCW can work and has no input as to the necessity of overtime. As for the third factor, the Court finds that the Plaintiff cannot put forth any evidence to support this factor of the Enterprise test, as PPL clearly has no involvement in the day to day supervision of the DCWs. All functions of supervision, evaluation, and discipline are the sole responsibility of the PEs. PPL does not manage the DCWs on a daily basis. Accordingly, the Plaintiff also fails to meet this factor of the Enterprise test for joint employment. Lastly, under the Enterprise test, courts examine whether the alleged employer controls employee records. After a thorough review of the record in the matter and an analysis of the four Enterprise factors, the Court concludes that no reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff was an employee of PPL. The conclusion is further supported by all of the program documents in the matter, which all state that the PE is the employer of the DCW, not PPL. All evidence points to the conclusion that PPL is merely a fiscal agent for the PEs for payroll purposes only, as contemplated in PPL's contract with OLTL. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and the Plaintiff's FLSA claims are dismissed. The Plaintiff also alleged that PPL committed violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. As stated by the Plaintiff, the parties agree that Pennsylvania follows the FLSA in many respects, including determining the existence of an employer or joint employer relationship for the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Court's finding is that PPL is not the Plaintiff's employer under the economic realities test contained in the FLSA. Therefore, PPL is also not the Plaintiff's employer under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Plaintiff's MWA claims are dismissed. Finally, as no contract exists between the Plaintiff and PPL, the WPCL claim must be dismissed. The Plaintiff argues that his WPCL claims against PPL are appropriate despite the lack of a contract with PPL. The argument must fail, as several courts in the district have found that "a contractual obligation remains necessary for a WPCL claim." For the foregoing reasons, Judge Schmehl granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissed the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in its entirety. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/QM37iX from Leagle.com. RALPH TALARICO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by MIRIAM R. NEMETH -- mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, RACHHANA T. SREY -- srey@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER PLLP, RICHARD A. KATZ, ARNOLD BEYER & KATZ, ROBERT L. SCHUG -- schug@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP & CHRISTINE E. WEBBER -- cwebber@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC. PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, LLC, doing business as PCG PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, Defendant, represented by JONATHAN R. NADLER -- jnadler@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC & WALTER M. FOSTER -- wfoster@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT LLC. R.A. ROGERS INC: Faces Kramarsky FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against R.A. ROGERS, INC. The case is styled as Ahron Kramarsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. R.A. ROGERS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03303 (D.N.J., March 26, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. R.A. Rogers Inc. is a full-service and nationwide collection agency that provides services to credit unions, banks, commercial, property management, and medical facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com REDBOX AUTOMATED: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Jara TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, MARIA JARA, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals Plaintiff, v. REDBOX AUTOMATED RETAIL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19 C 4532 (N.D. Ill.), for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff Jara, on behalf of herself and a putative class, filed an amended class action complaint against the Defendant, asserting a claim for relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). In 2018 and 2019, Defendant Redbox sent three SMS text messages to the Plaintiff and the members of the putative class. It sent all of the texts from the number "727272," which is an SMS short code operated by Redbox. The first text message read: "Redbox On Demand: New Users Get 50% OFF your rental when you long in. RENT Crazy Rich Asians, The Meg & more. Stream Now: http//m.rbx.me/G5NLAP Ends 12/4/18. The Plaintiff received similar SMS text messages from Redbox on Jan. 10, 2019 and June 26, 2019. Each of these texts encouraged the recipients to enroll in Redbox's services and to use promotion codes. The Plaintiff asserts that she did not, at any time, consent to receiving these text messages. She also asserts that Redbox sent these non-personalized messages to members of the putative class using an automated telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). In support of her assertion that Redbox used an ATDS to send these messages, Jara alleges that Redbox sent the messages from a short-code telephone number and that the hardware and software used by the Defendant to send such messages have the capacity to store, produce, and dial random or sequential numbers, or receive and store lists of telephone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion without human intervention. On Oct. 1, 2019, Redbox filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the grounds that Jara fails to plausibly allege that Redbox used an ATDS. Judge Kendall holds that the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient factual allegations explaining why she believes the messages were sent via an ATDS that her assertion that the Defendant used an ATDS cannot fairly be described as a bare allegation. For example, she alleges that Defendant sent the messages using a dedicated SMS number. She also alleges that the messages were of a generic nature, clearly meant to be sent to a large group of consumers and included automated instructional commands like "txtSTOP2stop," suggesting that these were mass marketing messages sent in an automatic fashion. These allegations, if proven, constitute circumstantial evidence that the Defendant utilized an ATDS to send the text messages to the Plaintiff. At this stage, Judge Kendall holds that without the benefit of discovery, it would be nearly impossible for the Plaintiff to make any more specific allegations about the system the Defendant used to send her the text messages she received. She will not require the Plaintiff to achieve a near impossibility to satisfy the pleading standards. Judge Kendall concludes that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the Defendant used an ATDS to send her unsolicited text messages. The Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is therefore denied, the Court rules. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/bTXs8N from Leagle.com. Maria Jara, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Frank S. Hedin -- fhedin@hedinhall.com -- Hedin Hall LLP, pro hac vice & Eugene Y. Turin -- info@mcgpc.com -- Mcguire Law, P.C. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Margaret Marcia Schuchardt -- info@jaszczuk.com -- Jaszczuk P.C. & Martin Wojslaw Jaszczuk, Jaszczuk, P.C. ROMEO & JULIETTE: Gonzalez Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Romeo & Juliette, Inc. The case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Romeo & Juliette, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02617 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Romeo & Juliette Inc/United States was founded in 1985. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of footwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com SANDHILLS EMERGENCY: Dennis Seeks OT Pay for Medical Personal ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, KENNETH DENNIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. SANDHILLS EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00273 (M.D.N.C., March 24, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to compensate Plaintiff and all others similarly situated medical personnel overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek and also off-the-clock work hours pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Advanced Practice Provider from March 2018 until December 31, 2019. Sandhills Emergency Physicians, PA is a medical firm that provides services at hospitals located in North Carolina including Pinehurst, Troy, and Rockingham. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Chestnut, Esq. Philip J. Gibbons Jr., Esq. Craig L. Leis, Esq. GIBBONS LEIS PLLC 14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325 Charlotte, NC 28277 Telephone: (704) 612-0038 E-mail: jason@gibbonsleis.com phil@gibbonsleis.com craig@gibbonsleis.com SELIP & STYLIANOU: Raksin Files FDCPA Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selip & Stylianou, LLP. The case is styled as Yaakov Raksin, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Selip & Stylianou, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01660-SJF-AYS (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Selip & Stylianou is a licensed debt collection law firm that has both attorneys and debt collectors on their staff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. Adam J. Fishbein, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Tel: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com SEMINOLE TOTAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Pauley Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn Pauley, Courtney Mawyer, and Rikki Quillon, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. SEMINOLE TOTAL HEALTH, INC. SCOTT WAGNER, and KRISTIN NORMAN, Case No. 3:20-cv-00014-GEC (W.D. Va., March 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay their hourly employees overtime wages. The Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving all the compensation they were due under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were denied the timely overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 each week. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as hourly-paid employees. Seminole Total Health, Inc., which does business as Scott Wager Chiropractic & Sports Medicine, is a health care provider of chiropractic services in Central Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Thomas, Esq. MICHIEHAMLETT 310 4th Street NE, 2nd Floor P.O. Box 298 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: 434-951-7224 Fax: 434-951-7244 Email: dthomas@michiehamlett.com SI SOHO LLC: Bishop Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Si Soho LLC. The case is captioned as Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Si Soho LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02072 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Si Soho is doing business in supply chain industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com ST. TROPEZ INC: Gonzalez Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Tropez, Inc. The case is styled as Raymond Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. St. Tropez, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02615 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. St. Tropez is a self-tan brand, specializing in self-tan, skin finishing treatments and bronzing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com STERLING BANCORP: Orr Sues Challenging Decline in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------- David Orr, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STERLING BANCORP, INC.; GARY JUDD, THOMAS LOPP; MICHAEL MONTEMAYOR; BARRY ALLEN; JON FOX; SETH MELTZER; SANDRA SELIGMAN; PETER SINATRA; BENJAMIN WINEMAN; LYLE WOLBERG; PIPER SANDLER COMPANIES AND AMERICAN CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-10788-VAR-APP (E.D. Mich., March 27, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating securities laws that resulted in the decline of the price of Sterling's shares. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all other persons and entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired Sterling common stock from November 17, 2017, through and including March 17, 2020, seeking to recover damages pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. This action also alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of members of the Class that purchased or otherwise acquired Sterling common stock in or traceable to the Company's initial public offering, which commenced on November 17, 2017. Under the Securities Act, the Defendants are strictly liable for the material misstatements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus and these claims specifically exclude any allegations of knowledge or scienter. The Securities Act claims also expressly exclude and disclaim any allegation that could be construed as alleging fraud or intentional or reckless misconduct. The Company's largest lending product was its Advantage Loan Program. As of September 2019, the Advantage Loan Program constituted more than four fifths of its residential loan portfolio, and two-thirds of total loans. The Advantage Loan Program is a lower-documentation, higher-down-payment mortgage. On October 19, 2017, Sterling filed its initial registration statement on Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission attempting to register its shares for its IPO. The Company ultimately filed three amendments to its Registration Statement, the last one being on November 13, 2017. Sterling filed its prospectus with the SEC on Form 424B4 on November 17, 2017. These documents are collectively referred as the "Registration Statement." On November 17, 2017, the Company commenced its IPO through which fifteen million shares of common stock were offered at a price of $12.00 per share, including 7,692,308 shares of common stock sold by the Company and 7,307,692 shares sold by selling shareholders. The underwriters exercised their overallotment option of an additional 2,250,000 shares from the selling shareholders, the sales of which were completed on December 4, 2017. The total IPO size, including the overallotment, was 17,250,000 shares for total proceeds of $207 million, including 9,557,692 shares sold by the selling shareholders for proceeds of $114,692,304. According to the complaint, during the Class Period and in connection with the Company's IPO, the Defendants made untrue statements and omitted facts necessary to make the statements that were misleading and failed to disclose material facts concerning, inter alia, the Company's loan underwriting, risk management and internal controls, including repeatedly touting its strict underwriting, asset quality and the Advantage Loan Program. In addition, after the market closed on June 21, 2019, the Company filed another 8-K announcing that director Jon Fox was resigning from the Board of Directors. Upon this news, including the attempts to minimize it, Sterling's stock price dropped $0.16, or 1.59%, from a close of $10.06 on Friday, June 21, 2019, to a close of $9.90 on Monday, June 24, 2019. On March 6, 2020, Sterling filed a Form 8-K disclosing the preliminary results of the investigation of its Special Committee, which found that Sterling's employees engaged in misconduct in connection with the Company's loan origination process, including its income verification and documentation practices. On this news, the price of Sterling's shares declined from $6.67 on Friday, March 6, 2020, to a close of $4.88 on Monday, March 9, 2020, a decline of $1.79, or 26.84%, on heavy trading volume, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased shares of Sterling common stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. Sterling is the unitary thrift holding company of Sterling Bank and Trust F.S.B. The Company specializes in residential mortgages but offers a broad suite of product.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Novak, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C. Fisher Building 3011 West Grand Blvd., Suite 2150 Detroit, MI 48202 Phone: (313) 800-4170 Facsimile: (646) 293-7992 Email: pnovak@weitzlux.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Fax: (914) 997-0035 Email: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE 1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 267-507-6085 Fax: 267-507-6048 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Briggs Class Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SUBARU OF AMERICA INC. The case is styled as Lorri L. Briggs, Lisa Dehaven, Carrie Johnson, Elle Rydbom, Eric Tetuan, Michelle Vorberger formerly known as: Michele Cunningham, on behalf of themselves and all others in the State of Pennsylvania similarly situated v. SUBARU OF AMERICA INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00067-RAL (W.D. Pa., March 27, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as other fraud. Subaru of America, Inc., based in Camden, New Jersey, is the United States-based distributor of Subaru's brand vehicles, a subsidiary of Subaru Corporation of Japan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kurt D. Mitchell, Esq. KDM LAW FIRM PLLC 106 S. Armenia Avenue Tampa, FL 33609 Phone: (941) 465-9253 Email: kmitchell@hoglaw.com TAKEDA PHARMA: Interlocutory Appeal in Antitrust Suit Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled as IN RE ACTOS END-PAYOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION. IN RE ACTOS DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case Nos. 13-CV-9244 (RA), 15-CV-3278 (RA) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Takeda's request to certify for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), the Sept. 30, 2019 Opinion and Order filed in In re Actos End-Payor Antitrust Litigation, No. 13-cv-9244 ("EPP Order"), and the Oct. 8, 2019 Opinion and Order filed in In re Actos Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 15-cv-3278 ("DPP Order"). Takeda filed its motion to certify an interlocutory appeal under Section 1292(b) in both cases on Nov. 22, 2019. The indirect purchasers ("End-Payor Plaintiffs" or "EPPs") and the direct purchasers ("Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs" or "DPPs") together filed an opposition on Dec. 13, 2019, and Takeda filed its reply on Dec. 24, 2019. In the Orders, the Court denied Takeda's motion to dismiss the monopolization claims asserted against it, holding that the Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Takeda engaged in anticompetitive behavior by falsely representing to the FDA that its '584 and '404 patents in connection with the ACTOS NDA were accurately described in the Orange Book as drug product patents for the ACTOS NDA. Takeda now seeks an interlocutory appeal with respect to the Court's interpretation of Section 355(b)(1) -- and, in particular, the meaning of the word "claims" in that provision. Although Judge Abrams remains of the view that the plain meaning of "claims" in Section 355(b)(1) applies in the phrase "claims the drug," while the infringement meaning of "claims" applies in the phrase "claims a method of using such drug," he nevertheless concludes that Takeda has made the requisite showing to certify the Orders for interlocutory appeal. First, both Orders involve a controlling question of law. Second, although his reading of the word "claims" in Section 355(b)(1) remains unchanged, the Judge recognizes that there exists a substantial ground for difference of opinion on the issue. Finally, an intermediate appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Abrams granted Takeda's motion to certify for interlocutory appeal the EPP and DPP Orders, and denied as moot Takeda's request for oral argument. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/Ihlg7Q from Leagle.com. Meijer, Inc. & Meijer Distribution, Inc., Plaintiffs, represented by David P. Germaine, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C., Gregory Thomas Arnold, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph M. Vanek, Vanek, Vickers & Masini PC, Paul Ethan Slater, Sperling & Slater, P.C. & Thomas Matthew Sobol -- tom@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Cesar Castillo, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Bradley J. Demuth, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. & Thomas Matthew Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Takeda America Holdings, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. & Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., Defendants, represented by Adam R. Lawton -- karen.lent@skadden.com -- Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, pro hac vice. Actavis PLC & Watson Laboratories, Inc., Defendants, represented by Steven Craig Sunshine -- steve.sunshine@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Karen Hoffman Lent, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Ranbaxy, Inc., Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Defendants, represented by Stacey Anne Mahoney, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Katherine R. Katz -- katherine.katz@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Ross Lee Weiner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine R. Katz, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Gregory L. Skidmore, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, John O'Quinn -- john.oquinn@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Ross Lee Weiner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. TERRILL OUTSOURCING: Pacheco Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terrill Outsourcing Group, LLP. The case is styled as Sakiyna Pacheco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terrill Outsourcing Group, LLP, Doing business as: Superlative RM, Case No. 2:20-cv-00656-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal., March 27, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Terrill Outsourcing Group, doing business as Superlative RM, is a financial and business services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com TOUCHSTONE MEDICAL: Katt ADA Suit Moved to District of Colorado --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touchstone Medical Imaging, LLC. The case is captioned as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Touchstone Medical Imaging, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00626-STV (D. Colo., March 5, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Scott T. Varholak. The lawsuit alleges violation of the American With Disabilities Act. Touchstone Medical provides diagnostic imaging services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Nava Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARGARITO CASTANON NAVA, et al. Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 C 3757 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim. Five Individual Plaintiffs (Nava, John Doe, Miguel Cortes Torres, Guillermo Hernandez Hernandez, and Erick Rivera Sales) and two Organizational Plaintiffs (the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights and Organized Communities Against Deportations) filed the putative class action to ensure that Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement complies with its clear statutory obligations under 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2) when conducting warrantless arrests. Plaintiffs Nava, Hernandez, and Sales also seek, on behalf of a proposed sub-class, to ensure that ICE complies with the Fourth Amendment when making traffic stops. The Plaintiffs allege that in recent months, ICE has been conducting indiscriminate, large-scale immigration sweeps, principally targeting states and localities that have adopted so-called 'sanctuary laws,' which limit state and local participation in civil immigration enforcement. The lawsuit arises from a large-scale ICE enforcement action that occurred in the Chicago area during a week-long period in May 2018. The Plaintiffs allege that ICE arrested 156 people during that time. They further allege that by ICE's own account, 106 of the arrests were "at-large collateral arrests" -- meaning "arrests of individuals for whom ICE lack[ed] an arrest warrant. According to the Second Amended Complaint, the collateral arrests included those of the Individual Plaintiffs in the action, all of whom have lived in the Chicago area for at least four and as many as 30 years. They allege that ICE arrested and detained each Individual Plaintiff without a warrant or an individualized determination that he is a flight risk, in violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2). They allege, further, that ICE's actions reflect a widespread policy and practice of violating the INA in the manner. In Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert a claim for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class ("Main Class") under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) comprising all current and future persons whom ICE arrests or has arrested without having a warrant, within the area of responsibility of the ICE Chicago Field Office, who remain detained. Plaintiffs Nava, Hernandez, and Sales -- each of whom ICE arrested and detained following a traffic stop -- also seek to represent a sub-class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(5) comprising all members of the Main Class who were subject to a traffic stop initiated by ICE officers within the area of responsibility of the Chicago Field Office. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, including an order stating that the challenged conduct violates the INA and the Fourth Amendment; injunctive relief, including orders prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the challenged conduct and requiring them to adopt policies that will ensure they follow the relevant laws; and attorneys' fees and costs. In their briefs on the motion, the Defendants report that ICE executed arrest warrants for the Individual Plaintiffs after they took them into custody, and later initiated proceedings to remove each of them from the United States. ICE ultimately released the Individual Plaintiffs from custody on bond, but the Defendants assert that none of the five named plaintiffs is a citizen or national of the United States, and they are all unlawfully present in the United States. The Plaintiffs do not respond to these contentions, and the Court presumes that the Individual Plaintiffs' removal proceedings remain pending. Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim. Judge Pallmeyer concludes that Section 1252(b)(9) does not deprive it of jurisdiction to adjudicate the Plaintiffs' claims. The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs in the case do not challenge their removability. If anything, the Defendants' cited cases reinforce the concept that removal proceedings have a singular focus -- removability -- and are not structured to provide declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at system-wide reforms. Next, the Court holds that Section 1252(g) does not strip the Court of jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims, which do not challenge the government's decision to "commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders" against any alien. The Plaintiffs challenge ICE's actions and policies -- or lack thereof -- regarding the manner in which it stopped and arrested the Plaintiffs. The cases Defendants cite in support of its contrary position do not change the her conclusion because each of those cases constituted a challenge to a final removal order. The Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs' APA claim because the INA precludes judicial review. Judge Pallmeyer has concluded that the INA does not preclude judicial review. The Defendants next contend that the court lacks jurisdiction under the APA because by Defendants' account, the agency actions at issue are not "final" and the Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy in immigration court. This argument falls flat as well because the requirements set forth in Section 704 of the APA are not jurisdictional. The Defendants advance these same arguments in moving to dismiss the Plaintiffs' APA claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The Defendants move to dismiss the Organizational Plaintiffs' claims under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. The Court denies their motion. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief that does not require suppressing evidence in immigration court proceedings or enjoining removal proceedings altogether. Accordingly, the Defendants' argument that the Court can redress the Organizational Plaintiffs' alleged injuries only by violating the INA lacks merit, the Court opines. Finally, the Defendants also move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' APA claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Defendants contend that if the Court finds the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded final agency action, "every immigration arrest" would be collaterally attacked and litigated in Federal District Court, rather than in Immigration Court and petitions for review in Circuit Court as provided by Congress. But, where claims raise factual and legal issues that are remote from the issue of removability, the INA does not channel them into immigration court and limit review to consideration of final removal orders. Accordingly, the Court's conclusion that the Plaintiffs have identified final agency action should have no effect on the INA's jurisdiction-channeling function. The Plaintiffs have pleaded final agency action subject to judicial review, and the Court denies the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' APA claim. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pallmeyer denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/92agZT from Leagle.com. Margarito Castanon Nava & John Doe, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark M. Fleming, National Immigrant Justice Center, Aaron J. Siebert-llera, Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., Dan Huy Hoang -- dhoang@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn Llp, Ivan Michael Poullaos -- ipoullao@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Karen A. Sheley, Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., Katherine E. Melloy Goettel, National Immigrant Justice Center, Keren Hart Zwick, National Immigrant Justice Center, Nasir Hussain -- nhussain@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Rebecca Kim Glenberg, Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. & Zachary L. Sorman -- zsorman@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn Llp. Miguel Cortes Torres, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Organization Communities Against Deportations, Guillermo Hernandez Hernandez & Erick Rivera Sales, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron J. Siebert-llera, Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., Karen A. Sheley, Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., Rebecca Kim Glenberg, Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. & Zachary L. Sorman, Winston & Strawn Llp. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary, & Ricardo Wong, Field Office Director (FOD) of the ICE Chicago Field Office, Defendants, represented by Linda Y. Cheng, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigr, Sarah Abigail Byrd, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Wisecup Lloyd Jason, United States Department of Justice, Craig Arthur Oswald, United States Attorney's Office, J. Max Weintraub, U.S. DOJ Office of Immigr. Litigation & William Herrick Weiland, Department of Justice, Civil Division. Ronald D Vitiello, Defendant, represented by J. Max Weintraub, U.S. DOJ Office of Immigr. Litigation & William Herrick Weiland, Department of Justice, Civil Division. UNITED STATES: Medicare Beneficiaries Seek to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CAROL A. LEWIS, et al. v. ALEX M. AZAR II, in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Case No. 1:18-cv-02929-RBW (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons whose claims for Medicare continuous glucose monitor (CGM) coverage (whether Part B or Part C) were denied on the grounds that a CGM is not "durable medical equipment", and not subsequently reversed on appeal, from December 13, 2012 through the conclusion of this case"; and 2. appointing their counsel as class counsel. The case relates to claims for CGM coverage denied by Medicare. The United States Department of Health & Human Services, also known as the Health Department, is a cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government with the goal of protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 753-3800 Facsimile: (202) 753-3838 E-mail: jblumenfeld@lowenstein.com - and - James C. Pistorino, Esq. PARRISH LAW OFFICES 788 Washington Road Pittsburgh, PA 15228 Telephone: (412) 561-6250 Facsimile: (412) 561-6253 E-mail: james@dparrishlaw.com USPI HOLDING: Andrews Sues Over Breach of Stock Incentive Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. USPI HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00344-UNA (D. Del., March 9, 2020), seeks to recover damages resulting from USPI's breach of its 2015 Stock Incentive Plan. The Plaintiff contends that USPI failed to meet its obligation to set the Company's fair market value and instead deliberately devaluing USPI as ordered by USPI's parent company Tenet Healthcare Corporation and its Chairman and CEO Ron Rittenmeyer; and failed to determine the Company's fair market value and, thus, the value of the Plaintiff's stock options in good faith. Jeff Andrews is a former Market President of USPI. Mr. Andrews earned 44,116 2015-Issued Stock Options, 28,000 2016-Issued Stock Options, 30,000 2017-Issued Stock Options, 8,000 of part 1 of the 2018-Issued Stock Options, and 42,058 of part 2 of the 2018-Issued Stock Options. USPI is a privately-owned operator of ambulatory surgical centers, i.e. health facilities, that host surgeries that do not require an overnight hospital stay.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Griffith, Esq. WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, L.L.C. Renaissance Centre, Suite 500 405 King Street Wilmington, DE 19801-3700 Telephone: (302) 357-3254 Facsimile: (302) 357-3274 E-mail: dgriffith@wtplaw.com VERIZON WIRELESS: Dunphy Files FDCPA Suit in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verizon Wireless Services, LLC. The case is styled as David Dunphy, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, a division of Verizon Communications, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02075 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Verizon Wireless offers mobile phone services through a variety of devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander James Taylor, Esq. Marwan R. Daher, Esq. Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: (630) 575-8181 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Opheim Class Suit in District of New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, et al. The case is captioned as MATTHEW OPHEIM, GRETA OPELA, KIA HOLYFIELD, KENNETH ELDRIDGE, CARL POPOLO, KEN BARTON, MATTHEW KIERAN BYRNE, WILLIAM HENDRA, MADELEN TEJADA, ALEXANDER BELL, MELISSA GALLO, SAARA MASSAHOOD, ROBERT MILLS, IVAN CUGEL, KATHY MADORE, LISA LAPRADE, and KELLEY MORGAN v. VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; AUDI AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; and AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02483-KM-ESK (D.N.J., March 6, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty. The lawsuit alleges violation of contract-related laws. Volkswagen, known internationally as the Volkswagen Group, is a German multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq. 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: cbartlett@carellabyrne.com jcecchi@carellabyrne.com WELDO INDUSTRIAL: Underpays Mechanics & Welders, Alcalar et al Say ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, RICHARD ALCALAR, GREG EVANS, and of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. WELDO INDUSTRIAL, INC. and ARMONDO BADILLO, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-01028 (S.D. Tex., March 20, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Texas Labor Code. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as mechanics and welders within the last two years and were misclassified as independent contractors, but were properly non-exempt employees under the FLSA and Texas Labor Code. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants failed to: -- pay them an overtime premium wages; -- pay all wages due upon separation from employment; -- provide itemized earnings statements; and -- pay minimum wage for all time worked by providing a bona fide meal period. Armondo Badillo is the supervisor and director of Plaintiffs and exercised control over the nature and structure of the employment relationship. WeldO Industrial, Inc. is an industrial company that provides mechanical and welding services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Cruickshank, Esq. Joshua Estes, Esq. THE ESTES LAW FIRM, P.C. 716 S. Union St. Richmond, TX 77469 Tel: (281)238-5400 Fax: (281)238-5015 Emails: john@cruickshank.attorney joshuaestes@estespc.net WESTROCK COMPANY: Reyna Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA REYNA individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WESTROCK COMPANY, a corporation; WESTROCK SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company; WESTROCK CONSUMER PACKAGING GROUP, LLC, a limited liability company; WESTROCK MWV, LLC, a limited liability company; WESTROCK CALIFORNIA LLC, a limited liability company, formerly known as WESTROCK CALIFORNIA, INC.; WESTROCK CP, LLC, a limited liability company; WESTROCK PACKAGING SYSTEMS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 19CV004600 (Filed Nov. 14, 2019), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Monterey, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 6, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01666 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are collectively liable to the Plaintiff and Class Members for failure to provide meal periods and rest periods, and failure to pay overtime and minimum wages pursuant to the California Labor Code. WestRock is an American corrugated packaging company.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mia Farber, Esq. Scott P. Jang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: 213 689 0404 Facsimile: 213 689 0430 E-mail: mia.farber@jacksonlewis.com Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com WRIGHT TRUCKING: Bid for Protective Order in Leeson Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAVID LEESON and LUCY LEESON, individually and as Parents and Next-Friends of NIAMH LEESON, a minor child and RUBY LEESON, a minor child, Plaintiffs, v. THE WRIGHT TRUCKING COMPANY INC., a foreign corporation, DW EXPEDITING INC., a foreign corporation, and CHRISTOPHER PUERTO, Defendants, Case No. CV 19-0086 WJ/JHR (D. N.M.), Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Defendants' DW Expediting and Puerto's Emergency Motion for Protective Order. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Personal Injury on Jan. 30, 2019. Factually, they assert that on April 7, 2017, Defendant Puerto was driving eastbound through New Mexico on Interstate 40 when the tractor-trailer he was driving had a tire blow-out near mile marker 241. After the blow-out, Defendant Puerto allegedly lost control of the tractor-trailer, swerved into the westbound lane, and crashed into the front of the 2016 Nissan operated by David Leeson and containing his wife, Lucy, and their children, Niamh and Ruby. As a result of the collection collision, the Plaintiffs suffered serious bodily and emotional injuries, resulting in damages including, but not limited to their pain and suffering, past medical expenses, emotional distress, future medical expenses, future pain and suffering and lost wages for David Leeson and Lucy Leeson. Based on these facts, the Plaintiffs bring negligence and negligence per se claims against all the Defendants. The Plaintiffs are domiciled in the United Kingdom. However, they filed suit in the United States, and venue is proper in the district, because the collision occurred in New Mexico. Despite this, on Oct. 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs' counsel served the Defendants with a Notice of Deposition for Plaintiff Lucy Leeson to take place on Oct. 24, 2019, in Manchester, United Kingdom, at 1:00 p.m. (GMT), which is approximately 6:00 a.m. (MST). Due to the Plaintiffs' failure to coordinate the deposition with the Defendants and serve timely notice under the Court's Local Rules, the Defendants seek a protective order precluding Lucy's deposition. More precisely, the Defendants seek an order requiring the Plaintiffs, including Lucy, to travel to New Mexico for their depositions. They argue that they will be prejudiced if they are denied the opportunity to examine Lucy, and the Plaintiffs generally, in person. Substantively, the Plaintiffs respond that they should not be required to travel to New Mexico from their home in Manchester. They point out that the burden on Lucy, in particular, would be unwarranted because her injures are serious enough that such travel will impose a significant physical burden on her. Lucy apparently suffered a burst fracture of her L1 vertebrae in the incident and underwent a seven-level fusion (T10-L4) and three-level laminectomy (T12-L2) operation as part of her acute treatment to avoid permanent paralysis. David and Lucy also argue that they cannot leave Niamh and Ruby, who are in school, for an extended period to travel to New Mexico for their depositions. Finally, the Plaintiffs offer to cover the cost of the live video conference needed to secure their virtual depositions and point out that similar methods have already been used to depose five fact witnesses in the case, including a treating physician. In their Reply, the Defendants argue that Lucy is not as injured as the Plaintiffs allege as, according to the individuals already deposed in the matter, Ms. Leeson has traveled to Cyprus, Greece, twice, to the Cannery Islands, along with other trips since the time of the accident. The Defendants further counter the Plaintiffs' reliance on the depositions already taken in the case because, they assert, Lucy's deposition will require referring to documents (whereas none of the others apparently had to refer to documents during their depositions). They also point out that the time difference between New Mexico and Manchester makes coordinating depositions more difficult. The Defendants conclude by pointing out that the Plaintiffs chose to file in New Mexico and asserting that travel to the United Kingdom to take the depositions in person would be prejudicially expensive. Most importantly, they posit that video depositions of the Plaintiffs in the case will be "insufficient." The matter comes before the Court on Defendants' DW Expediting and Christopher Puerto's Emergency Motion for Protective Order, filed Oct. 22, 2019. The Plaintiffs' response brief was due Nov. 5, 2019, but was not filed until Nov. 15, 2019, seven days after the Court ordered the parties to file a notice of completion of briefing because the time for filing a response had elapsed. In their reply brief, the Defendants confirm the Court's suspicion that no extension to respond to the Motion was sought or granted. For this reason alone, the Court could grant the Defendants' Motion. Magistrate Judge Ritter will not do so in this instance. The Judge holds that the Court has the authority to waive the Local Rules, including the time limits they set forth, to avoid injustice. The Local Rules encourage the Court to construe them consistently with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are themselves to be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. Additionally, courts prefer to decide cases on their merits rather than technicalities. Therefore, while the Plaintiffs and their counsel are admonished to comply with the Local Rules, the Judge will decide the Motion on its merits. At issue in the Motion is whether the Plaintiffs must travel to New Mexico to give their depositions in light of their place of residence (the United Kingdom), Plaintiff Lucy Leeson's claimed injuries resulting from the crash underlying this case, and the electronic alternatives to in-person examination available to tge Defendants. While the general rule appears to be that non-resident plaintiffs ordinarily (and quite reasonably) submit to certain inconveniences, such as appearing for hearings, depositions and trial, in the district where they file suit, the rule is not without its exceptions. The Judge will deny the Defendants' Motion and order them to at least attempt to coordinate and take the Plaintiffs' depositions via videoconference. In sum, Magistrate Judge Ritter denied the Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order because it finds that the burden of requiring the Plaintiffs to travel from their home in the United Kingdom to New Mexico for their depositions is outweighed by the benefit obtainable via use of videoconference and other electronic means. The parties will work in good faith to coordinate the Plaintiffs' depositions in accordance with the provisions of the Order and the applicable Federal Rules. If the Defendants continue to have concerns after the depositions, they may re-file their motion and submit a copy of the video recording at issue. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/QEo1EE from Leagle.com. David Leeson, next friend & Lucy Leeson, Individually and as Parents of Niamh Leeson and Ruby Leeson, minor children, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Patrick Doyle -- mdoyle@doylelawfirm.com -- Doyle LLP, Patrick Dennis -- pdennis@doylelawfirm.com -- Doyle LLP & Dathan Weems, Dathan L Weems Attorney at Law. DW Expediting, Inc., a foreign corporation & Christopher Puerto, Defendants, represented by Allison M. Beaulieu -- ambeaulieu@btblaw.com -- Butt Thornton & Baehr PC & Raul P. Sedillo -- rpsedillo@btblaw.com -- Butt, Thornton & Baehr, PC. XALER: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Derval TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ALEX DERVAL et al., Plaintiff, v. XALER et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-01881-ODW (JEMx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class in the action seeking relief for Defendant Xaler's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Xaler is a cannabis delivery company operating in Los Angeles County, in Santa Monica, Venice, West Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Culver City, and Marina Del Rey. The Plaintiffs contend that Xaler has a uniform policy of causing text messages to be sent to consumers' cellular telephones on Xaler's behalf without prior express consent. They assert they and the class they seek to represent have received numerous such unwanted messages despite requests that the messages stop and that these automated text messages violate the TCPA. Xaler responds that it sends its text message advertisements only to customers who have consented to receive messages from Xaler. The messages include the option to text "STOP" and stop receiving the messages. However, an issue unique to AT&T customers prevents a "STOP" request from processing and requires AT&T users to manually opt-out through an online web portal. AT&T users continue to receive the text messages until they opt-out through the web portal. In March 2019, the Plaintiffs initiated the putative class action asserting two causes of action against Xaler for negligent and willful violation of the TCPA. They seek statutory damages and injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: All persons within the United States who had or have a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, who received at least one text message using an automatic telephone dialing system from Xaler between the date of filing the action and the four years preceding, where such text messages were sent and placed for the purpose of marketing where the recipient did not give their express consent to be contacted by Xaler. The Motion is fully briefed. Judge Wright finds that the Plaintiffs' Motion fails at the first step, numerosity. Although the Court need only make a reasonable judgment based on the Plaintiffs' pleadings and supporting evidence, reasonable judgments cannot be made out of thin air; sufficient information to make such a judgment is a required preliminary step. The Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient information and, accordingly, have failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1), the Court opines. The Court does not address the remaining requirements for class certification as it finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the numerosity requirement. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wright denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 28, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/rZP3xl from Leagle.com. Alex Derval, and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Morgan Simmons, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Farmon Javad Rahimi -- jay@LALSLaw.com -- Los Angeles Legal Solutions APLC, Jared M. Hartman -- jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com -- Semnar and Hartman LLP & Sara F. Khosroabadi, SKB Law APC. Xaler, a cooperative corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert G. Berke -- robert@berkelegal.com -- Berke Law Offices Inc. XP INC: Acerno Says SEC Registration Info False & Misleading ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH ACERNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XP INC., GUILHERME DIAS FERNANDES BENCHIMOL, BRUNO CONSTANTINO ALEXANDRE DOS SANTOS, BERNARDO AMARAL BOTELHO, CARLOS ALBERTO FERREIRA FILHO, GABRIEL KLAS DA ROCHA LEAL, FABRÍCIO CUNHA DE ALMEIDA, GUILHERME SANT’ANNA MONTEIRO DA SILVA, JULIO CAPUA RAMOS DA SILVA, MARTIN EMILIANO ESCOBARI LIFCHITZ, GERALDO JOSÉ CARBONE, FRANCISCO EDUARDO DE ALMEIDA PINTO, MARIA HELENA DOS SANTOS FERNANDES DE SANTANA, JARED WILSON, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, XP INVESTMENTS US, LLC, ITAU BBA USA SECURITIES, INC., BOFA SECURITIES, INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, and UBS SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01502 (E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Federal Securities Laws, the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiff purchased XP's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the initial public offering (IPO). The complaint arises from a Form 424B1 filed by XP on December 11, 2019 with SEC as its final prospectus for IPO and as part of its initial Registration Statement on Form F-1 filed on or about November 15, 2019. Allegedly, the statements on the Registration Statement were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial results. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan & Stanley & Co. LLC,, XP Investments US, LLC, Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., Bofa Securities, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, UBS Securities LLC are investment banking firm that acted as an underwriter of XP's IPO. Individual Defendants are board of directors. Each of them signed the Registration Statement, solicited the investing public to purchase securities, hired and assisted the underwriters, planned and contributed to the IPO and Registration Statement, and attended road shows and other promotions to meet with the present favorable information to potential Sundial investors. XP Inc. is a technology-driven financial services platform and a trusted provider of low-fee financial products and services in Brazil. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212)686-1060 Fax: (212)202-3827 Emails: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com ********* 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 ***